Chief Stipe Posted January 28 Author Share Posted January 28 8 minutes ago, curious said: On those sort of matters, yes. On what basis? Do you have an innate ability to determine who is telling the truth and/or eliminate your own bias? At the end of the day a positive was returned, the RIB investigates, a descition is made, a penalty is given. But lets talk about it for the next 14 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 39 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: But lets talk about it for the next 14 years. You are the one who raised that case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloke Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 5 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Your point? One charge was for the anti-inflammatory Ketoprofen which can be legitimately used but has a withholding period. That was 2010 at Wexford. It was administered outside the withholding period but the hirse didn't clear it within 100hrs. Happens. I seem to recall something about a syringe in the stables on race day was that, Scott? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 28 Author Share Posted January 28 18 minutes ago, Bloke said: I seem to recall something about a syringe in the stables on race day was that, Scott? A link to the charge? I've learnt not to rely on recollection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 28 Author Share Posted January 28 3 hours ago, curious said: You are the one who raised that case. I did't actually. @Bloke talked about Scott having "prior form" supposedly with Maroney (I assume Ballymore). But hell how far do you want to go back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloke Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 19 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: I did't actually. @Bloke talked about Scott having "prior form" supposedly with Maroney (I assume Ballymore). But hell how far do you want to go back? Penny Gem was late scratched from the Kelt when Scott was caught injecting the horse prior to the race. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 19 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: I did't actually. @Bloke talked about Scott having "prior form" supposedly with Maroney (I assume Ballymore). But hell how far do you want to go back? If its consistently happening , which appears to be the case you want to go back as far as necessary. Most in the industry know this is one of the untouchable stables & very little will happen to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 29 Author Share Posted January 29 19 minutes ago, Bloke said: Penny Gem was late scratched from the Kelt when Scott was caught injecting the horse prior to the race. 21 years ago. Geez you sure hold a flame for a long time! Scott's actions, which were observed by a swabbing steward, led to the mare's late scratching. Following an investigation which revealed that the susbstance contained no performamnce enhancing properties, Scott was informed that he had a case to answer under the Rules of Racing "serious racing offence" category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 29 Author Share Posted January 29 14 minutes ago, Huey said: If its consistently happening , which appears to be the case you want to go back as far as necessary. Most in the industry know this is one of the untouchable stables & very little will happen to them. Absolute bollocks. If they are "untouchable" how come they get charged? I'd actually venture to say that those big stables are under more scrutiny than Ma and Pa Kettle with one or two battlers. Certainly if the attention paid to them on online forums is anything to go by - no one posts about the positives returned by less significant trainers nor do they go on about it for 20+ years!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Absolute bollocks. If they are "untouchable" how come they get charged? I'd actually venture to say that those big stables are under more scrutiny than Ma and Pa Kettle with one or two battlers. Certainly if the attention paid to them on online forums is anything to go by - no one posts about the positives returned by less significant trainers nor do they go on about it for 20+ years!!! You keep believing in the "Cobalt Fairy" and everything will be just fine Chief! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Green Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 So has anyone been able to locate where the cow paddock/trough is in relation to the stables? Very easy to put this to bed if the paddock is on the property where the stables are and the horses went out during the day for a graze which wouldn't be uncommon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 29 Author Share Posted January 29 8 minutes ago, Jim Green said: So has anyone been able to locate where the cow paddock/trough is in relation to the stables? Very easy to put this to bed if the paddock is on the property where the stables are and the horses went out during the day for a graze which wouldn't be uncommon. Does it matter where the trough's were? At least you agree that the trough explanation is feasible as a source of the Cobalt. Hasn't it been put to bed i.e. the RIB laid charges it the Judiciary dealt to it EIGHT years ago. There was a bigger issue which caused a lot of controversy in OZ i.e. false cobalt positives. The cobalt limit of 200 was a nonsense - conceivably a Vitamen B complex injection could acheive a positive with no performance enhancement. RIU general manager Mike Godber says while that may raise some eyebrows in racing circles he is comfortable with no loss of licence for the training partners. "We conducted a lot of tests involving what the horses eat and drink and we found there were circumstances where they could raise the horses' cobalt level past the 200 limit," said Godber. "We can only work on what we can prove and their explanation that the cobalt could have got into the horses through other means was plausible. "Which means they haven't been charged with administering anything to these horses but with presenting them to the races with cobalt in their system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 29 Author Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, Huey said: You keep believing in the "Cobalt Fairy" and everything will be just fine Chief! Your cynicism knows no bounds @Huey - what traumatic experience in the industry brought it on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Your cynicism knows no bounds @Huey - what traumatic experience in the industry brought it on? I surprised you don't spend your life scammed by Nigerian scammers @Chief Stipe such is your level of naivety. