A Serious Question...

[Horace]

A serious question in that if you don't know the actual answer...don't guess😍

When horses are swabbed after races and the result comes back 'negative'...but...the analysts do find traces of prohibited substances ( lets say..morphine for example ) do the r.i.u. get informed? Even though the threshholds haven't been breached.?

[Chief Stipe]

Using morphine as an example is a poor one.  There is zero tolerance for morphine so one would have to say yes they would be informed.

Substances such as Cobalt that do have a threshhold will provide a measure.  If you had zero cobalt present in a blood sample you would have a seriously ill race horse.  

[Horace]

So you're part way there. Prohibited substances that show up in swabs, where there are threshholds...do/should the r.i.u. be told? And what should they do if thats the case...should those in charge of the horses concerned be alerted? Or if they're aready ' on the radar' what then. Seems to me that there are a number of issues in the pipeline and when mentioned comments like 'oh yeah we knew about that' etc are made. Or in the alternative connections claim absolute ignorance, say ' must have been contamination' when thats not the case if the feds are aware of near misses.

[Chief Stipe]

29 minutes ago, Horace said:

Prohibited substances that show up in swabs, where there are threshholds...do/should the r.i.u. be told?

You seem to be confusing two different things.  Prohibited substances generally have a zero threshold.  If they are present then it is classed as a positive.  The RIU does the testing (sure they hire a third party lab to do the actual work) so will be informed.

29 minutes ago, Horace said:

And what should they do if thats the case...should those in charge of the horses concerned be alerted?

They are alerted.  They must be as it is a positive!  What it seems they are not told is the level that was detected.  I believe that is wrong.

29 minutes ago, Horace said:

Seems to me that there are a number of issues in the pipeline and when mentioned comments like 'oh yeah we knew about that' etc are made.

For example?

29 minutes ago, Horace said:

Or in the alternative connections claim absolute ignorance, say ' must have been contamination' when thats not the case if the feds are aware of near misses.

What do you mean by "near misses"?  There is ZERO tolerance for prohibited substances.  It is either positive or negative - it isn't a maybe.

If you are talking about thresholds for something like TCO2 then those figures are published.

Stop beating around the bush - what is your point?

[Horace]

All in good time Chief.

[Chief Stipe]

On 19/03/2021 at 3:35 PM, Horace said:

All in good time Chief.

Here we go again another cloak and dagger story without any substance.

Afterall has a someone who as done the following I would have thought that you would be all for transparency and accountability.

On 16/03/2021 at 9:45 AM, Horace said:

I've bred/trained/sold/raced a number of horses. I've been involved at Committee level on a major club.

[Chief Stipe]

Horace maybe the NZ Feds should do well to remember what has happened in OZ.

Integrity board wants full disclosure in Laming case bungle

Charges against Richard Laming were abruptly dropped by Racing Victoria. Picture: AAP

Gilbert Gardiner7:51PM17 March 2021

The Victorian Racing Integrity Board wants Racing Victoria to provide a “full and public explanation” about the failed Richard Laming hearing.

The independent body has completed the first part of its review into the bungled case.

Racing Integrity Commissioner Sean Carroll has requested a separate briefing from Racing Victoria.

It comes after a respected trainer last week accused Racing Victoria of “shutting up shop” about its embarrassing blunder.

The VRIB has forwarded its determination to proposed disciplinary action against a senior steward.

The action relates to the steward’s conduct while giving evidence to the Victorian Racing Tribunal last month.

In a statement issued late on Wednesday, the VRIB ordered Racing Victoria make public its decision, once it has considered the determination.

On March 9 the VRIB requested additional documents surrounding the withdrawal of alleged stomach-tubing charges against Laming and two stablehands.

Racing Victoria supplied the information on Wednesday.

Commissioner Carroll will conduct his own examination of the matter “expeditiously”.

“The matter has received significant media attention questioning the conduct of Racing Victoria stewards and the integrity of the evidence given by them before the Tribunal,” Carroll said.

“Clearly, there is potential for damage to public and industry confidence in the integrity of the Victorian Racing Industry which demands independent assessment.”

Racing Victoria’s prosecution and enforcement processes will come under the microscope as part of the Commissioner’s own review.

Racing Victoria was forced to abruptly drop charges against Laming after identifying an undisclosed “issue” that made progressing the case untenable.

A full and public explanation about the circumstances of the withdrawal of charges will be delivered “as soon as is practicable”.

Victorian Racing Integrity Board chairman Jack Forrest QC said: “Accountability, transparency, and public confidence in the integrity of racing mean that there must be full public disclosure of the stewards’ conduct, including publication of details about relevant actions and the disciplinary action taken.”

Racing Victoria on Wednesday night confirmed receipt of the VRIB determination.

“RV has been and remains committed to making a detailed public statement at the conclusion of the review, including any action taken,” the statement read.

