Chief Stipe

What entity actually owns the property? If it is the racing club what does their constitution say?

I don't know has there been an announcement?

It will be interesting to see if Cambridge, Riccarton and Awapuni get a disproportionate amount of the pie to pay for the increased operating costs of their AWT's.

I don't support ANY kennel and have no opinion on Turnwald's kennel. However I do believe in justice and due process. In Turnwald's case there was no clear link back to the Trainer being responsible for administering the prohibited substance. End of story. Turnwald was suspended, fined and the dog disqualified as per the rules. The RIU did not present any evidence against Turnwald to implicate her with what you are alleging. Your allegations against third parties are a matter for the Police to pursue.

Believe it or not both 2 and 3 had 3kg claimers on board. But not according to TAB NZ.

So what's this got to do with NZ Harnessing racing? I haven't watched a Yonkers race in years.

Rule Number(s): 649(3)Following the running of Race 6, Smiths Hire Open Handicap, an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr J P Oatham, against Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class B), Mr K Asano, alleging a breach of Rule 649 (3) in that he “weighed in 0.75 kg underweight on his mount SABER which was subsequently ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

When? What year? Who? What was the drug?

Galah you win the BOAY post of the year for posting the most gobbledygook. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

For once I agree with you. Sport is sport and we are all entitled to our opinions. LOL if Woodham, Saundry or Hughes think they can control the narrative by closing down free speech then they are truly in cuckoo land. Their best hope of closing down criticism is to improve the lot of stakeholders..... meanwhile we all wait.....

Wrong on two counts. I read that her partner was tested as well and returned a negative. The source of the contamination is ALWAYS considered. If there is a close link to someone using the drug concerned then the balance of probabilities are considered. So if a Trainer is taking prescribed medication e.g. diclofenac (Volataren) and his dog or horse returns a positive to that drug then the balance of probabilities infers that the source is most likely the Trainer (deliberately or accidentally) and subsequently the JCA leans towards either the Trainer as the culprit. They extend this principle to other stable employees. In the Turnwald case they could find no link between P and her.

Not only an exception but budgeted for! If the abandoned meetings had gone ahead in those years then there wouldn't have been enough funds to pay the stakes!

Did you read the whole Goldsack judgement? With the Goldsack case there is a clear link between a possible source of the Voltaren i.e. his prescribed tablet medication. On the balance of probabilities Goldsack was the source of the prohibited drug. No such links can be found to Turnwald - testing of her and her partner were negative to 'P'. Further Goldsack did not avail himself of the opportunity to provide submissions on the penalty instead he literally threw his license in. All that aside what was the level of diclofenac detected in the dog? Was it at a level that had a therapeutic effect? It certainly wouldn't be performance enhancing.

Oh OK - I missed the sarcasm in your earlier response. Those two stats you just posted don't bode well.

Where are the figures? Surely in the interests of transparency and to put the naysayers in their place they would publish the hard data that proves the success of the venture? Of course they couldn't do a direct comparison because the Cambridge Jockey Club have never had so many race meetings before.

