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

Lance O'Sullivan

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, puha said:

Do most here think their is more to this colbalt story or do you believe the findings? No matter what it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

You shouldn't have cobalt in your mouth.

One last  time for all the cynics and conspirators, Moody and Wexford both had a plausible defense, they effectively argued that and won, with the assistance of expert witnesses, that's the justice system and if you can't see that you need to sort your perspective out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What

52 minutes ago, Midget said:

You shouldn't have cobalt in your mouth.

One last  time for all the cynics and conspirators, Moody and Wexford both had a plausible defense, they effectively argued that and won, with the assistance of expert witnesses, that's the justice system and if you can't see that you need to sort your perspective out.

What did they win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have previously stated, as far as I am aware, this investigation has not shown that it is possible to get the cobalt levels recorded through the circumstances that have been outlined in this matter. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

All the best.

Ashoka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leggy said:

What

What did they win?

The principal charge was "administering", that charge was dismissed in Moody's case and never proceeded with in the Wexford case, in both instances they've been reduced to "presenting to race with xxx in their system".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ashoka said:

As I have previously stated, as far as I am aware, this investigation has not shown that it is possible to get the cobalt levels recorded through the circumstances that have been outlined in this matter. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

All the best.

Ashoka

I just give up.....you've been told 100 times how it could happen, they proved it in NZ with a horse in isolation being fed a high cobalt diet, and the evidence/ data resulting was peer reviewed by international expert witnesses, one of whom was the prosecutions expert witness in the Moody case, but who changed sides based on the evidence provided from NZ.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Midget said:

You shouldn't have cobalt in your mouth.

One last  time for all the cynics and conspirators, Moody and Wexford both had a plausible defense, they effectively argued that and won, with the assistance of expert witnesses, that's the justice system and if you can't see that you need to sort your perspective out.

Maybe this was answered earlier.  What is the level of burden of proof in these cases?  If it was "proof beyond reasonable doubt* then we all can see where your coming from.  If it is *on the balance of probabilities* then think only the gullible are with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, what a post said:

Maybe this was answered earlier.  What is the level of burden of proof in these cases?  If it was "proof beyond reasonable doubt* then we all can see where your coming from.  If it is *on the balance of probabilities* then think only the gullible are with you. 

What a post and Midget and everyone else as well. The stipendiary stewards have given their decision, now it is up to the JCA to decide penalty and no amount of name calling or arguing will change the decision the governing body made. There is always to sides to an argument a winning one and a losing one. Accept that each of you may be on the opposite sides, feel free to continue debating with out either of you or anyone else getting personal, if that happens I will take action, debate is fine just everyone keep it grown up style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Midget said:

The principal charge was "administering", that charge was dismissed in Moody's case and never proceeded with in the Wexford case, in both instances they've been reduced to "presenting to race with xxx in their system".

 

There were three alternative charges in the Moody case Midget. He was not found guilty on the first, 'administering for the purpose of affecting performance'. He was found guilty of charge 2, 'administering'. No ruling was made or required on the third, 'presenting', though the board said it had clearly been made out.

The board ruled "The Board is comfortably satisfied that Mr Moody caused to be administered to Lidari a prohibited substance which was detected in a sample taken from that horse following the running of the Turnbull Stakes."

Charge 1  Breach of AR 175(h)(i)

Any person who administers, or causes to be administered, to a horse any prohibited substance: (i) for the purpose of affecting the performance or behaviour of a horse in a race or of preventing its starting in a race.

Charge 2  Breach of AR 175(h)(ii)

[alternative to Charge 1]

The Committee of any Club or the Stewards may penalise: Any person who administers, or causes to be administered, to a horse any prohibited substance which is detected in any sample taken from such horse prior to or following the running of any race.

