Sign in to follow this  
chevy86

Mike Dillon

36 posts in this topic

Mike Dillon's brave (by NZ journalist standards) coverage of the Wexford case in today's NZ Herald reports that Grierson's attempt to simulate the defence scenario of oral administration was aborted due to animal health concerns. What happened to the "internationally, peer-reviewed" Grierson evidence that the Wexford story was plausible? Not trying to rip the scab off again but the RIU needs to lay it all on the table, including test levels in compliant results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I don't buy this paper anymore due to their reducing the liftout to a joke.

Getting a haircut had another look today............ boy they spoil you with information.

Mark DuPlessis has no rides at Tauranga. .............. they could even tell you in South Africa that he has.

Only 27 of the 66 runners have a jockey ,

No indicative odds.................. where can we access these now ? I always used these when betting on Quaddies for obvious reasons.

Hard to read for anyone over the age of 10.

Don't tell me that there is more information , selections are worse than my granddaughters , fields for obscure Aussie races ...do we really need these instead of more comprehensive local ? I don't think so !!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

30 minutes ago, gubellini said:

Great opinion piece by Mike Dillon in Today's Herald Page B8. Refreshing change from the naive sycophantic offerings of Michael Guerin. Compulsory reading for Race Cafe members!

Thanks for the heads up gubes. Jeepers, has Mike upped the testosterone intake and grown some or what. And, it's not just opinion, it's investigative!

Congratulations Mr. Dillon.

Share this post


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

 

Thanks for the heads up gubes. Jeepers, has Mike upped the testosterone intake and grown some or what. And, it's not just opinion, it's investigative!

Congratulations Mr. Dillon.

Except you got this bit wrong:

"In his penalty submissions for the Racing Integrity Unit, Auckland Crown Prosecutor Brian Dickie seemed to go to extraordinary lengths to point out the difference between the Victorian case of Shannon and Lee Hope that resulted in six years and four years disqualification after an admission of administering cobalt to three of their stable horses.

Left out of that submission was that in the case of the others disqualified, Mark Kavanagh (3 years), Danny O'Brien (4 years) and Peter Moody, who was last week given one year with six months suspended, there was no admission or proof of the trainer being involved in the actual administration of cobalt."

Kav and O'B were found guilty of a breach of AR 175(h)(i), same as Hopes. This is the most serious offence relating to prohibited substances in the Rules of Racing, i.e., intentional administration, not presentation.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, what Mr. Dillon got right was that Mr. Haines refusing to be interviewed or further testify and be therefore subject to cross examination is exceedingly odd for three reasons, aside from that put forward by the RNSW Integrity Unit senior executive that he interviewed.

1. Because since his evidence was critical to the defence explanation, you might think his employer would have directed him to.

2. Because the rules apply to:

(c) all Licensed Persons and others working in or about any racing stable, or in connection with the management, care, control or superintendence of racehorses and their training and riding;

and 3. because the rules also apply to:

(d) all Owners, lessees and any persons comprising or having a legal or beneficial interest (either directly or indirectly) in an Owner, lessee or Legal Ownership Entity that is an Owner or lessee, or in a Legal Ownership Entity that has a legal or beneficial interest (either directly or indirectly) in an Owner or lessee under these Rules, and the Racing Manager, as applicable, thereof;

and according to the decision: " Apart from a 10 per cent share in a horse purchased in January 2015, he had no other involvement with the horses or the stable." So, he was also an owner at the time of the hearing.

The rules say that:

Stipendiary Stewards and Investigators shall, in addition to all other powers conferred by these Rules, have the power to question any person and require him to supply any information within his knowledge or possession or to make a written declaration (statutory or otherwise) or statement, respecting any matter connected with racing or otherwise being investigated by them.

Something doesn't add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leggy the decision has been made... you have gone on about this over and over... whats done is done whether it is right or wrong in your opinion the decision won't  be changed so can we all try to move on..without flogging a dead horse so to speak...thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scooby, I know the decision can't change but there are numerous post JCA decision discussions here at considerable length, especially concerning raceday decisions. One generally cannot form an opinion or comment on a decision until after it has been released and when it can't be changed. 

I'll stand corrected, but I don't think I have commented on this decision or offered any opinion about its merits other than with respect to the evidence or absence thereof for the effects of oral administration on urine levels. I may have mentioned that I was puzzled by the Haines' matter, but certainly haven't gone on about it.

My two posts above are a direct response to the information in the article referred to in the head-post. The former post correcting what is wrong and misleading in there about the Australian cases. The second was in response to new information in that article about how Australian authorities would handle the Haines' matter.

Thanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Leggy said:

 

Thanks for the heads up gubes. Jeepers, has Mike upped the testosterone intake and grown some or what. And, it's not just opinion, it's investigative!

Congratulations Mr. Dillon.

Ignite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2Admin2
19 hours ago, Leggy said:

 

Thanks for the heads up gubes. Jeepers, has Mike upped the testosterone intake and grown some or what. And, it's not just opinion, it's investigative!

Congratulations Mr. Dillon.

Hardly investigative journalism writing a year after the positive swabs were know and after the hearing, decision and penalty were given.

Essentially an opinion piece after the fact where even then he got fact an fiction muddled.