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY RIU V B L GOLDSACK - REASONS FOR DECISION AND PENALTY DATED 28 JUNE 2021 - CHAIR, HON J W GENDALL QC Created on 30 June 2021 BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT Andy Cruickshank, Investigator Informant AND Brian Leslie GOLDSACK, Licensed Trainer Respondent Information No: A8722 Inquiry held at Whanganui on 24 June 2021 Judicial Committee: Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair) Mr LN McCutcheon (member) Present: Mr A Cruickshank, Informant Mr B Dickey Counsel for RIU Mr S Wallis and Mr K Coppins - witnesses Mr B L Goldsack, Respondent Ms J Goldsack assisting the Respondent Supporters of Mr Goldsack attending to observe REASONS FOR DECISION AND PENALTY OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 1. The RIU charged Mr Goldsack with a breach of Rules 61.1 and 61.3 in that: - “on the 12th day of February 2021 [he] was the Licensed Trainer and person in charge of the Greyhound “Light Cruiser” which was presented for and raced in Race 12 at the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club meeting [at] Wanganui, failed to present the greyhound free of the Category 5 Prohibited Substance, Diclofenac, being an offence under the provisions of Rules 61.1 and 61.3 and punishable pursuant to Rule 63.1 and 61.4 of the New Zealand Greyhound Association Rules”. 2. Rule 61.1 provides that the owner, trainer, or person in charge of a greyhound nominated to compete in a race shall produce the greyhound for the race free of any Prohibited Substance., and Rule 61,3 says that the person in charge of a Greyhound brought onto a racecourse for the purpose of racing, is guilty of an offence if the greyhound is found on testing to not be free of a Prohibited Substance. It is a strict liability offence. 3. Diclofenac is a Category 5 Prohibited Substance being a NSAID, (a non -steroidal anti-inflammatory drug/medication) used to prevent or alleviate pain, swelling and inflammation in animals as well as humans. It may be used to treat some eye conditions in greyhounds but is dangerous to the animal if ingested. 4. The general penalty provisions in the Rules provide for penalties of up to $10,000 fine, suspension, disqualification, warning off, for breaches, (Rule 63.1) as well as for disqualification of the greyhound from the Race in which it competed (Rule 61.4). 5. Mr Goldsack did not admit the charge and the hearing proceeded on a defended basis. 6. At the conclusion of the hearing, and after deliberating, the Committee found the Information to be proved. LIGHT CRUISER was disqualified from the Race, in which it finished 7th in a field of 8. After receiving submission as to penalty from the Informant we imposed a penalty on Mr Goldsack of a fine of $3,000 and ordered him to pay $1,500 to the RIU as a contribution towards its costs and expenses and $500 to the JCA in respect of a portion of its expenses. 7. We record that Mr Goldsack did not choose to make any submissions as to penalty. That was because after delivering the liability finding we asked Mr Goldsack to remain and present his submissions as to penalty as he was entitled to do. But he did not take up that opportunity, instead abruptly departing with a flurry of derogatory, abusive, and obscene outbursts directed at the Committee. 8. We now record our reasons for the finding and penalty. THE INFORMANT’S CASE 9. It was common ground and not disputed that the greyhound LIGHT CRUISER, jointly owned and trained, by Mr Goldsack was presented by him to compete in Race 12, the “BOOK YOUR FUNCTION @HATRICK C3” at the Wanganui Greyhound Meeting at Hatrick Raceway on 12 February 2021. It was subject to a pre-race swab before the Race. It finished 7th in the field of 8 and did not earn a stake. The urine sample was analysed by the NZ Racing Laboratory and found to be positive to Diclofenac, a Category 5 Prohibited Substance. It is an ingredient of the well known medication “Voltaren”. Diclofenac can be administered by such a gel but is commonly used by humans in tablet form for which a Doctor’s prescription is required. It is an anti-inflammatory drug designed to reduce pain, swelling and inflammation arising from injury or joint conditions arising out of arthritic or injury changes. 10. The evidence was that when interviewed by an RIU Investigator on 9 March 2021 and informed of the positive test, Mr Goldsack could not explain how the positive test to Diclofenac arose, other than to say his dog must have been “knobbled”. He insisted that he had not given LIGHT CRUISER any substance leading up to the Race other than a rub down with a Chinese medicated oil. He told the Investigator that he had previously taken Diclofenac for a back and hip condition for which he was on ACC, showed the investigator the prescription but said that he had not taken any of that medication “for some time“. 11. Mr Goldsack then spoke to the Investigator about an event that he said occurred one week earlier, on 5 February 2021. He said that he found a small container labelled Dexamphetamine near his kennels, which he said someone “must have left it there” as he had no knowledge of it. He said he “believed” that someone was trying to “knobble” his dogs. He then, on 5 February 2021 scratched his dogs which were to compete later that day. The container contained 3 pills and when analysed (after being given to the Investigator on 9 March 2021) by the NZ Racing Laboratory they did not contain Diclofenac but were found to contain Amphetamine. The Chinese medicated oil was also analysed and did not contain Diclofenac. THE RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE/STATEMENTS TO THE COMMITTEE 12. Mr Goldsack said that he believed some unknown person(s) must have administered the Diclofenac whilst LIGHT CRUISER was awaiting the Race as, he claimed the security at the Raceway was inadequate. Or alternatively he suggested that someone may have got access to his kennels – as he claimed had happened in the past, and administered a substance containing Diclofenac to the greyhound there. At the hearing, he offered a third theory, namely that some person may have got to his vehicle, in which the dog was present, at the Raceway, and “knobbled” it there. 13. He said that he had a week previously told the Stipendiary Steward about the possibility of some others “knobbling” his dogs (with a different substance), so when he presented LIGHT CRUISER to race on this occasion he asked of the Committee, rhetorically, “Why would I want to race the dog with this prohibited substance in it?” The Committee tried to make it clear to him that the charge did not involve any allegation of administering, but simply presenting the greyhound to race with Diclofenac in its system when he was not aware of that fact. 14. Mr Goldsack, in emotional terms, expressed criticism of the Stewards and RIU employees, claiming that for some reason a failure to follow up his claim to possible “knobbling” a week earlier has led to the Diclofenac positive a week later. 15. In his interview with the Investigator on 9 March 2021 Mr Goldsack outlined his feeding regime on racedays and said that his mother helped him because of his back condition. ISSUES 16. There are only 2 relevant issues. First, did the prerace swab analysis accurately disclose the presence of Diclofenac, a Prohibited Substance, and did the dog race when it had that substance in its metabolism? That is beyond doubt. My Goldsack accepted that fact. It is mandatory that the greyhound be disqualified from the Race (Rule 61.4). 17. The second issue is whether in terms of Rule 61.3 Mr Goldsack presented the greyhound to race when it had the Prohibited Category 5 substance in its system (a strict liability offence) and/or whether that might have occurred through 3rd party behaviour AFTER it was presented and before it raced. FINDINGS 18. First, LIGHT CRUISER must be disqualified from the Race. As it was unplaced this is of little consequence. 19. There is no evidence or foundation to support any claim by the Respondent that the dog may have surreptitiously been given Diclofenac whilst at Hatrick raceway. We have received and accept the evidence presented by the RIU as to the secure kennels, overseen by a security guard, and CCTV surveillance at the entrance of the kennelling area, whilst awaiting the Race. There is not a scintilla of evidence. nor even a remotely evidential foundation, to support Mr Goldsack’s conjecture. The evidence of the two Stipendiary Stewards (Messrs Wallis and Coppins) was persuasive, and we accepted it. There was no possible way that some third party or other dog handler, could have avoided the oversight of the security guards so as to get unlawful access to this dog. Mr Goldsack has simply claimed, without any evidential basis, a contrived or theory he has conjured up. 20. It follows that the greyhound ingested, or Diclofenac entered into its system before, or during, the transportation of it to the Raceway. The claim, or belief advanced by Mr Goldsack that someone must have “got to” the dog at his own kennel block is contrived. Even assuming for the moment an event, he claimed must have had happened the week before, then it would have given gave rise to security issues at his premises, of which he was aware, he thereafter had a primary obligation to secure the kennel block. 21. But there is an obvious explanation for the positive swab which is based on clear factual evidence. That is, that the Diclofenac in the dog’s urine was derived from the Diclofenac medication dispensed to Mr Goldsack for a back and hip complaint (for which he received ACC) pursuant to an October 2020 prescription. It appears clear from the photographs produced that a repeat prescription of the Diclofenac pills medication was obtained on 29 January 2021, 2 weeks before the dog was presented to race. It is a compelling and reasonable inference that we draw that by some error or laxness or oversight on the part of those caring for the dog resulted in, some contamination arising from this Diclofenac product occurred at Mr Goldsack’s kennels. The scenario advanced by the Respondent, namely that by reason of past events there was a suspicion that this substance was given to the greyhound by unscrupulous others, we do not accept as plausible, when viewed against the clear fact of Mr Goldsack having prescribed Diclofenac tablets in his possession and available for him to use to treat his back condition. 22. We reached the clear conclusion that somehow the Diclofenac possessed by the Respondent earlier from the prescription and its repeat was the cause of the positive analysis, and an absence of reasonable care occurred. The presentation by him of a different Amphetamine substance to the Steward, has no connection to the positive to Diclofenac which medication was in his possession 14 days before the race. In our judgement, it was used pursuant to the repeat prescription as medication by him at or close to the relevant time. In an exchange with the Investigator, it is recorded: “[Investigator] My understanding of what Diclofenac is it’s a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory. [Respondent] If it’s Voltaren based, I understand that. [Investigator] …in terms of medication that you take, is there any anti-inflammatories? You said you’ve got a back and hip issue? [Respondent] Yeah, I’ve got all my pills in there. I’ll go and get them out so you can see. When I take my pills in the morning which is around half past six, I take my pills when I get up. come inside, wash my hands. Every morning’s exactly the same. That’s my procedure that I do every morning”. Despite Mr Goldsack initially claiming that he had not taken Diclofenac “for some time” given the date on the medication bottle of the repeat dispensing of it relatively close to the raceday event, it is clear that he must have obtained the repeat for his own medication after 29 January 2021. 23. The offence is one of strict liability. We find by a wide margin and are satisfied and well beyond the required balance of probabilities, that the Respondent presented the greyhound to race on that occasion at Hatrick raceway when it then had in its system the prohibited substance the anti-inflammatory pain suppressing NSAID drug, Diclofenac. It is not necessary for the RIU to establish that he knew this was the case, and indeed the evidence is that he was unaware of that, but he is strictly liable and required to ensure that contamination in some way did not occur. Accordingly, the offence alleged in the Information is proved. OUTCOME AND PENALTY 24.The Greyhound “LIGHT CRUISER” is disqualified from Race 12, the “BOOK YOUR FUNCTION @ HATRICK C3” at the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club meeting held at Hatrick Raceway on 12 February 2021. 25. The RIU referred to the Penalty Guide having a “starting point” for a Category 5 Prohibited Substance presentation breach of 6 months disqualification and/or a fine of $4,000. It referred the Committee to some other cases where fines of up to $2,500. It submitted that Mr Goldsack has had 2 previous breaches of this Prohibited Substance Rule (in 2009 and 2019) and was well aware of the absolute liability for breaches of this Rule. It said that despite the recommended starting point fine at $4,000, a fine in this case of $3,000 was sought. 26. As we have said, Mr Goldsack did not wish to avail himself of the opportunity to make submissions as to penalty. So, we have not heard from him as to matters of mitigation. He cannot claim remorse, insight, or guilty plea in mitigation as there has been none, But we gather from the evidence that his income is from ACC as well as training and racing greyhounds, although he, and his mother, before departing said he was quitting the Code and deposited his Trainer’s Licence on the Committee’s table. If that eventuates his finances may be limited. It is aggravating that he has previous breaches of this Rule with fines up to $2,500. 27. Presenting greyhounds to race when they have in their metabolism a prohibitive substance is, or should be, known to all Trainers to be absolutely outside the Rules. It is to ensure that the integrity of all races is not compromised so that the “contest’ is on an even playing field. Stringent care is required in the management, treatment, and care of the greyhound before being presented to race. That is a fundamental obligation and requirement of Trainer, and the integrity of the Code depends on it. Deterrence to others is a significant factor in a penalty sanction. 28. Given the benevolent approach of the RIU we do not impose a disqualification and fix the fine at $3,000. COSTS 29. Because the matter was required to proceed on a defended basis, and because Mr Goldsack advanced (amongst other theories) a claim that security at the Raceway was deficient, the RIU has been put to some expense, including having representation by Senior Counsel, and the presence of Stipendiary Stewards. Of course, Mr Goldsack had the right to present a defence, but his conjured up theory having failed to succeed, he must expect to have some costs orders follow. The orders represent only a modest contribution (approximately 60% of actual expenses incurred) to the expenses of the RIU and the JCA. He is ordered to pay the Sum of $1,500 towards the costs of the RIU, and the sum of $500 towards the expenses of the JCA. RESULT SUMMARY 30. (a) The breach of the Rule alleged in the Information is established. (b) The greyhound “LIGHT CRUISER” is disqualified from Race 12, the BOOK YOUR FUNCTION @HATRICK C3”at the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Hatrick Raceway on 12 February 2021. (c) Mr Goldsack is fined $3,000. (d) Mr Goldsack is ordered to pay costs of $1,500 to the RIU and $500 to the JCA. Dated at Wellington this 28th day of June 2021 Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair)