Charge 3  Breach of AR 178

[alternative to Charges 1 & 2]

Subject to AR 178G, when any horse that has been brought to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race and a prohibited substance is detected in any sample taken from it prior to or following its running in any race, the trainer and any other person who was in charge of such horse at any relevant time may be penalised.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, what a post said:

Maybe this was answered earlier.  What is the level of burden of proof in these cases?  If it was "proof beyond reasonable doubt* then we all can see where your coming from.  If it is *on the balance of probabilities* then think only the gullible are with you. 

This from the Moody decision what a post.

 
The Standard or Degree of Proof
There is no dispute that, given the seriousness of the charges and the potential consequences flowing from them, the standard or degree of proof required for the charges to be established is that described in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 36. The words of Rich J to the effect that what is required is a state of comfortable satisfaction on the balance of probabilities are often used. That comfortable satisfaction can be reached by direct evidence or inference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2016 at 8:12 AM, integrity said:

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 ? If the troughs had been treated with an algaecide trough block would that have influenced a colour change . Does anyone have any experience with regards to trough blocks ? Simple question , exude colour or not ?

 

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

the defense in this case is far from plausible when they do not share a training establishment with a dairy unit. science is based on reality and the reality is the horses dont cross paths with dairy cows so the whole plausability of accidental ingestion through trough water is blown to bits. There are no 2 sides to this monolithic argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just give up.....you've been told 100 times how it could happen, they proved it in NZ with a horse in isolation being fed a high cobalt diet, and the evidence/ data resulting was peer reviewed by international expert witnesses, one of whom was the prosecutions expert witness in the Moody case, but who changed sides based on the evidence provided from NZ.

 

Really sounds like a legitimate experiment with just ONE horse being loaded with a high cobalt diet in isolation . Who were the NZ researchers and where did they conduct their trial ? ONE horse  would be a " generalisation not a proven result on an equine population .

Definition of international expert witnesses  =  international  ( comes from another country )

                                                                         ex      ( something that was )

                                                                        spirt    ( water under pressure )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientific evidence, peer reviewed internationally, reviewed by expert witnesses in the field, if you can't accept the scientific evidence because it doesn't fit your preferred theory then you're beyond help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cannot be applied to this case as the foundation for this is absurd. no dairy rapid number at gateway, no tankers, no vats, no cowshed, cups, washdown hose, teat spray, blue overalls, old rusted out ag200 that hasnt been serviced in 12 years, no tail paint, no bull, no loader wagon, no invoices from rd1 with overdue on them, no disgruntled sharemilker wondering where he is going to keep his herd this season when his contracts up on June 1. Scientific evidence there are no dairy cows. case closed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The oral supplementation argument did not really stand up in the Moody case though it was largely irrelevant and the board did not reach any firm conclusion. They did express strong skepticism though because of the inconsistency of the evidence and because the one horse given similar amounts over time failed to produce levels anywhere near the threshold.

the stark contrast with the test results for Brambles , which is alleged to have been given the same or similar amounts of Availa as Lidari over a lengthy period, yet when tested on 13 September 2014 returned a reading for cobalt in a post-race urine sample of only 26 micrograms per litre
 
I'm pretty sure the Moody expert witness who suggested the levels were possible was Dr van Eps, not the same expert (Professor Stuart Paine) who reportedly reviewed the trial in the Wexford case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Leggy said:

The oral supplementation argument did not really stand up in the Moody case though it was largely irrelevant and the board did not reach any firm conclusion. They did express strong skepticism though because of the inconsistency of the evidence and because the one horse given similar amounts over time failed to produce levels anywhere near the threshold.

the stark contrast with the test results for Brambles , which is alleged to have been given the same or similar amounts of Availa as Lidari over a lengthy period, yet when tested on 13 September 2014 returned a reading for cobalt in a post-race urine sample of only 26 micrograms per litre
 
I'm pretty sure the Moody expert witness who suggested the levels were possible was Dr van Eps, not the same expert (Professor Stuart Paine) who reportedly reviewed the trial in the Wexford case.

I might know a bit more than you Leggy, your last sentence is wrong.

