RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
Craig Symes

Sweet It Is

Recommended Posts

If patting a dog can lead to producing a positive swab then I think we would all be in big trouble, maybe every time you have a coffee at the track you had better go and scrub your hands as when you touch your dog you will be contaminating it.

If you really believe that a dog can produce a positive to a cocaine derivative by patting it then you really are gullible and naive, and let's not forget this is the 3rd positive in a short space of time, he must be REALLY unlucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why everyone is singling out Braden.

 

It's quite obvious his racing bitch is the one with the drug problem.

 

I've seen dogs at the airport sniffing peoples bags in an attempt to find drugs to be used to supply the underground greyhound blackmarket. The entire conspiracy is much larger than who won a race & then got swabbed after it.  :rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my friend think of how the 4th placed dogs are feeling right now, I'd say pretty dam good, lol.........In the money and the 2nd place dog is now the champion so you can look at things in a very positive fashion if we choose too, I think its sad really for all............if their is any truth to the reasons that's all.............I'd like to think that our sport has more people with integrity than not............Can't wait for the Waterloo Cup, May the best dog win and drug free, Good luck to all cheers Wasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do all you people really believe that he would purposely drug his dog and jeopardise $100,000 prize money AUS and also the Duke prize money, with a dog that good? yes you are guilty and so anyone should be producing the dog in this alleged state, at this stage,

 it looks like he will be going for a big holiday and loose the prize money.....................and all his integrity.......................... that we can all take to the bank..........................But do you really believe that............................Not hard to get at some ones dog and contaminate them............................I say this without prejudice, but what a sad state our dog industry is in when everyone throws stones, just be glad this hasn't  happen to any of yourselves.......................the dog Only has to be touched  to be contaminated................................Be a nice fairy tale should the 2nd test be clear as what an exciting greyhound who does not deserve such a bad ending to its career we need dogs as good as her to boost out industry.....................

gees wassa i only you or your trainer was aware ov patting a dog would cause  a dog to be addicted to cocaine  by patting it would have saved you a lot ov, trouble you and   your trainer should appeal you were   hard done by           Cawbourne Bolt Cocaine Inquiry Disqualification Reduced To 10 Months On Appeal

Written By Kevin Pitstock, Editor & Australian Greyhound Racing 

The Racing Appeals Tribunal of New South Wales has formally announced its decision regarding the appeal by Stuart Dickinson over his 18 months disqualification to a metabolite of Cocaine in his greyhound Cawbourne Bolt.

Over 2 years ago, the Dickinson trained greyhound Cawbourne Bolt swabbed positive to a metabolite of Cocaine after winning at Wentworth Park on 7th November 2009.

Confusion reigned as official form guides originally had leading New South Wales greyhound trainer Andy Lord as trainer, but it was subsequently revealed that Cawbourne Bolt had been transferred to Dickinson’s kennel temporarily en route to New Zealand, where the greyhound had been sold too. In fact Cawbourne Bolt did race in New Zealand on the 4th December 2009.

In one of the sports longest inquiries, Greyhound Racing New South Wales Stewards held four separate inquiries on 30th March 2010, 24th April 2010, 22nd June 2010 and 16th August 2010, before finally finding trainer Mr Stuart Dickinson had been found guilty of a charge under GAR 83 (2) (a) in that he had presented Cawbourne Bolt to compete on the night in question and that the urine sample had been found to contain the prohibited substance Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of Cocaine.

Even then it took a separate sitting on 29th June 2011 to determine Dickinson’s penalty and hand down an 18 month disqualification Almost 20 months after the race in which Cawbourne Bolt originally swabbed positive.

$250 Free Bet

Click Here To Claim Yours Now

Dickinson immediately appealed and was granted a stay of proceedings until the Racing Appeal Tribunal hearing and that hearing has finally been heard and judgment paased – albeit 2 years since the original offence.

At the Racing Appeals Tribunal hearing Dickinson appealed against the severity of the sentence and on issues of law related to “absolute liability” and “strict liability”. In simple terms, the difference between the level responsibility that can be placed on an individual in a given circumstance, given intent, or lack there of; and awareness of all contributing factors.

Dickinson at all times, did not dispute the presence of Benzoylecgonine in the greyhounds urine, but maintained consistently that he neither administered, nor directed anyone to administer, Cocaine to Cawbourne Bolt. In fact oddly, though the urine sample contained Benzoylecgonine; no-one contested the fact that this presumed the presence of Cocaine!

Given the urine sample never tested positive to Cocaine itself, but the original penalty clearly presumed the administration of Cocaine, was this a point of procedure that could have been tested? Similarly the lack of quantitative testing which would have helped determining the actual therapeutic affect of the drug in the greyhounds system was not either.

Dickinson implied the one of his employees Rob Wyld was a chronic Cocaine user and that he was not aware of this at the time of the positive and that this most likely represented the source of the Cocaine contamination of the greyhound. In fact a similar defence was effectively used by Dave Righetti when a greyhound trained by him and owned by then Sky Channel’s Dale Walker swabbed positive to amphetamines and a “connection” of the greyhound was blamed for contaminating the greyhound.

At appeal, the Racing Appeals Tribunal determined that GRNSW Steward Scott Matthews had improperly transported the urine swabs both in his car and at his home during the three days since the swab was taken, and before it was delivered to the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory for testing. To our knowledge GRNSW Matthews was never disciplined over this failure but coincidentally it would appear he has been “let go” by Greyhound Racing New South Wales this very month, citing “organisational changes”.