Now one from the Greyhounds. What was the level of Voltaren detected? NON RACEDAY INQUIRY RIU V B L GOLDSACK - REASONS FOR DECISION AND PENALTY DATED 28 JUNE 2021 - CHAIR, HON J W GENDALL QC Created on 30 June 2021 BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT Andy Cruickshank, Investigator Informant AND Brian Leslie GOLDSACK, Licensed Trainer Respondent Information No: A8722 Inquiry held at Whanganui on 24 June 2021 Judicial Committee: Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair) Mr LN McCutcheon (member) Present: Mr A Cruickshank, Informant Mr B Dickey Counsel for RIU Mr S Wallis and Mr K Coppins - witnesses Mr B L Goldsack, Respondent Ms J Goldsack assisting the Respondent Supporters of Mr Goldsack attending to observe REASONS FOR DECISION AND PENALTY OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 1. The RIU charged Mr Goldsack with a breach of Rules 61.1 and 61.3 in that: - “on the 12th day of February 2021 [he] was the Licensed Trainer and person in charge of the Greyhound “Light Cruiser” which was presented for and raced in Race 12 at the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club meeting [at] Wanganui, failed to present the greyhound free of the Category 5 Prohibited Substance, Diclofenac, being an offence under the provisions of Rules 61.1 and 61.3 and punishable pursuant to Rule 63.1 and 61.4 of the New Zealand Greyhound Association Rules”. 2. Rule 61.1 provides that the owner, trainer, or person in charge of a greyhound nominated to compete in a race shall produce the greyhound for the race free of any Prohibited Substance., and Rule 61,3 says that the person in charge of a Greyhound brought onto a racecourse for the purpose of racing, is guilty of an offence if the greyhound is found on testing to not be free of a Prohibited Substance. It is a strict liability offence. 3. Diclofenac is a Category 5 Prohibited Substance being a NSAID, (a non -steroidal anti-inflammatory drug/medication) used to prevent or alleviate pain, swelling and inflammation in animals as well as humans. It may be used to treat some eye conditions in greyhounds but is dangerous to the animal if ingested. 4. The general penalty provisions in the Rules provide for penalties of up to $10,000 fine, suspension, disqualification, warning off, for breaches, (Rule 63.1) as well as for disqualification of the greyhound from the Race in which it competed (Rule 61.4). 5. Mr Goldsack did not admit the charge and the hearing proceeded on a defended basis. 6. At the conclusion of the hearing, and after deliberating, the Committee found the Information to be proved. LIGHT CRUISER was disqualified from the Race, in which it finished 7th in a field of 8. After receiving submission as to penalty from the Informant we imposed a penalty on Mr Goldsack of a fine of $3,000 and ordered him to pay $1,500 to the RIU as a contribution towards its costs and expenses and $500 to the JCA in respect of a portion of its expenses. 7. We record that Mr Goldsack did not choose to make any submissions as to penalty. That was because after delivering the liability finding we asked Mr Goldsack to remain and present his submissions as to penalty as he was entitled to do. But he did not take up that opportunity, instead abruptly departing with a flurry of derogatory, abusive, and obscene outbursts directed at the Committee. 8. We now record our reasons for the finding and penalty. THE INFORMANT’S CASE 9. It was common ground and not disputed that the greyhound LIGHT CRUISER, jointly owned and trained, by Mr Goldsack was presented by him to compete in Race 12, the “BOOK YOUR FUNCTION @HATRICK C3” at the Wanganui Greyhound Meeting at Hatrick Raceway on 12 February 2021. It was subject to a pre-race swab before the Race. It finished 7th in the field of 8 and did not earn a stake. The urine sample was analysed by the NZ Racing Laboratory and found to be positive to Diclofenac, a Category 5 Prohibited Substance. It is an ingredient of the well known medication “Voltaren”. Diclofenac can be administered by such a gel but is commonly used by humans in tablet form for which a Doctor’s prescription is required. It is an anti-inflammatory drug designed to reduce pain, swelling and inflammation arising from injury or joint conditions arising out of arthritic or injury changes. 10. The evidence was that when interviewed by an RIU Investigator on 9 March 2021 and informed of the positive test, Mr Goldsack could not explain how the positive test to Diclofenac arose, other than to say his dog must have been “knobbled”. He insisted that he had not given LIGHT CRUISER any substance leading up to the Race other than a rub down with a Chinese medicated oil. He told the Investigator that he had previously taken Diclofenac for a back and hip condition for which he was on ACC, showed the investigator the prescription but said that he had not taken any of that medication “for some time“. 11. Mr Goldsack then spoke to the Investigator about an event that he said occurred one week earlier, on 5 February 2021. He said that he found a small container labelled Dexamphetamine near his kennels, which he said someone “must have left it there” as he had no knowledge of it. He said he “believed” that someone was trying to “knobble” his dogs. He then, on 5 February 2021 scratched his dogs which were to compete later that day. The container contained 3 pills and when analysed (after being given to the Investigator on 9 March 2021) by the NZ Racing Laboratory they did not contain Diclofenac but were found to contain Amphetamine. The Chinese medicated oil was also analysed and did not contain Diclofenac. THE RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE/STATEMENTS TO THE COMMITTEE 12. Mr Goldsack said that he believed some unknown person(s) must have administered the Diclofenac whilst LIGHT CRUISER was awaiting the Race as, he claimed the security at the Raceway was inadequate. Or alternatively he suggested that someone may have got access to his kennels – as he claimed had happened in the past, and administered a substance containing Diclofenac to the greyhound there. At the hearing, he offered a third theory, namely that some person may have got to his vehicle, in which the dog was present, at the Raceway, and “knobbled” it there. 13. He said that he had a week previously told the Stipendiary Steward about the possibility of some others “knobbling” his dogs (with a different substance), so when he presented LIGHT CRUISER to race on this occasion he asked of the Committee, rhetorically, “Why would I want to race the dog with this prohibited substance in it?” The Committee tried to make it clear to him that the charge did not involve any allegation of administering, but simply presenting the greyhound to race with Diclofenac in its system when he was not aware of that fact. 14. Mr Goldsack, in emotional terms, expressed criticism of the Stewards and RIU employees, claiming that for some reason a failure to follow up his claim to possible “knobbling” a week earlier has led to the Diclofenac positive a week later. 15. In his interview with the Investigator on 9 March 2021 Mr Goldsack outlined his feeding regime on racedays and said that his mother helped him because of his back condition. ISSUES 16. There are only 2 relevant issues. First, did the prerace swab analysis accurately disclose the presence of Diclofenac, a Prohibited Substance, and did the dog race when it had that substance in its metabolism? That is beyond doubt. My Goldsack accepted that fact. It is mandatory that the greyhound be disqualified from the Race (Rule 61.4). 17. The second issue is whether in terms of Rule 61.3 Mr Goldsack presented the greyhound to race when it had the Prohibited Category 5 substance in its system (a strict liability offence) and/or whether that might have occurred through 3rd party behaviour AFTER it was presented and before it raced. FINDINGS 18. First, LIGHT CRUISER must be disqualified from the Race. As it was unplaced this is of little consequence. 