Name and shame

[Longroad]

This is certainly a hot topic but can anyone answer this question:


Why doesn't all of the states in both codes test for Cobalt?

[jackthepunter]

This is certainly a hot topic but can anyone answer this question:


Why doesn't all of the states in both codes test for Cobalt?

probably scared of what they will find,like the vic thoughbred stewards. said they had some high reading never released the trainers names. And now everythings all good problem never existed

[Mark Croatto]

Are you able to supply a link to those sections of the Act you quote above.
My initial perusal of that act I am unable to locate those sections / clauses you quote.
Cheers

Teecee, can't link directly to the sections but the following will take you to the on-line NSW legislation site. Scroll down the left hand side as the sections are in numerical order

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/ma...40+1900+cd+0+N

Regards

Mark

[Mark Croatto]

Hi Mark . I understand what your saying about proving intent but what about those who have suffered a financial loss . Could a betting agency recoup money that they lost . No need to prove intent . The trainer is responsible and the agency has received a loss because of it . Or what about my dollar quinella . How bad has it got when harness racing is there to supply a betting medium and some betting agency's either won't take bets or restrict them

Hi Patricia, there are 4 offences listed in Section 2 of the Part; 193N (Engage in Conduct...), 193O (Facilitate conduct...), 193P (Concealing Conduct...) and 193Q (Use of corrupt conduct information...) and for each of them, as is the case for the more general Fraud Offences (192E etc.), the prosecution must prove the accused, at the time of their conduct (administering the drug in this case), administered the drug with the intention of gaining a financial advantage or causing a financial disadvantage. Criminal offences must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, which as I indicated earlier, will involve significant evidence to be proven, and since we generally only find out after a swab has been tested, that level of evidence is going to be very hard to get; it is impossible to prove simply because a swab is positive.

However, the level of evidence that is required could be gained through covert operations, no different to what police do when investigating drug supply. It's simply a matter of will; it would require a complete change in our current approach to dealing with drug cheats

Regards

Mark

[Messenger]

It still sounds easier for our own authorities to just ban cheats for 5yrs+

[kung fu man]

5 years sounds like the right lenght of time, first offence of course then 10!

[teecee]

Teecee, can't link directly to the sections but the following will take you to the on-line NSW legislation site. Scroll down the left hand side as the sections are in numerical order

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/ma...40+1900+cd+0+N

Regards

Mark

Hi Mark...
thank you for your research. The link is very helpful. I was looking at the right Act (in pdf format of the original) but it appears not set out as well.
I couldn't find the parts you mentioned.
Now that I have read those parts quoted by you I have to agree with what you said earlier.
You are also right IMO the hardest task is to prove the intent in order to gain conviction.


Thanks again

[aussiebreno]

http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=23847

[Messenger]

In any industry there will be recreational drug users as it is so prevalent throughout the general population but Allan is talking about horses Brenno

[kung fu man]

By setting a threshold of 200 i believe it has become open slather, if you look at the way some horses are winning with amounts as low as 9 or so i believe until its zero its not worth racing a horse unless your trainer is prepared to use as well i just dont know if its worth racing a horse at the moment.