“The timing of this will be following the conclusion of (Commissioner’s) additional assessment of the matter.”

RV also confirmed the senior steward at the centre of the probe is on “restricted duties” pending the completion of the review.

“So as not to prejudice the review and the related assessment by RIC, Racing Victoria will refrain from making any further comment on the matter at this time.”

[Horace]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Here we go again another cloak and dagger story without any substance.

Afterall as a someone who as done the following I would have thought that you would be all for transparency and accountability.

Au contraire Chief! I bow to your all encompassing knowledge. I AM all for transparency, and another question for you or whoever knows the answer....since you say there is no ' threshhold' when it comes to positive results for prohibited substances..then I would have to assume its a ' fait accompli' when a swab comes back -positive'? i.e. all positives result in charges by the r.i.u. Is that correct? 

[Chief Stipe]

48 minutes ago, Horace said:

Au contraire Chief! I bow to your all encompassing knowledge. I AM all for transparency, and another question for you or whoever knows the answer....since you say there is no ' threshhold' when it comes to positive results for prohibited substances..then I would have to assume its a ' fait accompli' when a swab comes back -positive'? i.e. all positives result in charges by the r.i.u. Is that correct? 

Horace are you insinuating that the RIU are incompetent or corrupt?

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Horace said:

since you say there is no ' threshhold' when it comes to positive results for prohibited substances

There is a testing threshold but that isn't published as far as I know.  As with any test there is a margin of error however that is quite small now given the accuracy of modern testing.

The key is what level has a therapeutic or performance enhancing effect given that very small amounts can be detected.  That is where in my opinion zero tolerance doesn't work when environmental contamination is an issue.

[Horace]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Horace are you insinuating that the RIU are incompetent or corrupt?

Awww shucks Chief, whydya have to go and spoil a good chat with this type of shite?

( Is that what you think?)

[Chief Stipe]

13 hours ago, Horace said:

Awww shucks Chief, whydya have to go and spoil a good chat with this type of shite?

( Is that what you think?)

Excuse me but you may view my question as shyte but you set the standard with some hypothetical questions.  Although how hypothetical they are is questionable when you infer there is something more with comments like "all in good time"!

Based on the tenor of the majority of your posts this would appear to be another axe grinding exercise on your part based solely on inference, supposition and innuendo.

When asked to elucidate or be more definitive you evade answering.

Why don't you just spell it out?  At the moment you are casting aspersions on both the RIU and industry participants.

Now if we go back to your opening and second statement which we can only assume are hypothetical because you haven't provided any real evidence.

So distilling from your questions in your first statement we have the hypothetical scenario that:

1. That there are traces of prohibited substances being found in post race swabs;
2. Those traces do not meet the threshold for a positive;
3. Following on from 2. the RIU are not informed therefore the trainers are not informed.

Well that hypothetical situation as described is a nonsense unless the Lab the RIU are using is incompetent.  If the Lab is doing its job and even traces of prohibited substances are found then the RIU will be informed.  Now that being the case and the Trainers are not being notified then the RIU is either incompetent, corrupt or acting in a duplicitous manner for some other reason.  We have seen in the past where the latter has occurred.

Your second statement questions, again use a hypothetical situation i.e. that traces of prohibited substances have been found in a swab.  

1. Should the RIU be told?  Yes and as per above must be told.  I doubt that they are not told;
2. Should the affected Trainer(s) be told?  Yes, absolutely.  To not do so undermines the very reason for being of the RIU i.e. to maintain the integrity of the sport (more on this later);
3. What if the Trainer(s) are already on the "radar" what then?  Same answer as 2. - they should be informed otherwise the integrity of the sport is undermined;
4. Positives have been returned but not charged for some reason;
5. There are a number of issues in the "pipeline".  That infers that you know something is in the "pipeline".  Pray tell WHAT is in the "pipeline"?  As I said above to cast aspersions via inference, supposition and innuendo is to undermine the integrity of the RIU and ALL industry participants.

Now lets recap on the above and look at another hypothetical situation.  We all know that some of the RIU "Investigators" are ex-cops or close associates.  Their modus operandi is to assume that there IS drug cheating within the industry and that they just need to find it.  Acting as a model of integrity, a monitoring agency and as a deterrent is subjugated to that goal of finding the guilty.  That is ingrained in their investigative DNA and there is plenty of evidence to support that.  Their goal is to nail "perp's" to the score board using whatever means they can.  Afterall the ends justify the means don't they?

Well I don't need to rehash where that approach has got to both in the real world and in racing.

So back to the hypothetical.  The RIU have seen positives but have chosen not to prosecute.  Why not?  Presumably because they are chasing a much bigger target.  At this point all the Police/Crime TV programmes come to mind - binoculars behind hedges, dark coats, surreptitious surveillance, wire taps, informants.....all a bit surreal sounding isn't it?  Let's just call the operation something like Aztec Gold or maybe INCA?

