the galah

Walkinshaw for sure. His read like it was not his fault.

Maybe you should actually read some of the Australia decisions relating to that.One in particular was investigated thoroughly. You see authorities produced evidence of a particular "tonic' being distributed to some trainers,knew that tonic had arsenic as an ingredient,had intelligence the trainer with the arsenic positive was an associate of the alleged distributor,but at the end of the day did not prove the more serious charge because those making the decision accepted there was arsenic in fence posts and what they had been painted with,and while it was unlikely that they would eat a product that was supposed to repulse them,they could not rule that the more serious charge was proved.

Do a hunter and have a guess.

Actually i did. And actually i have read virtually all of the cases you have referred to. You see its a subject i'm interested in,so i like to broaden my knowledge so i at least think i know what i'm talking about. I even used to read many of the aussie ones. the one i had sympathy for was allan beck as he was honest with the riu and admitted giving his horse a product which was the cause of the positive.He had done so not thinking it would return a positive,more negligent than intent. Because of his admission he was charged with the far more serious offence. And since then anyone who's horse returns a positive knows not to admit anything. How many times have you read the decisions of the jca where it has said the charge before them is the lesser charge and they do not have to rule on intent.

So that would be a no. By the way. Have you heard they do workplace testing for drugs now. They even have tests to see if you drive cars under the influence of drugs. What next will they come up with?

Noodlum i do think the way you and a vocal minority of others, argue this topic is a strategy that has worked in the past. That is make all this noise that those involved are being unfairly persecuted, that those doing the enforcing are all arseholes, and that authorities had better not keep going down this track otherwise there will be a revoult within the ranks. Nice work.

Noodlum,tell me did you believe Lance Justice when he said he had not given dmso to his horse in the timeframe alleged,despite scientific evidence saying his version of events was not plausable. And besides dmso makes a horse smell for a few days,but obviously justice had no sense of smell.

Noodlum,tell me did you believe nicky chilcott when she said she imported epo just to use in training,not at the races?

Tell me,do you think someone who may take,or supply people with drugs,would think twice about doing so to horses. Yes or no?

That observation just confirms you take what you want from anything related to this subject,and ignore whats right there in front of you.

I don't have an issue with your topic,just the reference to me stating i have said something i have not. In fact i have said the complete opposite. I have posted just that this week. In my opinion you do so because the merit in your argument is weak as relates to this topic. So you make things about personalities instead.

It does get tedious from my perspective as well. You say "then you turn a blind eye to the unscrupulous activity of the RIU". Well the likes of newmarket and i have a different starting perspective of what we view as acceptable or unacceptable,hence we have formed opposing opinions. You view the actions taken to uncover illegal activity as being more worthy of scrutiny than the actual illegal activity. As to alford. Not sure what you saying there.

You have hit the nail on the head there newmarket. Whenever there is mention of anyone getting a positive,you have this rush of support from the from a small but vocal group within the industry. The very same people seem to pick and choose who they defend.Those who criticised the riu over the mcgrath case,don't seem to care when it comes to J alford. They are hypocrites.

I didn't intrepret newmarkets earlier post to say any of those you have mentioned were not good people,were not honest ... I think what he was saying was history shows at times they have been shown to have horses race which have had illegal substances in their system,therefore because of that it is up to each of us to form our own opinion as to where the trainers mentioned currently stand in relation to the use of performance enhancers. I think that is a reasonable statement to make. As to mr mcgrath.Yes you can call him a cheat. But in his case i think that label does not really paint an accurate picture of who he really is in totality. I think if you knew him you would form the view that he was a very good person,and for some reason he compartmentalized what he did with his horses in a different box of standards to everything else he does in life. He quite rightly has paid a price for that,but i would say out of proportion to others who have behaved similarly in the past.

You work on the assumption that i believe those who have had past positives in their horses have all been deliberate, and also that past behavior means present behavior. I have not said that. I do believe that the best way to predict future behavior is to look to past behavior,but of course you have to factor in people learn from their mistakes. Its my opinion,so in my mind what i say makes sense to me. You call it conspiracy theory,because you do not agree with it. I would say you ignore the evidence supporting my views,and choose to interpret the evidence in a way that suits your entrenched opinion. My opinion has been formed over a period of time. The more i see,the more i believe what i say.

