Jefferson

You are right, no one does the analysis as the year flows to fix anomolies. What a waste of resources, $30k thrown away on a race with 5 runners. Talk to any successful businessman about this type of example and they would confirm the thoroughbred industry is definitely not run like a business. Trainers don't help themselves unfortunately. Two trainers will take 20 horses each to Gisborne because they are chasing a $10k trainers bonus. Were they thinking about their owners or themselves. Obvious answer. Then they scream out for more stakes, so $30k gets put up and 5 horses turn up.  

Meantime at Matamata this morning two Friesans and a Jersey worked a 1000 in 1.01.2, the last 600 in 34.6, hard held.
 

If this is the best defence that Wexfords high powered legal team can come up with I suggest the legal system in N.Z. is in a parlous state.

"That's a fail sir"
"But officer you see I never drank at the party, the alcohol must have been in the pudding" 
"Oh! I'm so sorry sir, off you go, enjoy the rest of your evening"

The RIU fairy-tale says:
6. What is the difference in being charged with administration of a prohibited substance and charged with presenting a horse to race with a prohibited substance?
The charge of administration is made where there is evidence that there was deliberate administration of the prohibited substance. The charge of presenting is where there is no evidence of deliberate administration or where the prohibited substance entered the animals system through negligence, contamination or some other means.
I don't see anything in the rule that requires the administration to be proven to be deliberate. If non-deliberate administration or negligence is a defence, then surely the JCA should be deciding that and doesn't that create a precedent of dangerous proportions?
I'm sure Moody would like to be able to use that defence.
It appears the RIU have rewritten the rule book with no legal test.
 

Two questions. (1) Who owns the cows ?  (2) Has Andrew Scott been disqualified in the past for any similar offences?

If that's the defence  why has it  taken a year to get to this point?  Maybe bumbles will tell all on Wednesday.

What an ..... Interesting defence - that the horses in question drank the dairy cows' treated water, thus developing high systemic cobalt levels themselves. 
I guess they weren't actually sharing with the dairy cows - that would be a rare sight (just one reason for which being `cause cows have a similar penchant to "pony-tails" as John Key - only they not only pull, but often chew them as well) - but nevertheless the troughs in the cow-free paddocks might still have been under treatment with the cobalt...just for no particular reason ....
Interesting place to have horses in full work just prior to major racing assignments - in dairy cow paddocks.  Do they "paddock train" many at Wexford?  It does suit some horses well, I know ....
Are these 3 horses all friends and happily graze together whilst in work - or maybe they had separate paddocks which all, unfortunately, contained the troughs with treated water prior to them racing ....
You may have noticed properties fenced for equine vs bovine are set up completely differently.  Most trainers of valuable racehorses steer away from dairy paddocks even for turn-out purposes - as they're often inappropriately/unsafely fenced (high-tensile, non-battened, one or two few wire fences are common) and considered too risky in terms of injury.  But perhaps the pampered bovines were treated to post'n'rail on this particular unit ....
A lot of dairy pasture would also not be considered appropriate nutrition for race-horses in work - but perhaps some individuals respond surprisingly well to such a dietary regime ...  
Did the owners sometimes visit their charges only to be told "come on out and see him/her - s/he's just out the back, down the track, past the silage pit, out in the sun with no shade because we've cut all the trees down for that pivot irrigator which, incidentally, we're thinking of renting to the racing club for the course if this drought doesn't break soon"  
I have many more wonderings and ponderings but let me finish by saying - how much professional, competent, thorough, relevant and robust investigative work has been done into the matter by the RIU - including consideration of likely/proffered defences? 
Let's see how this one plays out.  I know where my money would be ...
 

Nah they won't be racing they just administered the cobalt in the troughs to speed them up walking home to be milked they were taking to long .

I don't think intent to administer has anything to do with it. That should not be an issue. Here is the rule:   (n)(i) administers, causes or permits to be administered or who attempts to administer or to cause to be administered or who permits a person to administer or cause to be administered to a horse for the purpose of affecting the speed, stamina, courage or conduct, a Prohibited Substance as defined in Part A of the Prohibited Substance Regulations; [Amended 15 May 2015]   It appears they have admitted the administration but the RIU have elected not to charge them for that?

I find it more than ironic that they charge him the week after he goes into the Hall of Fame. Co-incidence ?
If they had charged him two weeks ago.......??  