19. There is no evidence or foundation to support any claim by the Respondent that the dog may have surreptitiously been given Diclofenac whilst at Hatrick raceway. We have received and accept the evidence presented by the RIU as to the secure kennels, overseen by a security guard, and CCTV surveillance at the entrance of the kennelling area, whilst awaiting the Race. There is not a scintilla of evidence. nor even a remotely evidential foundation, to support Mr Goldsack’s conjecture. The evidence of the two Stipendiary Stewards (Messrs Wallis and Coppins) was persuasive, and we accepted it. There was no possible way that some third party or other dog handler, could have avoided the oversight of the security guards so as to get unlawful access to this dog. Mr Goldsack has simply claimed, without any evidential basis, a contrived or theory he has conjured up. 20. It follows that the greyhound ingested, or Diclofenac entered into its system before, or during, the transportation of it to the Raceway. The claim, or belief advanced by Mr Goldsack that someone must have “got to” the dog at his own kennel block is contrived. Even assuming for the moment an event, he claimed must have had happened the week before, then it would have given gave rise to security issues at his premises, of which he was aware, he thereafter had a primary obligation to secure the kennel block. 21. But there is an obvious explanation for the positive swab which is based on clear factual evidence. That is, that the Diclofenac in the dog’s urine was derived from the Diclofenac medication dispensed to Mr Goldsack for a back and hip complaint (for which he received ACC) pursuant to an October 2020 prescription. It appears clear from the photographs produced that a repeat prescription of the Diclofenac pills medication was obtained on 29 January 2021, 2 weeks before the dog was presented to race. It is a compelling and reasonable inference that we draw that by some error or laxness or oversight on the part of those caring for the dog resulted in, some contamination arising from this Diclofenac product occurred at Mr Goldsack’s kennels. The scenario advanced by the Respondent, namely that by reason of past events there was a suspicion that this substance was given to the greyhound by unscrupulous others, we do not accept as plausible, when viewed against the clear fact of Mr Goldsack having prescribed Diclofenac tablets in his possession and available for him to use to treat his back condition. 22. We reached the clear conclusion that somehow the Diclofenac possessed by the Respondent earlier from the prescription and its repeat was the cause of the positive analysis, and an absence of reasonable care occurred. The presentation by him of a different Amphetamine substance to the Steward, has no connection to the positive to Diclofenac which medication was in his possession 14 days before the race. In our judgement, it was used pursuant to the repeat prescription as medication by him at or close to the relevant time. In an exchange with the Investigator, it is recorded: “[Investigator] My understanding of what Diclofenac is it’s a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory. [Respondent] If it’s Voltaren based, I understand that. [Investigator] …in terms of medication that you take, is there any anti-inflammatories? You said you’ve got a back and hip issue? [Respondent] Yeah, I’ve got all my pills in there. I’ll go and get them out so you can see. When I take my pills in the morning which is around half past six, I take my pills when I get up. come inside, wash my hands. Every morning’s exactly the same. That’s my procedure that I do every morning”. Despite Mr Goldsack initially claiming that he had not taken Diclofenac “for some time” given the date on the medication bottle of the repeat dispensing of it relatively close to the raceday event, it is clear that he must have obtained the repeat for his own medication after 29 January 2021. 23. The offence is one of strict liability. We find by a wide margin and are satisfied and well beyond the required balance of probabilities, that the Respondent presented the greyhound to race on that occasion at Hatrick raceway when it then had in its system the prohibited substance the anti-inflammatory pain suppressing NSAID drug, Diclofenac. It is not necessary for the RIU to establish that he knew this was the case, and indeed the evidence is that he was unaware of that, but he is strictly liable and required to ensure that contamination in some way did not occur. Accordingly, the offence alleged in the Information is proved. OUTCOME AND PENALTY 24.The Greyhound “LIGHT CRUISER” is disqualified from Race 12, the “BOOK YOUR FUNCTION @ HATRICK C3” at the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club meeting held at Hatrick Raceway on 12 February 2021. 25. The RIU referred to the Penalty Guide having a “starting point” for a Category 5 Prohibited Substance presentation breach of 6 months disqualification and/or a fine of $4,000. It referred the Committee to some other cases where fines of up to $2,500. It submitted that Mr Goldsack has had 2 previous breaches of this Prohibited Substance Rule (in 2009 and 2019) and was well aware of the absolute liability for breaches of this Rule. It said that despite the recommended starting point fine at $4,000, a fine in this case of $3,000 was sought. 26. As we have said, Mr Goldsack did not wish to avail himself of the opportunity to make submissions as to penalty. So, we have not heard from him as to matters of mitigation. He cannot claim remorse, insight, or guilty plea in mitigation as there has been none, But we gather from the evidence that his income is from ACC as well as training and racing greyhounds, although he, and his mother, before departing said he was quitting the Code and deposited his Trainer’s Licence on the Committee’s table. If that eventuates his finances may be limited. It is aggravating that he has previous breaches of this Rule with fines up to $2,500. 27. Presenting greyhounds to race when they have in their metabolism a prohibitive substance is, or should be, known to all Trainers to be absolutely outside the Rules. It is to ensure that the integrity of all races is not compromised so that the “contest’ is on an even playing field. Stringent care is required in the management, treatment, and care of the greyhound before being presented to race. That is a fundamental obligation and requirement of Trainer, and the integrity of the Code depends on it. Deterrence to others is a significant factor in a penalty sanction. 28. Given the benevolent approach of the RIU we do not impose a disqualification and fix the fine at $3,000. COSTS 29. Because the matter was required to proceed on a defended basis, and because Mr Goldsack advanced (amongst other theories) a claim that security at the Raceway was deficient, the RIU has been put to some expense, including having representation by Senior Counsel, and the presence of Stipendiary Stewards. Of course, Mr Goldsack had the right to present a defence, but his conjured up theory having failed to succeed, he must expect to have some costs orders follow. The orders represent only a modest contribution (approximately 60% of actual expenses incurred) to the expenses of the RIU and the JCA. He is ordered to pay the Sum of $1,500 towards the costs of the RIU, and the sum of $500 towards the expenses of the JCA. RESULT SUMMARY 30. (a) The breach of the Rule alleged in the Information is established. (b) The greyhound “LIGHT CRUISER” is disqualified from Race 12, the BOOK YOUR FUNCTION @HATRICK C3”at the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Hatrick Raceway on 12 February 2021. (c) Mr Goldsack is fined $3,000. (d) Mr Goldsack is ordered to pay costs of $1,500 to the RIU and $500 to the JCA. Dated at Wellington this 28th day of June 2021 Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair)