Leggy you are trying to milk this for what reason?  Anything positive?  Instead of regurgitating the rules and applauding Dillon perhaps you could write a positive piece on how the system and rules should be changed.

Also perhaps use your free access to scientific journals and post some facts on the absorption of cobalt by ruminants and mono-gastric herbivores, the levels that are toxic and the differences in blood levels between cobalt given intravenously and orally and the differences when given in the complex form of vitamin or a simple salt.

Perhaps take the discussion to a higher level?  Or shall we all wait until some more science is published?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But people were dogged down big time by the resident expert in these matters and now the situation has gone through its process people can't still have a say when the details have emerged.

MHO as Leggy has inferred Haines involvement has a lot to do with the case .

Lack of process by the RIU seems to essential to the outcome. IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2Admin2
22 minutes ago, Whyisit said:

But people were dogged down big time by the resident expert in these matters and now the situation has gone through its process people can't still have a say when the details have emerged.

MHO as Leggy has inferred Haines involvement has a lot to do with the case .

Lack of process by the RIU seems to essential to the outcome. IMHO

Leggy has inferred what?  Casting aspersions?  About time Leggy spent his time on what can be done going forward.  Perhaps he could now use his research skills and provide some benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2Admin2
19 minutes ago, ivanthegreat said:

Very hard to hide from your industry peers. We all know what happened.

Really and you consider yourself to be one of the peers?  Yes we all know what happened it was in the extensive JCA judgement.  No place now for scuttlebutt, innuendo and rumour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2Admin2 said:

Really and you consider yourself to be one of the peers?  Yes we all know what happened it was in the extensive JCA judgement.  No place now for scuttlebutt, innuendo and rumour. 

 

1 hour ago, 2Admin2 said:

Leggy has inferred what?  Casting aspersions?  About time Leggy spent his time on what can be done going forward.  Perhaps he could now use his research skills and provide some benefit.

2Admin2.      Hope you have listened to Shaun Ritchie on Weighin this morning his feelings on the trough issue and subsequent matters that should be addressed.

Good on you Shaun for bringing the issue to notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is obvious that there are still too many questions remaining unanswered, as well as question marks over how this has been handled. This is no longer an issue regarding Wexford, but whether or not the whole saga has been handled correctly. There is an obvious lack of confidence regarding decision making and in the way things are being run. This is only one of those concerns but it will continue to be focused on until these questions have been answered. For the life of me I can't see why if there is nothing to hide, the whole investigation isn't published addressing the concerns people still have. For these questions still to be a talking point reinforces my view that enough isn't known about the process undertaken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 2Admin2 said:

Hardly investigative journalism writing a year after the positive swabs were know and after the hearing, decision and penalty were given.

Essentially an opinion piece after the fact where even then he got fact an fiction muddled.

Leggy you are trying to milk this for what reason?  Anything positive?  Instead of regurgitating the rules and applauding Dillon perhaps you could write a positive piece on how the system and rules should be changed.

Also perhaps use your free access to scientific journals and post some facts on the absorption of cobalt by ruminants and mono-gastric herbivores, the levels that are toxic and the differences in blood levels between cobalt given intravenously and orally and the differences when given in the complex form of vitamin or a simple salt.

Perhaps take the discussion to a higher level?  Or shall we all wait until some more science is published?

2admin2, I am between a rock and a hard place here. I have been politely asked by Leigh to not comment further here on this case (at least that's my reading), yet you now have asked that I respond to a number of questions in relation to it and my earlier posts. I respectfully suggest that you and Scooby arrive at and indicate some consistent understanding about what is appropriate and I would then be delighted to respond to your questions and comments.

My beef here is with a number of aspects of the RIU process based on the submissions reported in the decision, not with the respondents per se. Nothing else should be inferred. Until we have some transparency from the RIU on this, I don't think the issues will go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gubellini said:

Ditto Lee Somervell on Des Coppins Trackside Radio TalkBack programme this morning.

Been a busy morning and I missed most of Des's show between 10am and 12pm. Can you elaborate Gubes? or what Shaun stated. Will probably hear when they replay Weigh In.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee commented mainly about the RIU and that many trainers are not overly happy with their overall performance. He also stated that there has been a lot of discussion in the racing fraternity that Australian trainers are losing their licences over the Cobalt positives but it seems that we are not doing so in N.Z. Shaun spoke on similar lines according to another Race Cafe thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rdytdy said:

Been a busy morning and I missed most of Des's show between 10am and 12pm. Can you elaborate Gubes? or what Shaun stated. Will probably hear when they replay Weigh In.  

Every one should watch (replays) Weigh In from this morning, Shaun well done, hit the nail on the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2016 at 0:36 PM, gubellini said:

Great opinion piece by Mike Dillon in Today's Herald Page B8. Refreshing change from the naive sycophantic offerings of Michael Guerin. Compulsory reading for Race Cafe members!

Most unlike a Dillo piece Gubes. I wonder where the motivation came from for him to write it. Could it be payback perhaps??

If you recall when Mike Dillon released his book about Lisa Cropp there was an unauthorised endorsement and photo of Lance O'Sullivan with "Best Book I've Ever Read."

The dung hit the fan if you recall with Lance O'Sullivan coming out and saying he had never read it, not even in draft form and had no idea that his name or photo was being used. Quite a stir at the time and a major, major embarrassment for Dillo.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this