Lance O'Sullivan

[Leggy 4,076]

Nothing semantic about it Midget. The board clearly considered that there was no significant evidence to suggest it was administered with intent as a PED but that it was clearly administered within the stables to a horse in Moody's care and control and he was therefore responsible for the administration. Based on the science which they did not detail again they were skeptical of the oral administration explanation. Those are the simple facts. Nothing wrong about it.

Actually, I think you may be chipping out and becoming a bit loose on top. You probably should be downgraded if you haven't already.

[Midget 4,489]

Where did it say they were skeptical about the oral administration route ?

I've only read it once but other than the observation that the two feedmen may not have been terribly good witnesses, and that the vet may have been a bit cavalier, I can't recollect your version of events.

I do know absolutely that the principal charge was described as exactly that ( you go check that word and what it means please before you revert ), that charge was not found to be proven,  and that the lesser alternate charges were, but there's no mandatory penalty so we'll almost certainly see a substantial fine, nothing more.

BTW you are using semantics, and you're trying to be clever, because convention is that " administering " means deliberately giving a drug that will effect performance with your full knowledge, but " presenting " means the horse raced with a prohibited drug in it but the trainer was not intending or did not know the animal might be affected by a PED in its system.

The presiding panel have used the word administering, that's agreed, and it's in one of the rules referred to, but it's not being used in the conventional context and you know it, or you should know it.

[Leggy 4,076]

16 minutes ago, Midget said:

Where did it say they were skeptical about the oral administration route ?

I've only read it once

Read it again.

In 204

"The Board is also sceptical about the Subsequently Alleged Supplementation for a number of additional reasons ...."

[Midget 4,489]

22 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Read it again.

In 204

"The Board is also sceptical about the Subsequently Alleged Supplementation for a number of additional reasons ...."

Because of the changing stories from the feedmen though, correct ? I don't recall them ever doubting the science 

[Midget 4,489]

Peter Moody cleared of deliberate cobalt doping charge, guilty of two others

Updated 21 minutes ago

PHOTO: Peter Moody will be handed a sentence for the two lesser charges at a later date. (Getty Images: Michael Dodge)

RELATED STORY: High cobalt levels in Moody's Lidari could have been caused by hoof treatment, RV witness says

MAP: Melbourne 3000

Leading horse trainer Peter Moody has been cleared of deliberately administering illegal levels of the drug cobalt to stallion Lidari, but was found guilty of two lesser charges.

Key points:

• Board not satisfied elevated cobalt was given for performance-enhancing purposes
• Chairman slams stables for "high level of carelessness"
• Moody was the fifth trainer to be charged since the cobalt threshold was introduced in 2014

Source:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-16/peter-moody-faces-board-over-cobalt-doping-charges/7248772

The Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board (RAD) handed down its decision on Wednesday afterMoody was charged with three offences following Lidari's second-place run in the 2014 Turnbull Stakes.

RAD chairman John Bowman said it was not comfortably satisfied that the horse was given cobalt for the purpose of affecting its performance.

He said the prohibited substance found its way into its system as a result of something that happened in the stables.

But the board said two lesser charges against Moody, relating to the non-intentional administration of cobalt to a racehorse, had been proved.

The arguments over penalties for those charges will be heard at a later date.

Mr Bowman said Moody had a real lack of knowledge of feeding operations at his stables and supervision was "inadequate to say the least".

He was critical of the "high level of carelessness" at Moody's stables and the "slap dash method" of administering injections.

Moody is one of the county's most-recognisable horse trainers and has won more than 40 group one races throughout his career.

He trained the undefeated Black Caviar, regarded as one of Australia's greatest ever race horses, to 25 race wins.

Elevated levels of cobalt 'an accident'

Moody was the fifth trainer to be charged since a cobalt threshold was introduced in 2014.

Lidari returned levels of 380 micrograms per litre of urine and 410mcg, which is well above the legal threshold of 200mcg.

Moody had previously told the hearing the elevated levels of cobalt were caused by staff accidentally overfeeding it a hoof treatment that contained higher levels than stated by the manufacturer.

High-profile trainers Danny O'Brien and Mark Kavanagh both received disqualifications after being found guilty of a similar charge earlier this year but are appealing the decision at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Father and son team Shannon Hope and Lee Hope were also found guilty of illegally administering cobalt.

 Like this

•  
• Quote

[Ashoka 1,179]

Midget...

I stand by what I have said. The investigation, as it has been publicly reported, did not establish that the levels recorded could be achieved in the manner being investigated. If this statement is incorrect, then please point me to where I can ascertain the correct position.

Thank you.

All the best.

Ashoka

[von Smallhaussen 3,226]

would Wexford get fined 5 hundy if David Walker was caught riding one of the dairy heifers on the farm? 

[Midget 4,489]

You need to understand the science Ashoka.