REQUEST FOR A RULING - RIU & A SHARROCK - DECISION DATED 29 JUNE 2021 - CHAIR, HON J W GENDALL QC Created on 30 June 2021 JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY Information Nos: A8723 and A8724 IN THE MATTER of an application under Rule 918 of the NZ Thoroughbred Rules of Racing seeking a Ruling of the Judicial Committee Applicant: THE RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (Mr A Cruickshank), Racing Investigator Judicial Committee: Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair) Mr C Wilkinson-Smith (Member) DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DATED 29 JUNE 2021 1. Mr A Cruickshank, a Racing Investigator for the RIU, has filed 2 Informations seeking Rulings and disqualification of 2 horses which finished first in their respective races at the Feilding Jockey Club meeting at Awapuni Racecourse on 25 April 2021. 2. Those horses are ALHAMBRA LAD, which won Race 5, the “Carrfields Livestock 1400” and RELIABLE MISS, which won Race 6, the “Power Farming Manawatu 2100”. The Trainer of both horses was Mr A Sharrock. 3. Both horses were subject to post race swabs which upon analysis, reported to the RIU on 13 May 2021, were positive to the Prohibited Substance, Methamphetamine. Mr Sharrock and an employee had transported the horses to Awapuni, where they were boxed between noon and 3 pm before they raced. Mr Sharrock has not been charged with any breach of the Rules so is not a “Defendant”, and the application describing him as the “Respondent” is a misnomer (Indeed Rule 918 seeking a Ruling only applies when there is no Defendant). 4. Rule 804(1) upon which the RIU relies, seeking the 2 disqualifications, provides: ”A horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility and which is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance shall be, in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed, disqualified for any race or trial…in which it has started on that day 5. Rule 804(2) has no application as the RIU is not charging any person with an offence under that clause. 6 The sole issue before the Committee is whether both or either horses are required to be disqualified from the races in which they competed. The Owners of both horses were advised by the Committee of the applications and invited to present submissions. This has been done by them or others on their behalf. 7. The owner of ALHAMBRA LAD responded in a letter to the RIU, which has been forwarded to the JCA. He expressed criticism directed towards the RIU and others associated with the Awapuni Racecourse, in not providing what he said were adequate measures to protect Owners who face post-race consequences if positive tests arise from third party actions totally outside the control of a Trainer or Staff in charge of a horse. He, and others, have contended that the positive swabs came about, or were caused, by urine contamination of sawdust in the horse boxes through third party drug user(s). That presence of Methamphetamine in the sawdust was found 3 weeks later after testing on 14 May 2021. The submission on behalf of the Owners of RELIABLE MISS was that the positive arose from the urination by a drug addict before the horses used the boxes. There is no evidence before us as to when any contamination of the sawdust may have occurred and we are not required or able to make any finding as to that, but we record that the RIU has stated in its “Summary of Facts” its conclusion that “The contamination of the boxes by person/s unknown has been identified as the cause of the Methamphetamine positives…” so it must have had some evidence on which to base that view. 8. Submissions from both sets of Owners highlight their belief that it is unfair to disqualify a horse in such a situation where no fault exists on the part of Connections or Trainer; the testing system is too sensitive and what are said to be small traces of a prohibited substance ought not result in disqualification. The submission from RELIABLE MISS’ Owners challenges whether the level of this positive level “could possibly be performance enhancing” and contends that the Judicial Committee has a discretion under Rule 804(1) not to disqualify and it should apply “fairness and logic” and decline to order disqualification. 9. It has generally been accepted, and it is the stance taken by the RIU, that Rule 804(1) requires as mandatory the disqualification of a horse which competes in a race with a prohibited substance in its metabolism. The Rule says SHALL be disqualified. We have been referred to the cases of RIU v Brick Ramsay Ritchie and Manning (12 July 2019), [Positives to Methamphetamine in 3 horses at Pukekura Raceway where the evidence indicated that the horses came into contact with the substance ‘’via unknown ingestion, inhalation or contamination in or around the yards “of the raceway and “… the Trainers could not have done anything to prevent the positive swabs from occurring”]: and RIU v Barron (11 November 2016, [a Harness Racing decision where the mandatory disqualification followed upon a positive swab analysis where there had been unintended contamination of an anaesthetic drug (used in the gelding of a colt) which had rested for a time in a paddock later used by a filly raced by Mr Barron. The only explanation was some cross contamination occurred, but the horse was disqualified, and no charges were preferred against the Trainer, who was without fault. 10. The purpose of Rule 804 (1) is to ensure that the result of a race is to be governed by all horses competing on “equal terms or a level playing field” – as is the case in athletic competitions governed by the WADA (World Anti Doping Rules) where disqualification from an event or competition is mandatory and follows where a competitor (often unknowingly) has a prohibited substance in his or her body. The integrity of the competition, and in horse racing the race, has required such an outcome. The prohibited substance is simply that which is described in the Rules. Arguments that a substance is not “performance enhancing” are sometimes made, but have no bearing, because some prohibited substances may inhibit or detract from performance, (ie. not “enhance”) and others are prohibited because they mask or hide the presence of other illegal substances. The substances are not necessarily prohibited because they may ”enhance performance” and that criteria is not encompassed in the Rule. 11. The claim by one submission we received was that a low level in which the prohibited substance is present in the animal was relevant in deciding disqualification, because the testing is so sensitive. Unfortunately, this ignores the Rule which defines a “Prohibited Substance) and the fact that with some substances (for example Cobalt) they only become “Prohibited” when found on analysis to be above a certain defined level. But with Methamphetamine there is no prescribed level and the prohibition is absolute if, as here, no level is prescribed, the presence of the prohibitive substance will infringe the Rule. 12. It needs it to be understood that the “brought to a racecourse “by someone when the horse has a prohibited substance in its body is the breach provision by that person. Naturally if the substance is administered on course by that person, it is a different liability (administration provision). But the disqualification provision, on a proper construction of the Rule and its purpose, applies if the horse races with a prohibited substance in its metabolism, whenever or by whatever means that occurred. Of course, if it does not race it cannot be disqualified. But the proper application of the Rule does not require the substance to be ingested before the horse is brought onto the racecourse – such a proposition for the disqualification purpose would be nonsensical. The purpose and intent of the Rule (as it relates to disqualification) - applying the required “purposive” approach in interpretation of Regulations is to require disqualification “for any race in which [the horse] has started that day” where on later analysis it is found to have competed with the prohibited substance in its system. 13. We are unable to accept the argument put forward in one submission, that the Rule affords a discretion to the Committee to not disqualify because of the word “may’ appears in the Rule. But that relates ONLY to such other penalties or sanctions which may in the Committee’s discretion follow after disqualification. It has no relationship to the word “SHALL” which applies to the first requirement to order disqualification. 14. We recognise the plight, even anguish, that is cast upon Owners and Trainers in these situations. They lose the stake, and a percentage of that to the Trainer, as well as a grading level of the horse, and we are sympathetic to them for the consequences. But the Rule is clear, having been often applied, to ensure the integrity of the racing competitions and it requires that the RIU and JCA applies the Rules which govern all who participate, and which require that all compete on a “level playing field”. It is mandatory. 15. Accordingly (a) ALHAMBRA LAD is disqualified from the “Carrfields Livestock 1400, Race 5 at the Feilding Jockey Club Meeting on 25 April 2021. (b) RELIABLE MISS is disqualified from Race 6, the Power Farming Manawatu 2100” at the Feilding Jockey Club Meeting on 25 April 2021. (c) The payments of stakes to the other horses in such races, in accordance with the revised placings, is authorised. 16. There is no order as to costs. By the Committee dated this 29th day of June 2021 Hon J W Gendall QC (Chair)