Now there are a number of problems with this approach and I don't need to elucidate the real world and recent racing examples to highlight that.  But the bigger issue is the subjugation of the prime role of the RIU and the diminishing of their Integrity.  If positives have been returned regardless of what level then the RIU, the Trainers and the public should be informed.  Transparency equals integrity.

Failing to do that will result in more innocent victims, more carnage to the racing industry through negative publicity and most importantly disaffected punters and owners.  It isn't fair, equitable or justice.  Racing Victoria is being forced to address the issues caused by the taking the hypothetical situation I described and making it reality.

If it is those issues that you say are in the "pipeline" then you have my full support to uncover them.

Perhaps a question should be directed to Mr Godber - Is he aware of any positives to prohibited substances that have not had an information or charge laid?  If not, why not?

[Guest Whyisit]

9 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Excuse me but you may view my question as shyte but you set the standard with some hypothetical questions.  Although how hypothetical they are is questionable when you infer there is something more with comments like "all in good time"!

Based on the tenor of the majority of your posts this would appear to be another axe grinding exercise on your part based solely on inference, supposition and innuendo.

When asked to elucidate or be more definitive you evade answering.

Why don't you just spell it out?  At the moment you are casting aspersions on both the RIU and industry participants.

Now if we go back to your opening and second statement which we can only assume are hypothetical because you haven't provided any real evidence.

So distilling from your questions in your first statement we have the hypothetical scenario that:

1. That there are traces of prohibited substances being found in post race swabs;
2. Those traces do not meet the threshold for a positive;
3. Following on from 2. the RIU are not informed therefore the trainers are not informed.

Well that hypothetical situation as described is a nonsense unless the Lab the RIU are using is incompetent.  If the Lab is doing its job and even traces of prohibited substances are found then the RIU will be informed.  Now that being the case and the Trainers are not being notified then the RIU is either incompetent, corrupt or acting in a duplicitous manner for some other reason.  We have seen in the past where the latter has occurred.

Your second statement questions, again use a hypothetical situation i.e. that traces of prohibited substances have been found in a swab.  

1. Should the RIU be told?  Yes and as per above must be told.  I doubt that they are not told;
2. Should the affected Trainer(s) be told?  Yes, absolutely.  To not do so undermines the very reason for being of the RIU i.e. to maintain the integrity of the sport (more on this later);
3. What if the Trainer(s) are already on the "radar" what then?  Same answer as 2. - they should be informed otherwise the integrity of the sport is undermined;
4. Positives have been returned but not charged for some reason;
5. There are a number of issues in the "pipeline".  That infers that you know something is in the "pipeline".  Pray tell WHAT is in the "pipeline"?  As I said above to cast aspersions via inference, supposition and innuendo is to undermine the integrity of the RIU and ALL industry participants.

Now lets recap on the above and look at another hypothetical situation.  We all know that some of the RIU "Investigators" are ex-cops or close associates.  Their modus operandi is to assume that there IS drug cheating within the industry and that they just need to find it.  Acting as a model of integrity, a monitoring agency and as a deterrent is subjugated to that goal of finding the guilty.  That is ingrained in their investigative DNA and there is plenty of evidence to support that.  Their goal is to nail "perp's" to the score board using whatever means they can.  Afterall the ends justify the means don't they?

Well I don't need to rehash where that approach has got to both in the real world and in racing.

So back to the hypothetical.  The RIU have seen positives but have chosen not to prosecute.  Why not?  Presumably because they are chasing a much bigger target.  At this point all the Police/Crime TV programmes come to mind - binoculars behind hedges, dark coats, surreptitious surveillance, wire taps, informants.....all a bit surreal sounding isn't it?  Let's just call the operation something like Aztec Gold or maybe INCA?

Now there are a number of problems with this approach and I don't need to elucidate the real world and recent racing examples to highlight that.  But the bigger issue is the subjugation of the prime role of the RIU and the diminishing of their Integrity.  If positives have been returned regardless of what level then the RIU, the Trainers and the public should be informed.  Transparency equals integrity.

Failing to do that will result in more innocent victims, more carnage to the racing industry through negative publicity and most importantly disaffected punters and owners.  It isn't fair, equitable or justice.  Racing Victoria is being forced to address the issues caused by the taking the hypothetical situation I described and making it reality.

If it is those issues that you say are in the "pipeline" then you have my full support to uncover them.

Perhaps a question should be directed to Mr Godber - Is he aware of any positives to prohibited substances that have not had an information or charge laid?  If not, why not?

Have you ever seen the official reason why there was no charges laid with the 3 New Plymouth ?

[Chief Stipe]

20 minutes ago, Whyisit said:

Have you ever seen the official reason why there was no charges laid with the 3 New Plymouth ?