What a load  of cobblers, No Intent?  what does that mean? and  were the cows tested? if not why not?

I think you mean uncharted? Though you got the waters bit right and if you did mean unchartered, I can see how one might conclude that something rather unconstitutional is going on here. I'd love to see the detail of the trials conducted. If they are as robust as suggested, no doubt Grierson will publish and we can see how this research aligns with previous published literature on oral administration and a rigorous explanation for any discrepancy with that. I presume the horses concerned were not running round the cow paddock eating grass on race day and presumably also not the day before?
The good news is that I now know if I want to administer super high levels of cobalt, I can put it in the water and not be charged with administration and hope I can win a nice race with the sample not sent for cobalt testing.
As an added advantage, I'll more quickly know which ones to sack if they can't beat the heifers round the paddock!
 

This is a joke isn't it ?
Significantly different ... apparently only in the charges against them !
Why weren't they charged with administrating a prohibited substance ?
So they have PROOF that the water trough was contaminated ?  What levels of cobalt did the cattle have ?
So this ridiculous response from the stable was told to the Integrity Unit straight away ( so testing could be done ) or has this just been made up in the last few weeks ?
Absolutely appalling and no other trainers could have got away with the delay and subsequent actions.  

Does  not matter HOW the horses came to have these high concentrations . Its the Fact they raced with these high levels. If the RIU follow the rules and take the people concerned out of the equation surely they are in for the high jump? 

My mum used to say...".You can lead a horse to water     but you can't make it drink"    

One can't help but laugh really. Maybe the arrogance displayed and excuses made by those caught both in Australia and here are signs that these trainers really believe they can get away with anything. I hoped that in the case of O'Sullivan there was an authentic excuse for the high readings but I find this latest explanation fraught with more questions than answers. If they drank from the trough were there only three in that paddock or were there others that didn't drink, or weren't tested. Were only those going over distance and in "Good Races"  allowed to drink from these troughs? I know that cattle do get cobalt put in their drinking water but what levels?   Who with a training license is slack enough to let this happen? I think that most people in the industry will make up their own mind as to whether this is a feasible excuse. I for one would have been happier had there been a more believable explanation. At least there has been some movement from the RIU which right or wrong moves the whole saga into the next phase. Lets hope it doesn't take another year to bring an end to the affair.  

i choose silence over expressing my opinion on this matter's creedence,
but it seems that Suffire drank not quite half the trough water that Quintastic did..and that Sound Proposition wasn't quite as thirsty as Quintastic.
 

Without knowing anything about Wexford Stables(never been there nor even to Matamata) and also having the highest respect for Lance(who they tell me is a great bloke) there is a question or two .....
Why were there dairy cows at Wexford stables(I know he is a farmer but presumably not right next door) and if there is a legitimate reason why they were there why would you introduce high doses of a prohibited substance to their water when you know that your racehorse(s), in one case primed for the richest race(bar one) in the land, have access to that water?  

Well then........ now we are led to believe that this has been a rather unfortunate case of "accidental " administration can we have the details of the scientific analysis that is clearly warranted prior to a ruling on the fine and disqualification/suspension..
How much compound was routinely added to the troughs ?
What size and how much water and therefore the concentration within the water.
How much of this water needs to be ingested to give a reading beyond 200 and up to the levels present in these horses. and so on....
Only then can a just decision be made.
I note that cobalt occurs in high concentrations in meteorites and I suspect this is a more plausible explanation.

Someone find out when those cows are racing......I want something on those fokkers 

Well well well [to coin a phrase] and pardon the pun.......well indeed, a dark and murky well, full of cobalt eh? then will the farmer be charged with cruelty by the RSPCA? for knowingly feeding such a toxic substance? were these cattle for human consumption, milk maybe? what a load of bollocks, small town NZ eh? we may as well be living in a Louisiana backwater where rednecks rule......any respect, gone now.

No evidence as administration , where does it say they looked for evidence of administration? 
Reads like a cop out for mine, which isn't a shock pretty much what most people were expecting.
Hopefully there is more to come from the RIU?

Cattle being a similar body weight to a horse  could give you a comparison of Cobalt levels as the horses drinking out of the same trough.

Wonder if the RIU took urine samples of the cattle as well!