Fair treatment On participant fairness, GRV refuses to recognise the impact of the extensive issue of feed or other cross-contamination and actively promotes rules or policies that treat participants like criminals in all but name for obviously accidental occurrences, where race and welfare impact is non-existent. It recently, with a tin ear, indicated a doubling down of this. GRV refuses to listen to and action real concerns. It routinely approves rule changes, then ‘consults’ on them. There is a distinct culture at GRV of treating participants as little more than serfs. We no longer have confidence in GRV treating participants fairly and respectfully.

CALL TO ACTION - SAFE RACING, FAIR TREATMENT, FAIR PAY - 3 July 2021 19/06/2021 10:00 AM | Anonymous 19 June 2021 OPEN LETTER TO VICTORIAN GREYHOUND RACING PARTICIPANTS NO CONFIDENCE IN GREYHOUND RACING VICTORIA (GRV) - A call to action The Greyhound Owners Trainers and Breeders Association of Victoria Inc (GOTBA Vic) represents Victorian greyhound racing participants. We no longer have confidence in Greyhound Racing Victoria (GRV). Nor should you. GOTBA Vic believes Victorian greyhound participants need to take action for fair pay, fair treatment and safe racing. Action will occur, first on 3 July 2021. We have support from large, medium and small kennels for it. Stand together to get change. Stay tuned for further details. THE GOALS ISSUE GOAL Safe racing GRV to commit in writing to a 5 and 10 year club works program, with a committed funding path, implementing key recommendation of major independent track safety reports. Fair pay - Participant returns GRV written commitment to return 50% of its gross annual income to participants annually, on and from 1 July 2022, to fix continued slide in participant share of the sport’s income. Fair treatment A commitment to introduce contaminant threshold levels across a range of commonly found feed and environment contaminants. By appointment only private property inspections in all circumstances save where a rule breach affecting greyhound welfare is known or reasonably suspected. Basis for knowledge or suspicion to be delivered in writing on inspection. A commitment to not pursue rule/policy changes without publicly released cost / benefit analysis, prior participant input and pre-change written feedback on consideration of that input. GRV management Independent external costs review of GRV administration, to be publicly released. WHY THIS IS CRITICAL For many years your GOTBA has advocated, from a participant perspective, issues that have real impact on the lives of participants and the care and welfare of their greyhounds. Since 2015, participants have driven and effected necessary change, at significant financial and other cost. For several years, but again recently, GOTBA Vic has raised concerns re track safety, sinking participant returns per race / as a share of GRV income, and participant fairness. We have done this with GRV, the Office of Racing and the Minister. Issues are well past critical. In GRV, under its current leadership, we have an arrogant, disingenuous (see table in Schedule 1) administration, hardwired to put participants last, usually under cover of faux marketing speak. You are not respected in action. Consultation is only a catchphrase. Promises of change made and then immediately forgotten are standard. GRV changes nothing in lasting form, offers more of the same and its fellow bureaucrats support that. Fair pay On participant returns, on a per race/meeting basis (the only basis that matters), Victoria has gone from first Australia wide to near last under the current administration. It is Australia’s most costly per meeting greyhound jurisdiction to run racing. Participation costs – compliance, basic feed, ancillary racing (eg catching) costs - have mushroomed in this time. When last reported, participants received LESS PER MEETING ON AVERAGE THAN 6 YEARS AGO. GRV has for seven years driven participant % returns lower to fund exploding wage bills for administrators, consultant fees and media contracts. The money is not going to clubs (particularly coursing). It has not gone to infrastructure. Participants returns have been – are - diverted to the tune of $7m -$10m per year. Major, permanent change is needed. This is not all about individual increases. In March 2021 GRV refused point blank to guarantee ANY minimum % return of its income to participants. You (therefore your greyhounds too) do NOT get a fair share. Check out the table at the end of this letter. ‘Record prizemoney’ is a charade. On prizemoney, GRV will likely return in financial year 20-21 the lowest % of its revenue to participants this century: disguised under cover of unwarranted – and unconsulted – race program expansion used to fund administrative cost blowout. This expansion strategy is bad for you, bad for your ability to care for dogs, bad for the ability to rehome more of them and bad for track safety (trial and race load on tracks with persistently long-term underfunded infrastructure). We no longer have confidence in GRV permanently giving fair pay to participants. Safe racing On track safety, GRV has failed to action many independent expert track safety recommendations. Capital expenditure was habitually deferred pre-COVID to minimise GRV losses. Despite major trainers in 2020 coming together with track preparation concerns in crisis meetings in which promises were made by GRV, we still see, for example, unsafe racing and major injuries after extensive harrowing of tracks far too close to meetings/trials. We no longer have confidence in GRV ensuring safe racing. Fair treatment On participant fairness, GRV refuses to recognise the impact of the extensive issue of feed or other cross-contamination and actively promotes rules or policies that treat participants like criminals in all but name for obviously accidental occurrences, where race and welfare impact is non-existent. It recently, with a tin ear, indicated a doubling down of this. GRV refuses to listen to and action real concerns. It routinely approves rule changes, then ‘consults’ on them. There is a distinct culture at GRV of treating participants as little more than serfs. We no longer have confidence in GRV treating participants fairly and respectfully. WHY PARTICPANT ACTION IS NEEDED GOTBA Vic has received no comfort from GRV that the current administration gets it, or participant anger. GRV tries to freeze out critics. Pushed into any corner, it makes long term, vague ‘promises’ that it bins. No change will happen…unless you make it happen. GRV will respect participants only through collective action that continues until goals are achieved. We call on Victorian participants. Nothing will change unless you make it. THE COMMITTEE GOTBA VICTORIA