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Green Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Does it matter where the trough's were? At least you agree that the trough explanation is feasible as a source of the Cobalt. Hasn't it been put to bed i.e. the RIB laid charges it the Judiciary dealt to it EIGHT years ago. There was a bigger issue which caused a lot of controversy in OZ i.e. false cobalt positives. The cobalt limit of 200 was a nonsense - conceivably a Vitamen B complex injection could acheive a positive with no performance enhancement. RIU general manager Mike Godber says while that may raise some eyebrows in racing circles he is comfortable with no loss of licence for the training partners. "We conducted a lot of tests involving what the horses eat and drink and we found there were circumstances where they could raise the horses' cobalt level past the 200 limit," said Godber. "We can only work on what we can prove and their explanation that the cobalt could have got into the horses through other means was plausible. "Which means they haven't been charged with administering anything to these horses but with presenting them to the races with cobalt in their system. Yes of course it is plausible. Here's the stables,theres the day paddock that is dual purpose and here's the common supplement B12/cobalt we put in the trough for the cows which the horses obviously drink during the day and it's case closed. That may have been part of the report Godber made public. I assume it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 30 Author Share Posted January 30 33 minutes ago, Huey said: I surprised you don't spend your life scammed by Nigerian scammers @Chief Stipe such is your level of naivety. It's OK @Huey I realise most of your generation haven't kept up with horse training science in terms of treatments and nutrition but that's cool you just keep looking for spiders under troughs... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 30 Author Share Posted January 30 25 minutes ago, Jim Green said: Yes of course it is plausible. Here's the stables,theres the day paddock that is dual purpose and here's the common supplement B12/cobalt we put in the trough for the cows which the horses obviously drink during the day and it's case closed. That may have been part of the report Godber made public. I assume it was. I believe so. Not an uncommon practice to give horses in training time off in a day paddock. Stops them from getting bored and as an old trainer told me last night there is nothing better than grass to replenish any depleted trace elements or minerals incurred during training. Also conceivable that cattle went through those same day paddocks to keep the grass down and fresh - from what I learnt horses don't like eating tall grass. Plus why waste good grass when you can mow with dry stock. I realise I'm extremely naive according to @Huey but the way the stipes in NZ and in some states in OZ handled the cobalt issue was scientifically very flawed. Don't bother giving you horse any Vitamin B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Green Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 So its up to the people who believe it's not true to either prove there is no paddock/trough/cows or accept the decision. Evidence not gossip or assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 30 Author Share Posted January 30 23 minutes ago, Jim Green said: So its up to the people who believe it's not true to either prove there is no paddock/trough/cows or accept the decision. Evidence not gossip or assumption. Correct. However many question the integrity of the RIB so don't accept any explanation. Beside the fact that as the decision pointed out the RIB's (RIU at the time) investigation showed there were any of readily available feed supplements that could have given a reading greater than 200. There was millions spent on court cases in OZ on related issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloke Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 8 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: 21 years ago. Geez you sure hold a flame for a long time! Scott's actions, which were observed by a swabbing steward, led to the mare's late scratching. Following an investigation which revealed that the susbstance contained no performamnce enhancing properties, Scott was informed that he had a case to answer under the Rules of Racing "serious racing offence" category. True but Form is Form. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 5 hours ago, Jim Green said: So its up to the people who believe it's not true to either prove there is no paddock/trough/cows or accept the decision. Evidence not gossip or assumption. Why should that be the case when it's consistently happening with the same stable ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Green Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 24 minutes ago, Huey said: Why should that be the case when it's consistently happening with the same stable ? Its how the legal system works wether we agree with it or not 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 30 Author Share Posted January 30 29 minutes ago, Huey said: Why should that be the case when it's consistently happening with the same stable ? What do you mean by "consistently"? Which stable are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Do we know if this positive is to cobalt, or something else? The ruling for cobalt was flawed for one thing. There is no evidence cobalt is performance enhancing. The Australian court cases proved the injustice. Same applies here even though all trainers bar one put their hands up, and were charged as guilty. Every licence holder should be treated equally. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.