Substances

[aussiebreno]

Brendan, unfortunately I think this demonstrates exactly where the industry has headed in the last 2 years. To start, with the precedents that the stewards have documented there are as many have been decided in the other parties favour. If HRNSW think they are a court why don't they start with an independent judge from day one. Can you imagine our legal system if the police prosecutor was also the magistrate. I am tipping that there would not be to many people being found "not guilty". HRNSW stewards ultimately know that to fight it they will simply bleed the participants dry. Note to HRNSW stewards you are not lawyers.

It doesn't matter what the decision was in the other cases, it's about how the decision was made.


http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/...ct/hra2009144/

Section 9 and 10 among others.

Legislation allows stewards to carry out the jobs they are doing.

You're getting frustrated at stewards doing their legislated job all the while going easy on people giving their horses bicarb. Doesn't make sense to me.

[arlington]

I'd find it hard to believe the stewards, in cases such as this, wouldn't use the time between adjournments to avail themselves to advice from legal counsel. Without prejudice the interests of all participants in the sport would be the focus of such enquiries and that of the 50 cent punter who may have bet on another runner in a race under scrutiny. Is it only my thoughts, the grey area between civil and criminal is becoming less questionable within racing?

[Messenger]

Kevin, not sure what your legal background is but the information to find Hillier guilty is without a doubt circumstantial.
The definition of circumstantial is;
"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact."
Mathew Neilsen was just given 12 months treating a horse on race day and he was actually observed by stewards doing so. Definitely not circumstantial.
HRNSW used results from 2 starts one with a steward on the premises before the race and one with out. 100% circumstantial. The horse did not actually test over the limits. No real evidence. If this was in a court of law it would be thrown out, no actually it would never even get to the court as the evidence is almost laughable.

I do not remember saying the evidence was not circumstantial Jack. I do not know what your legal background is but I am an ex English teacher so I can do without the dictionary definitions

[Pena]

Brendan, get off your high horse. The facts are the horses TCO2 levels were under the allowable limits, plain and simple. If the level is too high then the stewards should simply drop the limit. But if you can't get them on one rule then get them on another one. I think that this case has gone of half coked just like the Cobalt testing HRNSW has conducted. Why did the stewards not do the stable inspection for say the next 3 starts of the horses the information undoubtedly been more compelling than comparing one week with the next week. Don't even get me started on the 5 pastured fed broodmares for 3 days because this will be shown as the sham it is.

[aussiebreno]

Brendan, get off your high horse. The facts are the horses TCO2 levels were under the allowable limits, plain and simple. If the level is too high then the stewards should simply drop the limit. But if you can't get them on one rule then get them on another one. I think that this case has gone of half coked just like the Cobalt testing HRNSW has conducted. Why did the stewards not do the stable inspection for say the next 3 starts of the horses the information undoubtedly been more compelling than comparing one week with the next week. Don't even get me started on the 5 pastured fed broodmares for 3 days because this will be shown as the sham it is.

A Little Bit Frosty 27/7/14
Mean Courage 8/8/14
Bicarb Shake 9/5/14
Bicarb Shake 24/4/14

[Richard prior]

Brendan, get off your high horse. The facts are the horses TCO2 levels were under the allowable limits, plain and simple. If the level is too high then the stewards should simply drop the limit. But if you can't get them on one rule then get them on another one. I think that this case has gone of half coked just like the Cobalt testing HRNSW has conducted. Why did the stewards not do the stable inspection for say the next 3 starts of the horses the information undoubtedly been more compelling than comparing one week with the next week. Don't even get me started on the 5 pastured fed broodmares for 3 days because this will be shown as the sham it is.

Hey Breno, There it is, The answer to your question, 7th line, 4th word lol.

[Pena]

Brendan you are obviously involved in racing in this region and have an axe to grind, so as I have said if your trainer was disqualified under these terms I think there is no doubt you would be aggrieved. It takes a big man to be subjective and not driven by self interest.

Kevin I apologise on the circumstantial as I did not actually open the link and see it was regarding the Mathew Neilsen case.

[aussiebreno]

Brendan you are obviously involved in racing in this region and have an axe to grind, so as I have said if your trainer was disqualified under these terms I think there is no doubt you would be aggrieved. It takes a big man to be subjective and not driven by self interest.

Kevin I apologise on the circumstantial as I did not actually open the link and see it was regarding the Mathew Neilsen case.

Mr O'Donoghue, do you want to step in with definitions of objective and subjective? Poor Jack's been a bit confused in this thread.

[aussiebreno]

Gee, Jack. Here I was ignoring the high horse, axe to grind, 'big man' comments and I make one off the point remark and you're fair into me.
F*** what the stewards say, there are readings of 35 and 36+, I know what science says.

Edit: Teecee has deleted a post of Jack's which means this post doesn't make sense.

[Pena]

If that's what the science says why don't you lobby to change the rules, that simple.
I have not seen once you ask why is the TCO2 level not 33. Attacking you motivation is hardly attacking you grammar.