Originally Posted by
Lethal
teecee,
The administration of certain drugs can be indictable under the 'Crimes Act', it depends upon their scheduling (S) rating.
Simply put.. those drugs do not cover the majority of "drugs" within the prohibited substance regulations.
The Crimes Act does not cover the prohibited substance laws. Accordingly these cases do not go to the courts. They have no jurisdiction.
This is not a discussion about 'rules in sport' but more about criminal liability under the Crimes Act.
Simply put..This is solely about the rules of sport. That is what this forum and specifically this thread is about. There is no criminal liability because administering a prohibited substance to an animal is not a criminal act unless cruelty is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even then prosecution under the Crimes Act is very unlikely as more appropriate statutes exist to deal with animal cruelty.
The standard of proof required is not one judged by the sporting judiciary but by the Public Prosecutions Office.
That is where we will always differ. As explained breaches of the prohibited substance rules are the domain of the sports judiciary or in racing terms the stewards. the standard of proof is definitely the civil standard. This has been tested infinitely. It has also been to the courts.
Yes the DPP would prosecute the case at no cost to the relevant sporting body.
I suspect you are wrong here also. If you are correct why have they not done so. Answer.. It is outside their jurisdiction. The courts in NZ and Australia have already decline jurisdiction in cases of this type. They have acknowledged the sports right to determine judgement.
."Quick Resolutions' We have plenty of these and it doesn't seem to act as a deterrent, shown by the number of repeat offenders.
Quick resolutions and the legal system are not well matched. In harness racing's case just look at the NSW corruption cases.!!
If the process started whereby offenders under the 'Crimes Act' previously outlined were prosecuted in the relevant State Courts, what might be the ensuing rate of violation of the regulations?
A significant drop of cases that required investigation by the relevant sporting bodies, I think would be an odds on bet.