3 New Plymouth what?

[Freda]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

3 New Plymouth what?

Meth positives 

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, Freda said:

Meth positives 

I can't remember the detail on that one.  Wasn't it environmental contamination again?

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Whyisit said:

Have you ever seen the official reason why there was no charges laid with the 3 New Plymouth ?

Yes.  

Previous Positives

On the 24th November 2017 three equine Methamphetamine positives resulted from the New Plymouth TR meeting at Pukekura Raceway.

The proceeding investigation resulted in a RIU recommendation concluding that the three trainers not be charged for a prohibited substance presentation offence.

In the unique circumstances of their case the RIU considered all the facts and determined that none of the trainers involved should be held liable for the positive swabs. The RIU believed that the trainers could not have done anything to prevent the positive swabs from occurring.

The only commonalities in these three positives were that all three horses had been kept in the Pukekura Raceway ‘visitors yards’ prior to the race, they all wore saddle cloth #3, they won consecutive races and they had all been through the swab box process.

The evidence was summarised in RI Cruickshank’s report:

· There is no evidence that any of the Trainers has either deliberately or mistakenly administered or caused to be administered Methamphetamine to their horses.

· There is no evidence that the actions of any of the Trainers is negligent, careless, reckless, or otherwise which may have caused the positive tests.

· There is no evidence that any of the Trainers or their staff use or used Methamphetamine at or around the time of the positive tests.

· There is no evidence of swab officials using or having used Methamphetamine or being responsible for the positive tests.

· There is no evidence that the Barrier Attendants use or used Methamphetamine at or around the time which may have caused the positive tests.

· There is no evidence that the swab samples have been contaminated.

Conclusion

The evidence indicates that the horses have come into contact with Methamphetamine via unknown ingestion, inhalation or contamination in or around the yards of Pukekura Raceway between 1.30pm and 5.30pm on 24 November 2017. The evidence indicates that the three trainers involved should not be held liable for the Methamphetamine being in their respective horses

[Chief Stipe]

Oh and there was actually 4 cases at New Plymouth with the fourth occurring on a separate occasion.

All four horses were disqualified and the four separate trainers were not charged nor fined.  No culpability could be found.

Again as with all of these cases there was no mention of the level that was detected.  I imagine with the going rate of P it would be a costly exercise to purchase enough to have an effect.

[Guest Whyisit]

I think Jamie Richards was hard done by.

[Chief Stipe]

At around the same time as the New Plymouth cases Kenny Rae was charged for a similar offence.   Again it is assumed that environmental contamination was the cause.  One interesting aspect of this case is that the level is mentioned in the decision.  5 nanograms per ml.  A human can pass a workplace safety test with up to 60 times that amount I.e. 300 nanograms per ml.

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-k-l-rae-and-k-williams-reserved-decision-dated-26-november-2018-chair-prof-g-hall/?searchterm=Methamphetamine *

 

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, Whyisit said:

I think Jamie Richards was hard done by.

With the recent morphine positive?  Yes I would tend to agree however the owners of the mare were substantially more disadvantaged.

Again there seems to be considerable inconsistency in how these cases are treated.

The Kenny Rae case highlighted that stable security at Riccarton was virtually non existent.  In saying that though the majority of NZ racetrack stables are no different.

This problem is only going to get worse and there needs to a review done.

[Guest Whyisit]

Are any overnight or raceday stables, yards, boxes or even tie-ups considered drug safe in NZ ?

I didnt like the way David Ellis got the bums rush when he brought up the N P cases trainers not being fined  in Jamie Richards case.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Whyisit

[Freda]

10 hours ago, Whyisit said:

Are any overnight or raceday stables, yards, boxes or even tie-ups considered drug safe in NZ ?

 

No, and most aren't even clean.  As in average stable practice ( clean bedding etc) as opposed to some attempt at sterility. 

[Thomass]

On 19/03/2021 at 12:03 PM, Horace said:

A serious question in that if you don't know the actual answer...don't guess😍

When horses are swabbed after races and the result comes back 'negative'...but...the analysts do find traces of prohibited substances ( lets say..morphine for example ) do the r.i.u. get informed? Even though the threshholds haven't been breached.?

Seriously though Horace...go straight to the horse's mouth on this...because these blokes are no longer ACCOUNTABLE

The weekly radio show with Earily and Gobder"..where Earily at least asked some patsy questions has now gone...so they're a law unto themselves 

mike.godber@riu.org.nz

Email him and let us know...

While you're asking about that...maybe you could slip in the question...

'Why are the RIU pre race testing 70% of the time in the smalls like '?

Thatd be 'interesting' as well

Good luck

[Chief Stipe]

On 19/03/2021 at 3:35 PM, Horace said:

All in good time Chief.

How long is "a good time" Horace?

This month or next season?