As for the oral administration, the explanation was NOT dismissed but the board said the various versions of the feed regime, and the VB12 injection administrations was ' a work in progress ' and thus lacked credibility.

You cannot escape the fact that the principal charge was dismissed and Moods ony now has to penalized for the two alternates, which are for all intents and purposes ' that he presented a horse to race with blah blah in its system '.

Time to move on, Moods will get a fine and normal service will resume.

We've all learnt a lot, now turn the page.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleased to see that horses have finally had races taken off them and prize money will be going to those promoted.

 I guess any farm manager can make a mistake with administering cobalt to troughs........just a coincidence I guess that it happenned on the days or days before horses won.

Just wondering tho.....as the three horses under investigation were found with high cobalt levels on different dates does this mean that every horse at the stable had access to this highly dosed water over a period of 2 months or was it just an unfortunate coincidence that the water was overdosed only on the days that 3 that won.

How many other horses had access to these overdosed troughs and placed 2nd 3rd or 4th and were not therefore tested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RIU also need to investigate the use of illicit drugs namely LSD, mushrooms, PCP and Ketamine. The hallucinogenic drugs affecting the staff who were under the illusion that the racehorses they were looking after were actually milking cows is a serious issue and the welfare of these workers should be taken into account and appropriate rehabilitation undertaken. I would not want my child to be working in an industry where the staff are so deep in their drug use that they don't know where they are or what species of animal they work with, that is an issue we as an industry need to address. I just pity the dairy farmers on these drugs who are lunging 550 dairy cows a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Midget said:

I might know a bit more than you Leggy, your last sentence is wrong.

 

Oh, you're quite correct about that Midget. Now my amnesia's worn off, I remember that while van Eps was Mood's expert who said the Availa thing was possible, Paine was the one who first said it wasn't then flip flopped, presumably after reviewing Grierson's study for the RIU in the Wexford case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bemused by Michael Geurin's Wexford damage control article in today's Herald. Memo Michael: Despite what Mike Godber and the RIU want in the way of a penalty the final decision on sentencing is SOLELY with the JCA Tribunal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gubellini said:

Bemused by Michael Geurin's Wexford damage control article in today's Herald. Memo Michael: Despite what Mike Godber and the RIU want in the way of a penalty the final decision on sentencing is SOLELY with the JCA Tribunal.

Probably a bit presumptuous at this stage gubes, I agree, especially the headline. The JCA also has the power to amend the charge if they see fit. I'd be holding fire for the penalty decision myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Leggy said:

There were three alternative charges in the Moody case Midget. He was not found guilty on the first, 'administering for the purpose of affecting performance'. He was found guilty of charge 2, 'administering'. No ruling was made or required on the third, 'presenting', though the board said it had clearly been made out.

The board ruled "The Board is comfortably satisfied that Mr Moody caused to be administered to Lidari a prohibited substance which was detected in a sample taken from that horse following the running of the Turnbull Stakes."

Charge 1  Breach of AR 175(h)(i)

Any person who administers, or causes to be administered, to a horse any prohibited substance: (i) for the purpose of affecting the performance or behaviour of a horse in a race or of preventing its starting in a race.

Charge 2  Breach of AR 175(h)(ii)

[alternative to Charge 1]

The Committee of any Club or the Stewards may penalise: Any person who administers, or causes to be administered, to a horse any prohibited substance which is detected in any sample taken from such horse prior to or following the running of any race.

Charge 3  Breach of AR 178

[alternative to Charges 1 & 2]

Subject to AR 178G, when any horse that has been brought to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race and a prohibited substance is detected in any sample taken from it prior to or following its running in any race, the trainer and any other person who was in charge of such horse at any relevant time may be penalised.

 

 

If you want to play semantics I strongly suggest you read the board's explanation again and focus on whether they considered the horse had something administered with intent as a PED, or whether it was administered inadvertently by the two feedmen, and arguably exacerbated by the vet giving multi vitamin infections.

Anyone enjoy your wierd pursuit, even though you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.