DALGETY FINED $32,000

[Thejanitor 1,226]

Cran Dalgety livid with 'excessive fine' for cobalt charges

 

A furious Cran Dalgety has slammed a process of what he says is horse trainers being treated like guinea pigs around murky cobalt laws.

The Canterbury harness racing trainer has been fined $32,000 after horses he trained returned five positive swabs for the prohibited substance.

But with legal fees and other associated costs, including paying back the horses winning stakes after they were disqualified, Dalgety said he was out of pocket more than $100,000 for something he is adamant is not his fault.

Dalgety labelled the fine "incredibly excessive" and he holds concerns that financial penalties of that magnitude could be crippling to trainers livelihoods when they have simply used a contaminated supplement through no fault of their own.

Dalgety, a third generation horse trainer, presented horses to race with cobalt levels above the allowed threshold on December 16, 29 and November 19 (three runners). He was first notified of a positive swab on January 10.

He admitted the charges but said he had no choice because under the rules of racing it is the trainer's obligation to present a horse free of prohibited substances.

Dalgety, a highly successful trainer best known for guiding the career of champion pacer Christen Me, is one of many trainers who feel that is too much power for officials to have when the source is not proven.

"There is no other industry in the world where you are found guilty until you can prove yourself innocent," he said.

In the Judicial Control Authority (JCA) decision, Dr Andrew Grierson, chief veterinarian for Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ), said analysis of samples taken from the feed supplement at Dalgety's stable were found to be extremely high in cobalt and he concluded it was the likely cause of the positive swabs.A

Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) investigators agree but said Dalgety's culpability was his failure to obtain appropriate advice on the use of a product containing cobalt after HRNZ introduced a cobalt threshold 200 ug/L in May 2015.

The product Dalgety used was McGrouthers Equine Mineral Mix - a feed supplement he had used for more than 10 years without incident and that he believed to be perfectly legal.

He had previously purchased the product made by the late Dr Cliff McGrouther and it continued to be produced by McGrouther's daughter.

Dalgety, a former premiership-winning trainer, said the product was established by a veterinarian so he did not feel the need to seek further veterinary advice.

The product was labelled as "will not return a positive swab" and "Licensed under Animal Remedies Act 1967 No 3392".

However, despite what the label showed and unbeknown to Dalgety, the RIU said it had not been licensed since at least 1997.

The four Dalgety trained horses returned high readings that ranged between 226 ug/L to greater than 600 ug/L.

He stopped using the product the day he was notified of the first positive.

Raukapuka Ruler, Linton Shard, Benchmark and Fatima Siad (twice) were disqualified from the races in question.

Dalgety said the fact Raukapuka Ruler went on to win the Group I Northern Derby, with a cobalt level well under the threshold, was proof the elevated levels had not effected the horse's performance when it had tested positive in a much easier race back in December.

Dalgety said appealing the severity of the fine would be a case of Russian roulette.

"If I appeal I could get the fine reduced by $5000 but it might cost me $10,000 to appeal it.

"How far do you go? Where does it stop?" 

Dalgety questioned why he was given such a hefty fine when Southland trainer Shane Walkinshaw had two charges dropped last year when a feed supplement was proven to be at fault for two of his horses returning high cobalt readings.

Other trainers have also had presenting charges dropped or received fines under $1000.

However, Dalgety is not the hardest hit. Last year thoroughbred trainers Lance O'Sullivan and Andrew Scott were handed down a $50,000 fine and costs of $10,500 after cobalt was detected in three of their horses. The fine came after a nine-month investigation.

Dalgety has previously admitted two presentation charges.

In 2009 he was fined $3500 for a positive swab to caffeine and in 2012 he was fined $6000 for a bute positive but the JCA decision concluded the two previous breaches were not similar to the cobalt charge because one was from contaminated feed and the other was when the wrong horse was treated with bute.

Dalgety will also have to pay $2000 in costs to the JCA.

The RIU acknowledged Dalgety had been fully cooperative throughout their investigation.

WHAT IS COBALT?

Cobalt is an essential trace element that is naturally occurring in horses, dogs and other mammals but has been demonstrated to have an effect on the blood system by stimulating the production of red blood cells making for a similar effect to Erythropoietin (EPO) doping.

 

STUFF May 18, 2017

[MisterEd 332]

He would have a good case against the supplier if the article is correct. Are all trainers now supposed to independently test their own feed just in case something is in there that should not be or the labeling is incorrect. 

[Thejanitor 1,226]

17 minutes ago, MisterEd said:

He would have a good case against the supplier if the article is correct. Are all trainers now supposed to independently test their own feed just in case something is in there that should not be or the labeling is incorrect. 

Yes, it is a strange one.

I do not understand why Mr Dalgety admitted guilt if he believes the horse feed was contaminated. There are so many scenarios that could be applied to how the feed was supposedly contaminated. Surely, that would be easy to prove by testing Mr Dalgety's feed and an unopened packed of the same feed from the same batch? If both feeds had elevated levels of cobalt Mr Dalgety should be exonerated. However, if the unopened packed did not have the same levels of cobalt as the feed Mr Dalgety gave his horses that would suggest the cobalt was added later. But then is it possible that one bag of feed from a batch could have higher levels of cobalt than another bag? 

Mr Dalgety could have had testing done on the feed and it would have not cost $32,000 plus costs. Something is not right here.

[rdytdy 5,343]

11 minutes ago, Thejanitor said:

Yes, it is a strange one.

