Midget

Lance O'Sullivan

369 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, Midget said:

Isn't it a bummer when you're not bright enough to do a decent degree and consequently you've got to spend your life as a common lab rat.

 

 

 

 

 

Well I don't know about that - but it is a bummer when people on here play the man not the ball - and resort to personal insults, self-aggrandising nastiness and vitriol.

We should be better than that here at the cafe - leave that crap to the other channel ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Whyisit said:

And where does it say that. RIU Statement say oral supplementation of cobalt was tested for and can show that levels above 200 can occur. 

What about "above 600", especially AFTER running a race and anyone knows you withdraw water some time before the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

18 minutes ago, Trump said:

But why haven't the horses been DQ'd? Someone please explain to me why this has not happened. Forget the how or why, leave that to the Inquiry. 

The RIU report clearly says that application has been made to disqualify the horses. Long delay but no longer an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Trump said:

But why haven't the horses been DQ'd? Someone please explain to me why this has not happened. Forget the how or why, leave that to the Inquiry. 

Google Peter Williams, Planet Rock, Ketoprofen.....that'll tell you why old fella....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well well well.....the old boys club is still well and truly alive isn't it??

I've got one question for short stuff:

If a certain trainer by the name of Colin Wightman had trained the 3 horses in question would he be as defensive of the trainer as he has been of Lance & Andrew??? :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CT said:

Well well well.....the old boys club is still well and truly alive isn't it??

I've got one question for short stuff:

If a certain trainer by the name of Colin Wightman had trained the 3 horses in question would he be as defensive of the trainer as he has been of Lance & Andrew??? :lol:

 

I doubt you could describe that individual as a ' trainer ' in the normal sense of the word, however in order that I may answer your question I'd say that certain individuals should be maligned and abused at every opportunity, that's how Darwin intended the dynamics of life and nature to work, and Wightman is of course (not unlike you Tommo) someone who should at every opportunity be punished in an uncompromising and brutal manner, flogged really, just for being Wightman.

He does of course have quite some history in the banned pharmaceuticals domain himself, as you probably know, and I don't doubt he'd have an expert, but almost certainly wrong and irrelevant opinion to offer on this matter.

I trust I've answered the queery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2016 at 8:51 AM, Midget said:

Oh stop it you raving nutters and clowns.

Cobalt is an essential element for bodily function and NZ is notoriously deficient in it.

If you didn't supplement it as required you'd be guilty of animal abuse, causing suffering, and the health of the animals would be severely jeopardised.

It's also a critical part of the water soluble VB12, and you can't live without vitamins and minerals.

I sort of understand why you're consumed by jealousy and a rabid desire to see these two hung drawn and quartered but I don't understand how you can turn your back on irrefutable scientific facts to substantiate your septic agenda.

Science will determine the outcome of this issue, irrefutable peer reviewed science, and that's what should fashion your response and interpretation of the events.

JMO of course, and I accept that I'm different, because I'm driven by science and facts, unlike most others.

So you would take Cobalt in the levels these horses were presented?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Goat said:

So you would take Cobalt in the levels these horses were presented?

Your use of words is a touch ambiguous, not sure if you've done that on purpose but I'll answer by saying "no, I wouldn't take cobalt in any form other than VB12 as I don't need to radiate and glow at night ". You ?

If you meant would I accept the readings claimed then I'll just say that I would acknowledge that based on all available evidence it's "possible" the levels indicated did in fact occur by water contamination.

Like you though I'd like to know more and I eagerly await the hearing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Midget said:

Can't argue with you on that, you'd be far more qualified to comment on " taking it " than I'll ever be

Midget I have asked you politely a few times now to stop the personal stuff... please do so or I WILL take action to stop it, debate is fine there is NO need to go personal..its not wanted in here... there is plenty of that in the other channel...cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, scooby3051 said:

Midget I have asked you politely a few times now to stop the personal stuff... please do so or I WILL take action to stop it, debate is fine there is NO need to go personal..its not wanted in here... there is plenty of that in the other channel...cheers.

Noted thanks but I'd appreciate it if you'd have a word to one provocative individual who seems to have trolled me in every post of late, typically with associated innuendo, untruths and aspersions.

I don't mind a bit of robust debate and associated humour but mindless trolling is tedious in the extreme and inevitably incites a negative reaction, a reaction you clearly find unacceptable.

Should excessive and repetitive trolling even be allowed on here ?

I'm sure you know this but in case you don't harmful or untruthful communications are illegal in NZ under the Harmful Digital Communications Act and if I'm not allowed to react you might want to consider the actions of the resident troll who's clearly breaching the Act in most if not all communications directed my way.

Communications that are " false or are used to harass an individual " are illegal and are banned under the HDC Act.

Just saying, but if I can't react surely you'd agree that it's only fair he shouldn't be allowed to incite ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Midget said:

Google Peter Williams, Planet Rock, Ketoprofen.....that'll tell you why old fella....

That non-disqualification was due to a compromised swabbing procedure wasn't it, and the decision occurred 3 months after the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leggy said:

That non-disqualification was due to a compromised swabbing procedure wasn't it, and the decision occurred 3 months after the race.

Alleged potential contamination by the on duty vet who was called away from the swab box to inspect a horse that'd tied up in the following race, whilst Planet Rock was in the swab box having her samples taken.

Planet Rock had been administered Ketoprofen a couple of days prior at Peter Wiliams property by Dr.Ivan Bridge.

The vet on duty at the races, whom I won't name, was a partner in the same practice as Bridgey was principal.

Alan Galbraith argued that the race day swabbing box wasn't sterile !!!! Something akin to saying a rubbish tin is not sterile, but incredibly it was enough to see the charges dropped. To this day there isn't, and never has been, and never will be, a sterile swab box that's not contaminated with just about everything.

This is the problem of course if and when the High Court comes into play, the complexion of the case changes dramatically in terms of burden of proof and interpretation of events.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Leggy said:

It's public knowledge that the swabbing vet was Neill Houston and it was the procedure that was found to not follow best practice, the sterility of the swab box had little to do with it.

Seriously ? equipment cross contamination as alleged and sterility are inextricably linked in this case.

Just shows the value of an ace barrister like Alan Galbraith who can create sufficient confusion by introducing a concept such as sterility when it was in effect largely irrelevant, but he created doubt and it follows that it becomes difficult to get a conviction when there's obvious doubt.

Remind you of any other case ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2Admin2
13 hours ago, Los Lobos said:

An algaecide that kept the water clean but TOXIC. 

Who said it was at toxic levels?  The swab results didn't indicate any toxic levels only that they were above the allowable threshold.  Science shows that pasture grazing animals can handle very high doses of cobalt without any toxicity.  There have been experiments were very large doses of cobalt (radioactive I might add) have been injected directly into the blood stream of animals without any toxic affects occurring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2Admin2

Settle everyone.  The fact is it is unlikely that any of the sniping posts would reach the threshold for the Harmful Digital Communications Act.  For one the individual would have to prove that the post has caused or is likely to cause harm - harm being defined under the act as "serious emotional distress."

That's not to say that some of you have been very close to overstepping the mark with your views on Wexford but that is more from a civil proceedings viewpoint than a Harmful Digital Communications viewpoint.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.