cobalt

[Danno]

http://www.riu.org.nz/announcements/...squalification

In my humble opinion, there are insufficient details in the article for anyone to form a viable opinion about anything other than this gent was exonerated.


Full stop..thats it!

[Pena]

Keenly awaiting Patrick Bartley's coverage of this story. Somehow I do not think it will be reported by PB.


https://www.g1x.com.au/news/racing/c...ed-court-hears

[Messenger]

Thanks for the link Jack but it is absolutely ridiculous to make Patrick Bartley the issue

[Pena]

Kevin, obviously Patrick Bartley's is not the issue. However his attitude and the attitude of others has continually bemused me in the Cobalt issue.
To me there has always been something about introduction of the outlawing of Cobalt usage that has not made sense. The rushed trials, the lack of proof of performance enhancement, the harsh penalties has not sat well with me. Everyone wants the cheats out of the game, but ultimately the stewards role is to be like a referee. Impartial and enforce the rules. Unfortunately I think we currently have a situation where the referee is changing the rules without due consideration. If this story is correct and don't forget the courts will deal with this matters far differently than the stewards or the industry appeal tribunal it will make a complete mockery of the sport and its administrators.

[gutwagon]

The courts will rule only on points of law and proper procedures etc, they wont take into account animal welfare or the administrators rights to make whatever rules they like. And the fact that all participants have agreed to abide by those rules and judgements . If it can be proven that the labs were not accredited to test for cobalt levels and there are no remaining samples to re test then the charges will have to be dropped and compensation paid. Heads would have to roll at the VRC etc. Of course the sport will be the big looser.

[Messenger]

Kevin, obviously Patrick Bartley's is not the issue. However his attitude and the attitude of others has continually bemused me in the Cobalt issue.
To me there has always been something about introduction of the outlawing of Cobalt usage that has not made sense. The rushed trials, the lack of proof of performance enhancement, the harsh penalties has not sat well with me. Everyone wants the cheats out of the game, but ultimately the stewards role is to be like a referee. Impartial and enforce the rules. Unfortunately I think we currently have a situation where the referee is changing the rules without due consideration. If this story is correct and don't forget the courts will deal with this matters far differently than the stewards or the industry appeal tribunal it will make a complete mockery of the sport and its administrators.

The mockery will come if it is viewed as 'cheats prosper' rather than 'stewards stuff up'
As far as Cobalt goes, I do not need to know much more than the facts that the average horse tests <5 and that correct feeding and administering of approved products cannot result in >35

One thing for sure is that the issue has been nearly as big a circus as the Essendon FC case

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/horse...13-go5cvb.html

[Pena]

That's a pretty simplistic point of view Kevin.
The facts are, just because stewards are stewards, does not make them right and any less accountable than the "Cheats" to following the rules. I am sure I do not need to give you any accounts of stewards not following the rules. If you are going to take away someone's livelihood and tarnish their reputation surely everything should be done to ensure the rules are followed to the letter.
If a horse registered a reading 100 times higher than normal for Vitamin C they would not get 3 years and I cannot see that Cobalt is anymore performance than Vitamin C or any other approved supplement.

[aussiebreno]

That's a pretty simplistic point of view Kevin.
The facts are, just because stewards are stewards, does not make them right and any less accountable than the "Cheats" to following the rules. I am sure I do not need to give you any accounts of stewards not following the rules. If you are going to take away someone's livelihood and tarnish their reputation surely everything should be done to ensure the rules are followed to the letter.
If a horse registered a reading 100 times higher than normal for Vitamin C they would not get 3 years and I cannot see that Cobalt is anymore performance than Vitamin C or any other approved supplement.

So trainers just giving it to them for no reason. Quite a number of horses could be named as improving around the time of cobalt and sure enough a few of them belonged to trainers who went positive.

[Toohard]

That's a pretty simplistic point of view Kevin.
The facts are, just because stewards are stewards, does not make them right and any less accountable than the "Cheats" to following the rules. I am sure I do not need to give you any accounts of stewards not following the rules. If you are going to take away someone's livelihood and tarnish their reputation surely everything should be done to ensure the rules are followed to the letter.
If a horse registered a reading 100 times higher than normal for Vitamin C they would not get 3 years and I cannot see that Cobalt is anymore performance than Vitamin C or any other approved supplement.

Gday Jack. You can't compare Vitamin C to Cobalt but I think I see your point. You will concede that to exceed the 200 Cobalt level something 'artificial' is being done? When it was detected a long time ago people were told to stop using it. It was added to the list of things they were testing for and everyone was told. But some kept using (maybe unknowingly) and got caught. Performance enhancing or not... why would they keep using it?

The dodgy 'vet(s)' are the ones that should be wearing the brunt of this more than any I reckon. But appears they are allowed to 'move on' whilst others cop the crap.

I'll get simplistic too.... You paying up for horses Jack? You happy to do that knowing others are flouting the rules?

[Messenger]

I like to keep things simple and to the point Jack. Would you be happy to have something in your body at 100 times the level that the average human has?
I like Brenno and Paul's replies