Cobalt feed additives and VB12 blah blah, it's been done to death here, it's been proved in NZ, the data has been scrutinized by overseas experts and endorsed by none other than the prosecutions evidence from their own expert witness in the Moody case.

I can lead you to a Wexford water trough Ashoka but I can't make you drink.

 

Leggy, I've read all the evidence again.

The panel never disputes the science and nor does it ever dispute that Availa was a factor or that it caused the positive, but they do dispute the regime described with regard to the Availa and suggest a ' vacuum ' exists within the window of opportunity.

They express concerns about the evidence of Neil Alexander, I know him and I've worked with him, he was John Size' feedman before he joined Moods and he's good, but this time he got it wrong. He'd never be a great witness though so I'm not surprised the panel found him unconvincing.

That aside they dismissed the principal charge that Moods " administered.....affecting the performance or behaviour..."

They found him guilty of the lesser alternate charge that specifically excludes the " affecting the performance ...." sentence.

The third charge was not proceeded with because it became redundant after #2 was proved.

So one of three was proved, and it was the lesser.

I don't really GAF what anyone says now, the decision has been made, Moods is innocent of giving a horse a PED with the intent to affect its performance.

He was guilty of being negligent in that he delegated to his feedman and his vet.....big deal.....has there ever been a big stable that didn't ?

[Leggy 4,076]

1 hour ago, Midget said:

Because of the changing stories from the feedmen though, correct ? I don't recall them ever doubting the science 

Yip primarily. I didn't say they doubted the science. I said 'based on the science' and that cited was the Brambles result.

[Midget 4,489]

1 minute ago, Leggy said:

Yip primarily. I didn't say they doubted the science. I said 'based on the science' and that cited was the Brambles result.

And based on what you know about the NZ case (with the gypsy) we now understand that identical additive regimes can give massively different results, I guess due to assimilation, retention, excretion or conversion rates.

Whatever causes it we now know for a fact it can happen, that's no longer in dispute.

It's interesting to note that if Wexford hadn't had their issue investigated so thoroughly the NZ science that caused the RVC expert witness to flip flop would never have happened, and without the panel saying so you'd have to assume that expert somersault must have had a huge effect on the panels thinking and the way in which they arrived at their decision.

Moods owes Wexford a drink I'd have thought.

[Leggy 4,076]

53 minutes ago, Midget said:

You need to understand the science Ashoka.

Cobalt feed additives and VB12 blah blah, it's been done to death here, it's been proved in NZ, the data has been scrutinized by overseas experts and endorsed by none other than the prosecutions evidence from their own expert witness in the Moody case.

I can lead you to a Wexford water trough Ashoka but I can't make you drink.

 

Leggy, I've read all the evidence again.

The panel never disputes the science and nor does it ever dispute that Availa was a factor or that it caused the positive, but they do dispute the regime described with regard to the Availa and suggest a ' vacuum ' exists within the window of opportunity.

They express concerns about the evidence of Neil Alexander, I know him and I've worked with him, he was John Size' feedman before he joined Moods and he's good, but this time he got it wrong. He'd never be a great witness though so I'm not surprised the panel found him unconvincing.

That aside they dismissed the principal charge that Moods " administered.....affecting the performance or behaviour..."

They found him guilty of the lesser alternate charge that specifically excludes the " affecting the performance ...." sentence.

The third charge was not proceeded with because it became redundant after #2 was proved.

So one of three was proved, and it was the lesser.

I don't really GAF what anyone says now, the decision has been made, Moods is innocent of giving a horse a PED with the intent to affect its performance.

He was guilty of being negligent in that he delegated to his feedman and his vet.....big deal.....has there ever been a big stable that didn't ?

I agree I think.

[Leggy 4,076]

5 minutes ago, Midget said:

Moods owes Wexford a drink I'd have thought.

Maybe To be fair to Ashoka though, I think his point is that up until yesterday at least (don't know the detail of what happened there), the only report of Grierson's study in the Wexford case came from the RIU which said " As part of our investigation the RIU undertook a series of trials that proved that cobalt levels above 200ug/L can come about by the oral feeding of cobalt in high concentrations." It doesn't say that oral supplementation can achieve the 300-600 levels relevant to the Moods and Wexford cases. It may have shown that but the RIU have rightly been silent on that case while it was before the JCA, so we don't know yet until that is published.

[Midget 4,489]

So what level was Shane Walkinshaws cobalt positive then ? It was 1400 .

That's what the Grierson experiment replicated.

[Ashoka 1,179]

Leggy...

I take it that you are confirming that what I have said is absolutely, and without any room for equivocation, dead accurate. On the information publicly available at this time, it has not been established that the cobalt levels recorded can be achieved in the manner that has been offered as the reason for those levels being recorded.