Strike to halt Victorian greyhound racing ST Greyhounds page. David Burnett’s brilliant sprinter Simon Told Helen winning this year’s Group 1 Harrison Dawson Final at The Meadows in Melbourne. Photo Credit: Clint Anderson. By Adam Dobbin 02:33pm • 30 June 2021 0 Comments Victorian greyhound racing will come to a standstill this Saturday as owners and trainers vote with their feet and follow through on proposed strike action. Three race meetings were scheduled but with a mere 10 nominations received in total, The Meadows, Cranbourne and Ballarat programs are set to be abandoned. The move – which will see participants’ leave north of $100,000 in prizemoney on the table – has been designed to deliver a stern message to Greyhound Racing Victoria (GRV) about participant dissatisfaction across a variety of issues. Grievances around prizemoney, track maintenance, cross contamination and participant treatment are at the height of their concerns which has ultimately led to the strike action, driven by the Victorian Greyhound, Owners, Breeders & Trainers Association (GOBTA). “The response to Saturday’s strike action shows participants as a collective are right behind our stance,” GOBTA’s Greg Doyle said. “The level of support to this action is overwhelming and should demonstrate to GRV the discontent that’s out there which perhaps they didn’t quite realise until now. “For the GOTBA we are all about continuing dialogue and delivering on what’s best for the industry because at the end of the day we all want to see the sport flourish.” Champion trainer Robert Britton says there’s a high level of frustration among participants. In the last 24 hours, discussions between GRV and the GOTBA have recommenced with Doyle buoyed by the spirit of those talks. “Without going into detail we’ve had a conversation with (GRV CEO) Alan Clayton and while nothing has been resolved as yet the discussion was productive,” Doyle said. “There seems a willingness to compromise on some issues and there’s a better understanding of each other’s positions on other matters. “But at the end of the day you can talk and consult for as long as you like but ultimately it’s the actions you undertake that matters. “And to now that’s what’s been lacking and why we have proceeded with Saturday’s action.” Champion trainer Robert Britton has been in the front line of the campaign, declaring that the disconnect between participants and GRV has never been greater. Britton has been involved in greyhound racing for more than 50 years and says he’s “never seen such frustration and anger among participants”. “GRV sees its own administration as the core of the industry and looks upon participants as subjects to be managed rather than people who invest, take risks, do the right thing and ultimately work really hard,” he said. “It’s really easy for administrators not to consult, not to really engage with input, not to take on board concerns, but this administration has taken it to the next level.” Greyhound Racing Victoria chief Alan Clayton (left) Picture: Clint Anderson A fortnight ago, GRV announced a $6m injection in prizemoney for the 2021/22 racing season but the GOTBA argues that more needs to be done. “Participant share of industry income was 53 per cent a few years back while last year it was 43 per cent despite surging revenue,” Britton said. “And in that time our costs have continued to skyrocket. “What the participants want is to be a true partner in the industry deriving a fixed percentage of what the sport generates. “If the sport booms then participants share in that should be just the same as if it flounders. “But it’s important that everyone understands this is not just about prizemoney. We want to see our clubs and tracks with better funding, plus a plan for track upgrades and infrastructure to ensure our tracks can maintain the highest possible standards for the dogs well into the future.” In response to Saturday’s strike action, GRV chief executive Alan Clayton said his organisation will continue discussions with participants. “GRV is continually in discussion with the GOTBA in relation to issues raised by the organisation,” Clayton said. “As to the racing program, nominations are currently still open for Saturday’s race meetings.”