Ultimately though the Racing Appeal Tribunal found that the offence was proved and the sample was not tampered with nor its integrity compromised. Further to that the tribunal found that the liability of a greyhound trainer was one of absolute liability, and that a defence of “honest and reasonable mistake” that might apply under a “strict liability” scenario cannot be available.

That being the case, the only decision to be made was one of the penalty and Dickinson submitted he was only a breeder, and only intermittently active trainer who had no started a greyhound in 2 years prior to the Cawbourne Bolt race. However the tribunal found that not only was he a breeder, but made significant income selling greyhounds to New Zealand, made a “considerable income by leasing out the Cawbourne training track to other owners and trainers”, and that he had “an interest in the building industry.”

However, Dickinson’s pleas of innocence and victim of circumstance were not totally lost on the tribunal who found “some weight to the subjective elements placed before the Tribunal”, while acknowledging “there is a public interest in ensuring the integrity of the Greyhound Racing industry. While penalty has a punitive effect, it is, in its essence, protective.”

Accordingly the tribunal reduced the original 18 month disqualification to just 10 months effective from 7th November 2011

Read more: http://greyhoundsales.proboards.com/thread/25164/longest-enquiry-comes-end#ixzz3lDk9aVTu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've read about supposed drug use on greyhounds you would not be surprised when a positive test to cocaine is announced,  A well known Australian vet was quoted last year as saying "cocaine is very popular. It is administered just before the animal starts its race. Sneaky injections, or by wiping the powder on the animals mucous membrane or gums. The improvement is quite remarkable."    The relevant question for nz greyhound racing should be are they testing for it here?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a sad moment when this site let's a troll like Gary1 put such grap on this forum. What has he done for this sport. Compared to Mr Dickinson shame on you Gary1 shame on you

my dear mr memphis what have i done for the sport well unfortunately i am one of the punters that bet on the dogs everyweek so with out people like me you would have no sport    .   mr d could send all his dogs back to aust but the sport would still move forward  and lets face it hes in it for the money its his business finally memphis what i have posted is fact not crap  and the most IMPORTANT POINT mr memphis GARY1 HAS NEVER BROUGHT THE SPORT INTO DISREPUTE ,   i   await your reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p><embed height="0" id="xunlei_com_thunder_helper_plugin_d462f475-c18e-46be-bd10-327458d045bd" type="application/thunder_download_plugin" width="0">Gary 1 be careful you are getting close to going for a long long holiday...understood???</embed></p>

What's he done? Absolutely nothing. He posted facts in his comments, so much for people having 'free speech' on here as long as you don't break the rules, like zzz ran the site. Just so we are all clear what part of his post are you threatening to ban him for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's he done? Absolutely nothing. He posted facts in his comments, so much for people having 'free speech' on here as long as you don't break the rules, like zzz ran the site. Just so we are all clear what part of his post are you threatening to ban him for?

 

I agree with Reilly. So we're all clear, exactly what is the warning for Scooby?

 

 

 

It's a sad moment when this site let's a troll like Gary1 put such grap on this forum. What has he done for this sport. Compared to Mr Dickinson shame on you Gary1 shame on you

 

In my opinion, this post is one that deserves some scrutiny. It labels Gary1 as a troll, which I believe is libelous. It does not state or infer that it is his personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>That's your opinion they are like an A....... everyone has one, Getting back to the drug problem people are on about with this outstanding greyhound, As I have stated anyone who produces the dog in said state is guilty under any circumstance. Having a drug on ones hand and patting the animal across the face over the eyelids would have a chance of contamination was a point I would say could cause a positive. Check under Google etc. But three positives looks like he may be out and out guilty. But I would like to think not until proven beyond a doubt before throwing anyone to the wolves. Their is a lot of top trainers in NZ who have had positives now I believe they are people of high Integrity, If they had been banned in NZ for 5-10 years there wouldn't be enough Greyhounds trained in NZ to make the sport viable or work, You can take that to the bank..................I would like to hear something positive not just the urine sample being positive on what can be done to help our great Sport in all fields...............Cheers</p>

<p><embed height="0" id="xunlei_com_thunder_helper_plugin_d462f475-c18e-46be-bd10-327458d045bd" type="application/thunder_download_plugin" width="0"></embed></p>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we all knew this was coming.

https://www.thedogs.co.nz/News.aspx?NewsID=1708

The Decision of the Judicial Committee has now been released – SWEET IT IS has been disqualified from the Plasterboard Ltd Duke of Edinburgh Silver Collar. It has now been proven that SWEET IT IS failed to present free of the Category 4 Prohibited Substance  Caffeine and it Metabolites. The RIU seek costs of $2812.60 and a further $500 is sought by the JCA from trainer Braden Finn. Consequently Shandell will be promoted to the winner of the prestigious Plasterboard Ltd Duke of Edinburgh Silver Collar award. Other place getters will be promoted accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report is now up on the JCA website. Mike Godber must feel like a bit of an idiot after reading it. Talk about incompetent! Apart from that it was pretty much as I expected, at least the dog didn't break into the pantry!

Edited by ReillyM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report is now up on the JCA website. Mike Godber must feel like a bit of an idiot after reading it. Talk about incompetent! Apart from that it was pretty much as I expected, at least the dog didn't break into the pantry!

he says he has only trained one dog we all know who is behind the scenes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.