In my opinion there is only a very,very small % of trainers who currently would look to gain an advantage through the use of illegal performance enhancers. And this very,very small % seem a little spooked at the moment ,probably due to currently having a pro active riu in the enforcement of the rules.Personally i think the drop off and often inconsistent performance of that small % is evidence of that. Whether it be the top trainers,or the so called battlers,or the small time trainers,i think they all just want a level playing field. Some of the trainers i admire are paul nairn,mark jones,ken barron,michael house,the o'rellys,dunns but the list is too long to list,really anyone who is out there doing things by the rules,which is nearly everyone.

Where's the evidence to support your theory that a battler trainer is far more likely to try something dodgy than the trainers on your list? Name a couple of battlers with similar records relating to positives to those you have mentioned on the harness side? I don't see why you have singled out Mcgrath when the dunn,dalgety and the all stars stables have had just as many issues. Doesn't matter who they are,i don't believe anyone would give their horses something that they thought would return a positive if tested. You put the trainers you have mentioned as being better than others,fair enough.No arguement there from me.. But why do you think for some reason they are not ahead of the game when it comes to the use of performance enhancers that will not show up in testing. Thats are very selective approach.

What i said is exactly what i'm thinking. Why would i say something if i thought something else. I never said or inferred anything about race fixing. Did you even watch the races i referred to?

It is you that talk crap. Just go look at the times for the pacing cup. They ran the first 2200 in 3.08.They ran the first 2600m of the race outside qualifying time. If you compare aveross spitfires race,Aveross spitfire would have been over 200m in front starting the last 800m. Yours is a typical reply from you. In other words, those you like can do no wrong.Thats often how you form your opinions,and you just ignore the facts.

The main trotting and pacing races today would have to be a couple of the most uncompetitive races seen recently. Just like the J dunn drive on the $1.20 fav Need you now at auckland on friday,at oamaru we had sam ottley and ricky may on the hot favorites in both races, happy to position their horses where it gave their horses no chance of winning. All 3 previously mentioned drivers are very good,and would be trying,but anyone watching must be scratching their heads regarding the tactics. I'm not taking through my pocket,just making an obvious observation. Thats why non win races are often better spectacles than the higher grade horses.

Injecting a horse on the day of a race is of course illegal, so even if the substance injected is ok,then the act of injecting is in itself wrong. I think most are looking at this,and other similar recent cases upside down when they refer to the level of dishonesty currently being exposed. The reality is ,until recently, it has always been ignored,swept under the carpet,and in many ways enabled by some racing administrators and by those in the racing media who have attacked those who had dare suggest anything like this was going on,or attack those at the riu who dared try and expose light on illegal practices. Just read the harnesslink articles written by the likes of John curtin from a year or two back to see what i mean. What is being exposed now hasn't all of a sudden just happened. Surely no one with any sense thinks that. Instead of being shocked and disappointed,the focus should be one of positivity around the new norm,which is illegal practices will be investigated,and the sport is being cleaned up. Everyone should gain confidence because of that. Another point which i think is important. Before we judge too harshly those who have transgressed,the likes of Alford, we should add perspective. Its not their fault that they may have witnessed,or heard talk around similar illegal practices. I know everyone is accountable for their own actions,but it would have helped had the transgressors had a more realistic view of how accountability has changed at this present time,and how it would impact their lives.

I don't always agree with mr fitzgeralds views,but there is no denying his passion for the industry,and he has combined that with his other skills, to promote and encourage participation,among other things. I think he is someone who deserves a lot ofcredit,and is just doing his best in a tough industry. Because he puts himself out there i suppose he just has to develop a thick skin and carry on the good work..

As i have said before,i think the harness industry now is the most honest it has ever been. I think inca has had a lot to do with that,maybe somewhat indirectly in some instances, I also think many of the matters which have come to light recently have done so as a result of authorities taking action,whereas in the past they just ignored it all. Finally there appears to be consequences to dishonest actions. Also I think the lack of domination by the all stars is another obvious positive development in recent times.

No relation as different spelling of surname.

Whiplash you don't know your form too good. I actually boxed 4 in the quinella and got the quinella. Not saying i thought it could win ,but my ratings had it rated a clear 4th,based on the handicaps. So no form reversal in my opinion.