I do not understand why Mr Dalgety admitted guilt if he believes the horse feed was contaminated. There are so many scenarios that could be applied to how the feed was supposedly contaminated. Surely, that would be easy to prove by testing Mr Dalgety's feed and an unopened packed of the same feed from the same batch? If both feeds had elevated levels of cobalt Mr Dalgety should be exonerated. However, if the unopened packed did not have the same levels of cobalt as the feed Mr Dalgety gave his horses that would suggest the cobalt was added later. But then is it possible that one bag of feed from a batch could have higher levels of cobalt than another bag? 

Mr Dalgety could have had testing done on the feed and it would have not cost $32,000 plus costs. Something is not right here.

He admitted the charges but said he had no choice because under the rules of racing it is the trainer's obligation to present a horse free of prohibited substances

In the Judicial Control Authority (JCA) decision, Dr Andrew Grierson, chief veterinarian for Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ), said analysis of samples taken from the feed supplement at Dalgety's stable were found to be extremely high in cobalt and he concluded it was the likely cause of the positive swabs.

[hsvman 294]

Funny how only his feed from that supplier was contaminated tho 

[ardeea 19]

If one reads the JCA report by Prof G.Hall it gives a fair and reasoned outline of the whole case.

While Cran Dalgety may be annoyed, upset and even bewildered by the end result,  the Judgement

sets the case out in a reasoned and, I consider, a fair manner. I would think Cran Dalgety will suck it

up and let the matter drift  off to be forgotten about   as soon as possible.

 

 

[what a post 811]

It's hard to understand why a man of mr dalgetys experience did not consider it wise to get independent qualified assurances/tests done on the supplement he was giving his horses at the time the rule relating to cobalt use and the legal level thereof was established 2 years ago,especially when it apparently was known the supplement contained cobalt. If he is looking for someone to blame then the first stop should be the man in the mirror.. There are many unanswered questions in the judgment as always seems to be the case .when you read findings relating to such cases.For example,what did the drench his horses were given the day before the races contain? I know it was stated by the hrnz vet that the cobalt levels were caused by the mineral supplement,but surely it would have been relevant to divulge and discount the contents of something given 1 day before they raced. Also why was there such a large discrepancy in the cobalt levels,given apparently he had been using the same supplement for 10 years. Why all of a sudden the spike in the readings.   When I read these findings which are a summary of presented evidence,you are continually left wondering about the thoroughness of the investigations.  Who knows?

[Thejanitor 1,226]

8 hours ago, what a post said:

It's hard to understand why a man of mr dalgetys experience did not consider it wise to get independent qualified assurances/tests done on the supplement he was giving his horses at the time the rule relating to cobalt use and the legal level thereof was established 2 years ago,especially when it apparently was known the supplement contained cobalt. If he is looking for someone to blame then the first stop should be the man in the mirror.. There are many unanswered questions in the judgment as always seems to be the case .when you read findings relating to such cases.For example,what did the drench his horses were given the day before the races contain? I know it was stated by the hrnz vet that the cobalt levels were caused by the mineral supplement,but surely it would have been relevant to divulge and discount the contents of something given 1 day before they raced. Also why was there such a large discrepancy in the cobalt levels,given apparently he had been using the same supplement for 10 years. Why all of a sudden the spike in the readings.   When I read these findings which are a summary of presented evidence,you are continually left wondering about the thoroughness of the investigations.  Who knows?

Agree, there are so many unanswered questions, possibilities and permutations to this issue.

How is the feed produced? Is it by order or manufactured in batches? If it is the latter why wasn't another bag of feed tested from the batch that Mr Dalgety used to see if it had the same cobalt reading as the feed Mr Dalgety gave the horses that returned positive swabs? 

I think Mr Dalgety pleaded guilty because he expected to get the same lenient treatment as Mr Walkinshaw received after his horses returned high cobalt swabs. Mr Walkingshaw probably got off lightly, but Mr Dalgety has previously been charged with doping offences so I think the higher fine reflects his past history in this area?

[TheHorseman 22]

27 minutes ago, Thejanitor said:

How is the feed produced? Is it by order or manufactured in batches? If it is the latter why wasn't another bag of feed tested from the batch that Mr Dalgety used to see if it had the same cobalt reading as the feed Mr Dalgety gave the horses that returned positive swabs? 

I think Mr Dalgety pleaded guilty because he expected to get the same lenient treatment as Mr Walkinshaw received after his horses returned high cobalt swabs. Mr Walkingshaw probably got off lightly, but Mr Dalgety has previously been charged with doping offences so I think the higher fine reflects his past history in this area?

Best to read the JCA report for a better understanding (grab a cup of coffee and go to http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-c-dalgety-reserved-decision-as-to-penalty-dated-16-may-2017-chair-prof-g-hall ). It wasn't a bag of feed as such, it was an additive to the feed from a bottle of "McGrouthers Equine Mineral Mix" that contained cobalt.

It's a hefty fine but probably more so a 'deterrent'  to all !

[JOHNRYAN 62]

It's no use saying the supplement was labelled as "no positive" on the packaging after the cobalt threshold was introduced. Right up till then it was fine and not against the rules to give horses extra cobalt. I would have gone over all feed and supplement packaging to make sure it didn't have cobalt as an ingredient once the RIU put it on the banned list. What about a suspension though? Obviously he asked for a fine only so it really could have been something like a $10,000 fine and 3 months suspension which wouldn't be too bad through the winter racing. One of the Dalgety's accomplished foremen could have kept the stable ticking over like Mark Purdon did with Grant Payne.