Midget

Lance O'Sullivan

369 posts in this topic

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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 ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.