biff 2,158 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 More importantly has the contamination been reported to MAF? after all it's a dairy herd, someone, somewhere must be for the guillotine surely. The farmer, or is Wexford diversifying and share milking...... sharrymac and Huey 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedley 1,900 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 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. sharrymac, GONSTA, ivanthegreat and 13 others 16 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Lobos 139 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 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. Jefferson and sharrymac 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog 72 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 My mum used to say...".You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" sharrymac, Jefferson, Grego and 2 others 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
puha 2,177 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 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? Jefferson, sharrymac, Grego and 2 others 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkielad 108 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 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. Jefferson, jess, sharrymac and 1 other 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,090 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 4 hours ago, Midget said: It's new science, unchartered waters if you like, and justice has to be done, and to be seen to be done. This looks like a minimum penalty situation based on the evidence in that article, and so it should be. 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! aquaman, Huey, sharrymac and 4 others 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Lobos 139 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 18 minutes ago, Leggy said: 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! Leggy I love your logic! You have raised new issues no one else has considered. puha 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrymac 7 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 What a load of cobblers, No Intent? what does that mean? and were the cows tested? if not why not? Jefferson 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohokaman 5,844 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 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.......?? elbow, Jefferson, GONSTA and 1 other 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,090 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 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? napier and Jefferson 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestnut 3,152 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 "administered to a horse for the purpose of affecting the speed, stamina, courage or conduct, .." In that specific wording above is where intent comes into it. If it was administered for a particular purpose meaning . if it was intentionally administered to achieve a certain outcome. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midget 4,489 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 You guys need to chill a bit. A couple of weeks ago a gypsy from down South who'd been charged with presenting a runner with excess cobalt announced he'd established that a feed additive with xxxxx times the indicated levels of cobalt additive had in fact tested positive to oral administration of the same additive when the horse in question was quarantined in a vet surgery. My understanding is that his science is rock solid and is not being contested by the RIU, so if that's the case how can they contest any oral administration that has even a degree of plausibility ? We keep saying this is new science, uncharted waters ( thanks Leggy ) so why don't you all watch and learn instead of calling for blood. JMO but seems to make sense to me. elbow and Chestnut 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestnut 3,152 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 I agree big M ... there can be varying reasons for cobalt levels being affected... but "intent" is a very different thing.. and that means "purposely" not accidentally, not through some misunderstanding.. but it being intentionally fed or given to a horse or for them to be intentionally put in a situation where this may happen for a specific outcome. If oral administration happened due to the horses environment or from any other method that was not intended by those being charged, then the RIU cannot charge them for that unless proven. It is fairly simple logic and common sense. No matter what personal feelings each may have with regards to the stable or the people involved, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whyisit 232 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 4 hours ago, Midget said: Someone find out when those cows are racing......I want something on those fokkers 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 . henry30, Jefferson and sir1galivant 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jess 1,244 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 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 ... Jefferson, Grego, puha and 7 others 10 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
puha 2,177 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 If that's the defence why has it taken a year to get to this point? Maybe bumbles will tell all on Wednesday. Jefferson, kakama and Los Lobos 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Smallhaussen 3,226 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 2 hours ago, Ohokaman said: 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.......?? touchee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trump 2,741 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 Two questions. (1) Who owns the cows ? (2) Has Andrew Scott been disqualified in the past for any similar offences? Jefferson 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,090 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 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. Los Lobos, Insider, ivanthegreat and 4 others 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canelo 459 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 "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" Jefferson, jess, Los Lobos and 5 others 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gubellini 4,004 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 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. Grant R, GONSTA, Huey and 3 others 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midget 4,489 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 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. Grego, Canelo, jess and 13 others 16 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
integrity 17 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 If has been suggested that there was cobalt in the water troughs , was there any discolouration to the water ? Were any other troughs tested or observed and if so what colour was the water ? Does the addition of cobalt to a water trough have any visible effect ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
integrity 17 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 Of the troughs that were tested , what were the cobalt levels in each trough . Presumably there was a placebo trough for the sake of a comparison . If so at what time frame did our boys in the RIU decide that it was imperative to procure water samples for evaluation ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...