Midget...I feel that you must have been drinking, or be living in the hope that you could be drinking, from the said Wexford trough.

All the best.

Ashoka

[Leggy 4,076]

21 minutes ago, Midget said:

So what level was Shane Walkinshaws cobalt positive then ? It was 1400 .

That's what the Grierson experiment replicated.

So you are saying that Grierson's study for the Wexford case produced levels of 1400 from oral supplements? Fair enough if that's the case. Hard to assess or critique a study that hasn't yet been published though, and what has been reported doesn't confirm any of that. You may have inside information. I look forward to seeing detail of the actual studies though.

[ivanthegreat 1,123]

6 minutes ago, Ashoka said:

Leggy...

I take it that you are confirming that what I have said is absolutely, and without any room for equivocation, dead accurate. On the information publicly available at this time, it has not been established that the cobalt levels recorded can be achieved in the manner that has been offered as the reason for those levels being recorded.

Midget...I feel that you must have been drinking, or be living in the hope that you could be drinking, from the said Wexford trough.

All the best.

Ashoka

Ashoka , I agree entirely and as you know this is the central point in my earlier posts on this topic.

What we were looking for was............ After exhaustive scientific trials conducted by an independent overseas laboratory Yes/No these Cobalt levels could have been attained by drinking water from those troughs, Trough water concentrations were duplicated by following the exact same stable proceedures. Otherwise the findings are a nonsense.

Your honour " I had no idea I had drunk that much someone must have loaded my drinks ......... yeah right.

Bloody nest of TUI's if you ask me.

[Canelo 459]

Yeah the whole argumemt presented doesn't change the facts, even if the fanciful story was true it is no justification for cheating. The "lady" that beat Valerie Adams at the Olympics used the same argument for her positive, her husband apparently put the dope in her cereal and she wasn't aware even though she was developing a pair of testicles and throwing an extra metre above her PB. She was innocent though, scientifically possible the experts say

[puha 2,177]

At the end of the day the fact is the horses raced well over the limit even though cleared many wil still think otherwise. Wexford should enter a team in that Indian game you see on sky  they are pretty good at dodgeball  it seems. 

[elo 106]

fined $50,000 plus $10,500 costs

[biff 2,158]

29 minutes ago, elo said:

fined $50,000 plus $10,500 costs

How very New Zealand.

[WhoKnows 791]

This tells me all I need to know.

On the 22nd of July 2015 two signed affidavits were received by the Racing Integrity Unit. One from the respondent O’SULLIVAN and the other from his dairy farm manager Alan HAINES.

These statements indicated that O’SULLIVAN had made his own further inquiries into the matter and in the course of these inquiries had found that his manager HAINES had been randomly dosing water troughs with high levels of cobalt using two cobalt preparations.

O’SULLIVAN states that this was done without his knowledge and that all dairy matters are handled by HAINES. It was further explained that this cobalt was put into the troughs to assist the fertility of the cows and that the thoroughbred horses at Wexford also shared the same troughs as the dairy cattle.

Racing Integrity Investigators endeavoured to speak with HAINES to clarify particular points in his statement but he refused to assist and would not be interviewed. He is not a licensed person under the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules of Racing, and therefore not subject to RIU direction.

The RIU Veterinarian Doctor Andrew Grierson was consulted about replicating this supposed explanation. When he sought Veterinary Ethics Committee approval to conduct control testing in the amounts and formulas provided, that approval was not granted. This was due to the products not being listed for use in horses and that the actual dose was not able to be accurately determined.

It was the expert view that exposing animals to the explained levels given by Wexford would be toxic to the animals and detrimental to animal welfare.

[Guest 2Admin2]

So WhoKnows what specifically did you "need to know"?

[Scotch Thistle 133]

Smells of a cover up if O'Sullivan didn't direct his farm manager to fully cooperate with the RIU. 

Perhaps O'Sullivan did direct the farm manager, who refused to do as directed, and O'Sullivan said "tut tut" rather than sacking him?

[scooby3051 10,869]

6 minutes ago, Scotch Thistle said:

Smells of a cover up if O'Sullivan didn't direct his farm manager to fully cooperate with the RIU. 

Perhaps O'Sullivan did direct the farm manager, who refused to do as directed, and O'Sullivan said "tut tut" rather than sacking him?

Speculation..you have no idea what was said so stop poking fingers unless you know the FACTS..or this will go the same way as the other one.

[Leggy 4,076]

Well, one thing I liked here from a quick read is a breath of fresh air from the JCA.

Mr Galbraith is correct when he states that we must ensure that when we come to determine penalty that we do not get carried away on any current wave of cobalt hysteria. This is simply another presenting case, the seriousness of which can only be determined by reference to the circumstances of the case, and, in particular, with reference to how the three horses came to return the positive results. We approach the matter in this manner.