bunyarra 185 Report post Posted June 19, 2015 There were a couple of instances several years ago where Victoria did in fact have the swab results of all of the finalists in a Group race rushed through. Not certain but it may have been the Melbourne Cup. From memory one A sample did in fact show up as being positive and the dog was therefore withdrawn from the final by stewards. After the race was run and won the second or B sample then came back as negative which meant that the dog was wrongfully scratched and should have taken it's place in the final. I think after that it became apparent that acting hastily prevented the dog it's rightful place and denied the connections of their rightful chance at Group race success as it opened the way for litigation against the Authorities. You can't go back and right such an injustice so I think they have since erred on the side of caution that it's better to have both samples tested and confirmed before acting. At least once the series is over disqualifying a dog that has returned a positive is easier and placings can be amended and withheld prizemoney can then be paid to whomever after the inquiry is finished. Like what occurred in the 2013 Golden Easter Egg final where two final placegetters tested positive, one in the heat and one in the final. Both were subsequently disqualified. To my knowledge all states in Australia wait until both samples are confirmed as positive before notifying the trainer of the positive. I actually thought NZ was the same but obviously not, judging by this case. I had a chuckle at the GRNZ chair's comments on stuff.co though. He intimated that testing in NZ was ahead of Australia...........yeah right.........they are the same. If not then why bother sending the B samples to Australian labs for confirmation. Oh and there is also a zero tolerance level (meaning that there is no threshold level) for caffeine in Australia, again despite assertions to the contrary. alltheway!!!, GONSTA and Memphis2 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOM 1,017 Report post Posted June 19, 2015 That makes sense Greg and I can now see why my theory was flawed. Thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONSTA 1,148 Report post Posted June 20, 2015 To my knowledge all states in Australia wait until both samples are confirmed as positive before notifying the trainer of the positive. I actually thought NZ was the same but obviously not, judging by this case. I had a chuckle at the GRNZ chair's comments on stuff.co though. He intimated that testing in NZ was ahead of Australia...........yeah right.........they are the same. If not then why bother sending the B samples to Australian labs for confirmation. Oh and there is also a zero tolerance level (meaning that there is no threshold level) for caffeine in Australia, again despite assertions to the contrary. All the recent positives in NZ greyhounds it has taken them a LONG time after the positive for it to be announced to the 'punter'. They changed the rule about a year ago so I'm not quite sure why this case is any different. Not that I agree with the RIU taking a couple months before informing punters there's been a positive swab. One thing I would like to see in all codes in NZ and Australia is when someone has a positive go back and re-test all their frozen samples. I had a laugh at the chairmans comments on the stuff article as well, both his comments about our testing being better and NZ swabbing more dogs than in Aus are both rubbish. If Braden gets suspended from this investigation ( highly unlikely), does that mean he will be banned from training in Aus as well or just here? Bit of a piss take if it's just NZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted June 20, 2015 If Braden gets suspended from this investigation ( highly unlikely), does that mean he will be banned from training in Aus as well or just here? Bit of a piss take if it's just NZ. This is the stance the RIU took in the Scott Payne procaine positives. "6.2 Mr Grimstone then said that the Lawrence case was not similar to Mr Payne’s case because it was a result of contaminated batch of dry feed and that the feed itself which had previously been used by Trainers over a two year period. He said that Mr Payne had chosen to use meat from a supplier who not only deals with good meat but also deals with contaminated meat. He said that the processes had fallen down in this case and that was the risk that Mr Payne took." http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/appeal-sj-payne-v-riu-decision-dated-5-june-2015 Fortunately the JCA saw the evidence in it's true, unbiased light and agreed there were distinct similarities in the two cases. It'll be VERY interesting to see which stance the RIU takes after this caffeine investigation has been completed, especially if it's determined it's a crime without any culpable conduct! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby3051 10,695 Report post Posted June 20, 2015 GOM, on 20 Jun 2015 - 05:07 AM, said: Sheepy thanks for that I was told that that they regularly get the results back for group one races before the finals and my point was that it would be a good idea or indeed compulsory. Scooby, How many names do I have to list to justify my post? there are certainly plenty even recently. Did you not read Reilly's post before mine. Mind you on re reading it I realise that a lot of the skulldudgery there comes from your beloved thoroughbred code. There was one not many so stick to the facts or get lost... you and your stirring mates. Cheers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONSTA 1,148 Report post Posted June 20, 2015 There was one not many so stick to the facts or get lost... you and your stirring mates. Cheers. Why so angry scoobs?? I don't see why you have to be so hostile. There was more than one positive as well, John Luttrell and Sam Kavanagh to name two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby3051 10,695 Report post Posted June 20, 2015 ReillyM, on 20 Jun 2015 - 1:43 PM, said: Why so angry scoobs?? I don't see why you have to be so hostile. There was more than one positive as well, John Luttrell and Sam Kavanagh to name two. We are talking about dogs.. right??? And yes there are crooks in thoroughbreds to and they should be thrown out IF the the evidence says so...too many in here throw mud with no proof... say many when only one is mentioned.... stick to the facts,not rumours... and then I would not have to spend any time in here moderating a bunch of mostly school kids... i need to moderate any other forum once a month on average here is bloody every damn day... grow up or leave...simple... my house my rules... I hope that is clear enough... jasonmccook1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...