Covid19 – the final nail in coffin of medical research 215 Replies 28th June 2021 “The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.” Edward Grey Several years ago, I wrote a book called Doctoring Data. It was my attempt to help people navigate their way through medical headlines and medical data. One of the main reasons I was stimulated to write it, is because I had become deeply concerned that science, especially medical science, had been almost fully taken over by commercial interests. With the end result that much of the data we were getting bombarded with was enormously biased, and thus corrupted. I wanted to show how some of this bias gets built in. I was not alone in my concerns. As far back as 2005, John Ioannidis wrote the very highly cited paper ‘Why most Published Research Findings are False’. It has been downloaded and read by many, many, thousands of researchers over the years, so they can’t say they don’t know: ‘Moreover for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.’1 Marcia Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for twenty years, wrote the following. It is a quote I have used many times, in many different talks: ‘It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.’ Peter Gotzsche, who set up the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, and who was booted out of said Cochrane collaboration for questioning the HPV vaccine (used to prevent cervical cancer) wrote the book. ‘Deadly Medicine and Organised Crime. [How big pharma has corrupted healthcare]’. The book cover states… ‘The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don’t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs… virtually everything we know about drugs is what the companies have chosen to tell us and our doctors… if you don’t believe the system is out of control, please e-mail me and explain why drugs are the third leading cause of death.’ Richard Smith edited the British Medical Journal (BMJ) for many years. He now writes a blog, amongst other things. A few years ago, he commented: ‘Twenty years ago this week, the statistician Doug Altman published an editorial in the BMJ arguing that much medical research was of poor quality and misleading. In his editorial entitled ‘The scandal of Poor Medical Research.’ Altman wrote that much research was seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative sample, small sample, incorrect methods of analysis and faulty interpretation… Twenty years later, I feel that things are not better, but worse… In 2002 I spent eight marvellous weeks in a 15th palazzo in Venice writing a book on medical journals, the major outlets for medical research, and the dismal conclusion that things were badly wrong with journals and the research they published. My confidence that ‘things can only get better’ has largely drained away.’ Essentially, medical research has inexorably turned into an industry. A very lucrative industry. Many medical journals now charge authors thousands of dollars to publish their research. This ensures that it is very difficult for any researcher, not supported by a university, or a pharmaceutical company, to afford to publish anything, unless they are independently wealthy. The journals then have the cheek to claim copyright, and charge money to anyone who actually wants to read, or download the full paper. Fifty dollars for a few on-line pages! They then bill for reprints, they charge for advertising. Those who had the temerity to write the article get nothing – and nor do the peer reviewers. It is all very profitable. Last time I looked the Return on Investment (profit) was thirty-five per-cent for the big publishing houses. It was Robert Maxwell who first saw this opportunity for money making. Driven by financial imperative, the research itself has also, inevitably, become biased. He who pays the paper calls the tune. Pharmaceutical companies, food manufacturers and suchlike. They can certainly afford the publication fees. In addition to all the financial and peer-review pressure, if you dare swim against the approved mainstream views you will, very often, be ruthlessly attacked. As many people know, I am a critic of the cholesterol hypothesis, along with my band of brothers…we few, we happy few. In the 1970s, Kilmer McCully, who plays double bass in our band, was looking into a cause of cardiovascular disease that went against the mainstream view. This is what happened to him: ‘Thomas N. James, a cardiologist and president of the University of Texas Medical Branch who was also the president of the American Heart Association in 1979 and ’80, is even harsher [regarding the treatment of McCully]. ”It was worse than that – you couldn’t get ideas funded that went in other directions than cholesterol,” he says. ”You were intentionally discouraged from pursuing alternative questions. I’ve never dealt with a subject in my life that elicited such an immediate hostile response.” It took two years for McCully to find a new research job. His children were reaching college age; he and his wife refinanced their house and borrowed from her parents. McCully says that his job search developed a pattern: he would hear of an opening, go for interviews and then the process would grind to a stop. Finally, he heard rumors of what he calls ”poison phone calls” from Harvard. ”It smelled to high heaven,” he says.’ McCully says that when he was interviewed on Canadian television after he left Harvard, he received a call from the public-affairs director of Mass. General. ”He told me to shut up,” McCully recalls. ”He said he didn’t want the names of Harvard and Mass. General associated with my theories.’ 2 More recently, I was sent a link to an article outlining the attacks made on another researcher who published a paper which found that being overweight meant having a (slightly) lower risk of death than being of ‘normal weight. This, would never do: ‘A naïve researcher published a scientific article in a respectable journal. She thought her article was straightforward and defensible. It used only publicly available data, and her findings were consistent with much of the literature on the topic. Her coauthors included two distinguished statisticians. To her surprise her publication was met with unusual attacks from some unexpected sources within the research community. These attacks were by and large not pursued through normal channels of scientific discussion. Her research became the target of an aggressive campaign that included insults, errors, misinformation, social media posts, behind-the-scenes gossip and maneuvers, and complaints to her employer. The goal appeared to be to undermine and discredit her work. The controversy was something deliberately manufactured, and the attacks primarily consisted of repeated assertions of preconceived opinions. She learned first-hand the antagonism that could be provoked by inconvenient scientific findings. Guidelines and recommendations should be based on objective and unbiased data. Development of public health policy and clinical recommendations is complex and needs to be evidence-based rather than belief-based. This can be challenging when a hot-button topic is involved.’ 3 Those who lead the attacks on her were my very favourite researchers, Walter Willet and Frank Hu. Two eminent researchers from Harvard who I nickname Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. Harvard itself has become an institution, which, along with Oxford University, comes up a lot in tales of bullying and intimidation. Willet and Hu are internationally known for promoting vegetarian and vegan diets. Willet is a key figure in the EAT-Lancet initiative. Where is science in all this? I feel the need to state, at this point, that I don’t mind attacks on ideas. I like robust debate. Science can only progress through a process of new hypotheses being proposed, being attacked, being refined and strengthened – or obliterated. But what we see now is not science. It is the obliteration of science itself: ‘Anyone who has been a scientist for more than 20 years will realize that there has been a progressive decline in the honesty of communications between scientists, between scientists and their institutions and the outside world. Yet, real science must be an area where truth is the rule; or else the activity simply stops being scient and becomes something else: Zombie science. Zombie science is a science that is dead, but is artificially keep moving by a continual infusion of funding. From a distance Zombie science looks like the real thing, the surface features of a science are in place – white coats, laboratories, computer programming, PhDs, papers, conferences, prizes etc. But the Zombie is not interested in the pursuit of truth – its citations are externally-controlled and directed at non-scientific goals, and inside the Zombie everything is rotten… Scientists are usually too careful and clever to risk telling outright lies, but instead they push the envelope of exaggeration, selectivity and distortion as far as possible. And tolerance for this kind of untruthfulness has greatly increased over recent years. So, it is now routine for scientists deliberately to ‘hype’ the significance of their status and performance and ‘spin’ the importance of their research.’ Bruce Charlton: Professor of Theoretical Medicine. I was already pretty depressed with the direction that medical science was taking. Then COVID19 came along, the distortion and hype became so outrageous that I almost gave up trying to establish what was true, and was just made up nonsense. For example, I stated, right at the start of the COVID19 pandemic, that vitamin D could be important in protecting against the virus. For having the audacity to say this, I was attacked by the fact checkers. Indeed, anyone promoting vitamin D to reduce the risk of COVID19 infection, was ruthlessly hounded. Guess what. Here from 17th June: ‘Hospitalized COVID-19 patients are far more likely to die or to end up in severe or critical condition if they are vitamin D-deficient, Israeli researchers have found. In a study conducted in a Galilee hospital, 26 percent of vitamin D-deficient coronavirus patients died, while among other patients the figure was at 3%. “This is a very, very significant discrepancy, which represents a big clue that starting the disease with very low vitamin D leads to increased mortality and more severity,” Dr. Amir Bashkin, endocrinologist and part of the research team, told The Times of Israel.’ 4 I also recommended vitamin C for those already in hospital. Again, I was attacked, as has everyone who has dared to mention COVID19 and vitamin C in the same sentence. Yet, we know that vitamin C is essential for the health and wellbeing of blood vessels, and the endothelial cells that line them. In severe infection the body burns through vitamin C, and people can become ‘scrobutic’ (the name given to severe lack of vitamin C). Vitamin C is also known to have powerful anti-viral activity. It has been known for years. Here, from an article in 1996: ‘Over the years, it has become well recognized that ascorbate can bolster the natural defense mechanisms of the host and provide protection not only against infectious disease, but also against cancer and other chronic degenerative diseases. The functions involved in ascorbate’s enhancement of host resistance to disease include its biosynthetic (hy-droxylating), antioxidant, and immunostimulatory activities. In addition, ascorbate exerts a direct antiviral action that may confer specific protection against viral disease. The vitamin has been found to inactivate a wide spectrum of viruses as well as suppress viral replication abd expression in infected cell.’ 5 I like quoting research on vitamins from way before COVID19 appeared, where people were simply looking at Vitamin C without the entire medico-industrial complex looking over their shoulder, ready to stamp out anything they don’t like. Despite a mass of evidence that Vitamin C has benefits against viral infection, it is a complete no-go area and no-one even dares to research it now. Facebook removes any content relating to Vitamin C and COVID19. As of today, any criticism of the mainstream narrative is simply being removed. Those who dare to raise their heads above the parapet, have them chopped off: ‘Dr Francis Christian, practising surgeon and clinical professor of general surgery at the University of Saskatchewan, has been immediately suspended from all teaching and will be permanently removed from his role as of September. Dr Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in 2007. He was appointed Director of the Surgical Humanities Program and Director of Quality and Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Dr. Christian is also the Editor of the Journal of The Surgical Humanities. On June 17th Dr Christian released a statement to over 200 of his colleagues, expressing concern over the lack of informed consent involved in Canada’s “Covid19 vaccination” program, especially regarding children. To be clear, Dr Christian’s position is hardly an extreme one. He believes the virus is real, he believes in vaccination as a general principle, he believes the elderly and vulnerable may benefit from the Covid “vaccine”… he simply doesn’t agree it should be used on children, and feels parents are not being given enough information for properly informed consent.’ 6 When I wrote Doctoring Data, a few years ago, I included the following thoughts about the increasing censorship and punishment that was already very clearly out in the open: …where does it end? Well, we know where it ends. First, they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist Then they came for the socialists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist Then they came from the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist Then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak for me Do you think this is a massive over-reaction? Do I really believe that we are heading for some form of totalitarian stated, where dissent against the medical ‘experts’ will be punishable by imprisonment? Well, yes, I do. We are already in a situation where doctors who fail to follow the dreaded ‘guidelines’ can be sued, or dragged in front the General Medical Council, and struck of. Thus losing their job and income… Where next? The lamps are not just going out all over Europe. They are going out, all over the world. 1: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 2: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/10/magazine/the-fall-and-rise-of-kilmer-mccully.html 3: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033062021000670 4: https://www.timesofisrael.com/1-in-4-hospitalized-covid-patients-who-lack-vitamin-d-die-israeli-study 5: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14383321_Antiviral_and_Immunomodulatory_Activities_of_Ascorbic_Acid 6: https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/25/canadian-surgeon-fired-for-voicing-safety-concerns-over-covid-jabs-for-children/

Rule Number(s): 632(1)Following the running of Race 1 (Aquaholics Plumbing 3yo), Information A14452 was filed with the Judicial Committee. The Informant requested a ruling as to whether BUTLER received a fair start. (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 7 (Team Wealleans Tauranga Classic), Information A14453 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged by the Informant that Mr BR Jones, the Rider of KATIE PERRIE permitted his horse to shift out near the 175m when not sufficiently clear, this resulted in WHOSHE’S ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 649(1)(a)Following the running of Race 1 (Happy 5th Birthday Lucas Brosnan), Information A14426 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged that Mr Donoghue changed his boots and added spurs after weighing out. Mr Donoghue said that he understood the Rule, charge and confirmed that he admitted the breach. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article