Special Agent

Tony Allan said she was quite a difficult ride in trackwork early on so, took a bit of training to get her to those cup victories.

A Racing Minister should be aware of this. If not he will be now. MP's will be wary of not rocking the boat election year.

I'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If "lots" of things in training cause pain and discomfort to the horse, you need to change part or all of your training. To knowingly mask pain using a drug which, when used inside the withholding period produces a positive, you are contravening the New Zealand Rules of Racing. Using modern aids is not restricted to the elite level. Some of the best training efforts are witnessed down in the grades, getting a lesser horse to lift it's performance is no mean feat. You might find too that the aids used are tried and true ones from a past era. In this case Mark Walker has admitted culpability and will be penalised accordingly. And one more point, just because something is allowed doesn't mean it is right.

Those are great statistics nod. Peter trained some good ones, he was a Frank Roberts protege I think. The skills of those good old conditioners well lost. The horses trained by those types of guys looked out of this world in terms of fitness and muscle definition, especially when they didn't have trials and raced much more sparingly.

I find both of these comments silly. There are many high energy feeds that do not solely cause ulcers. I think you will find training methods and daily regimes would account for many more ulcers than what the horse eats. Who would try to race a horse only on grass? How many horses currently in training in New Zealand get an acceptable level of grass?

I'd be looking at the cause of the stomach ulcers, not the treatment.

If under 15.1 of the Standard Regulations for Race Meeting Regulations the Reefton club raised the stakes of each race by $5-$10K through sponsorship, community or trust funding you would be more than happy enough from the on flow of benefits.

I think what nod may be inferring is that bute to take away pain from an injured horse is humane but, bute as an aid to get to the races is a different topic.

So, what acute or chronic symptoms do not involve a severity of pain? If you are talking human symptoms that come under the acute or chronic banner they include asthma, broken bones and osteoporosis. Pretty sure those involve severe pain. Why is bute dangerous? I would think the same reason nerve blocking is dangerous. I suppose anything that has a withholding period by authorities is deemed to have some danger.

Because Fact #13 in the report of the inquiry said the anti-flammatory is for acute and chronic problems. He sure did win the race easily, obviously pain free.

Nod, I think a young horse being treated for severe pain prior to a race is a very good question?

In galloping I remember Anna Jones telling me once how she couldn't win. One week she was pinged for excessive use of the whip. The next week she was in for not trying all the way to the line.

I try to stay positive in everything I do which has been a hard task over the last 3-4 years. I find the idea of Socialism, Communism, a Social Credit System etc scary. I think you will find generally those who like these ideas will not include anyone who has worked hard for what they have. If I get some spare time I might give Davos Man a go with an open mind. I would take some convincing to change my mind on such matters but, on the flip side we must not be ignorant to what others think, otherwise how can we argue.

Don't you find NZ racing administrators have knee jerk reactions on a regular basis

New Zealand offers a semi-comfortable stay in an establishment that may be in a country setting courtesy of the King of up to seven years for bribery, whether the crime happened on our shores or overseas.

I was checking today's scratchings and thought of the Sam Lennox Bananarahma disqualification. That was another where a trusted vet was at fault. The horse was given an injection by the vet for a skin complaint 24 DAYS before racing, returned a positive and disqualified. Sam and his owners lost the race and stake money and, as far as I know the vet was unpunished.

There are so many good ideas coming out but, unfortunately the three codes will never work together. The problems are over complicated and not that hard to fix with some common sense and a bit of Kiwi ingenuity. Less talk and more action required. What has happened to Lisa is disgusting when galloping trainers have had little or no disruption to their training regime or income.

Better just clarify, the treatment was INSIDE the withholding period thus the positive swab. BUT under a veterinarian's care.

As this inquiry was dealing only with the race disqualification and the trainer penalty will be dealt with at a further date I thought of further situations others may find interesting. Shadows Cast was disqualified from a win because he returned a positive swab whilst being treated by a vet for a minor ailment using a product outside the withholding period. Trainer Mark Oulaghan was fined $4,000. Consequences for the vet ... nothing I believe. Green Aeon was disqualified from 1st and 2nd in two races. Trainer Todd Mitchell was not charged because the horse was treated by a vet using acceptable products within withholding guidelines, citing the horse had abnormal excretion rates. I think the "acceptable products within withholding guidelines" opens a can of worms looking at historical cobalt cases. In particular the Graham Richardson case with the mare that was placed in the Auckland Cup (name just escapes me, maybe Windflower). Authorities knew the mare had unusually high levels from previous swabs yet Richardson was not informed. The product used had "nil withholding" on the packaging. In other cases the same (or similar) product with "nil withholding" was used, off the top of my head included but not limited to Donald Caskey, Peter McKenzie and Tony Bambry. There are quite a few cases, all available online, with holes in the written evidence from galloping and harness that involve a lot of reading. I have to confess I haven't read up much on the greyhounds but judging by comments on here there must be discrepancies there too. The underlying problem to me, and many others obviously, is the inconsistency which when there is an overriding governing body ruling the three codes should not exist. As I've mentioned on the Greyhound Section here, a Royal Commission into how the RIB operates would be the best and fairest inquiry of all.

If Allan Sharrock can be exonerated for environmental contamination, why can't Lisa Waretini be treated in the same manner?

Too right re the INCA investigation. Inconsistent rulings are only as complex as the codes wish to make it. When RIU is governing all three codes it should be an even playing field.

So, and excuse me if this has been suggested on here before, as the investigations and rulings are inconsistent across the three codes, is the answer then a Royal Commission Inquiry into the RIB/RIU performance and handling of misdemeanours, swabbing procedures, thresholds and general rules/policies? Going by comments on here if a clean out is sought it may not just be licence holders who should be looked at.

Unless a bar leaner drives the dogs to the races, what is your point?

Yes it is strange to me also. As for being a victim because of colour or race, she needs a good old fashioned kick up the backside and told to grow up. As a licence holder she has signed up annually to abide by the rules, which includes some form of respectful behaviour. If you can't do that, get out.

When it's suggested to take meth users or affiliates out of the game that strikes me as being a form of deterrent. Is that totally a bad idea? As it appears meth positives are not from administering but, contamination why is evidence of such not treated in the same manner as Allan Sharrock's two cases at Awapuni? The horses were disqualified but the trainer was exonerated. How widely is pre-race testing with on the day results used? This would definitely eliminate the chance of any dog running with a prohibited substance on board, deliberate or accidental. Cost is always an excuse for not doing something but, the fall out from these positives is more than a tarnish and I think consistent pre-race testing could be well worth the outlay in the long run.