- This topic has 278 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Godolphin were going to provide MAZ with a legal rep but they withdrew the offer late on and he was left to defend himself. Everyone at the hearing was astonished when he turned up on his own. On realising this, the BHA should have delayed proceedings
Regarding Ors’s comments:
Yes, what he did was unprofessional, and ignorance is not usually a defence in the eyes of the law. However, there is a huge difference between knowingly flouting the law and breaking it because you weren’t aware of it, and the punishment would always reflect that
Godolphin and Bittar both stated at the hearing that they didn’t believe him. It’s their word against his, they don’t appear to have any proof that he didn’t know the rules. In fact, his behaviour has been entirely in keeping with someone who genuinely didn’t know
Until that is established, he should be treated at the lower level of offence
Regarding your assertion that a disciplinary hearing does not involve the same level of proof as a court of law, I would say that everyone should have the right not to have it stated in public (by their former employer and the governing body of the sport) that they are a liar, unless there is proof
Len
Interesting to see the old triangle at work here.Persecutor,victim rescuer.By the way why not challenge the winners of the two group ones last year trained by Al Zarooni I mean if the Australians are under a cloud for the running of BC at Ascot surely those very unlikely victories(Rewilding who broke down in his next race and Encke who was never heard of until winning a classic)incidentally against their arch rivals Ballydoyle must also come under a cloud.
I am not defending the use of steroids or turning a blind eye to any particular results. That is a separate issue
I am pointing out that, in a situation that may best be described as a kangaroo court, with just a matter of days to gather evidence, MAZ has been found guilty of deliberately flouting the rules and lying to cover his tracks, when certain aspects of the evidence appear to suggest the opposite
His name has been blackened by the post-hearing comments and therefore he deserves the right to reply to those strong, and potentially defamatory, accusations by the BHA and Godolphin, in a similarly formal setting and with a lawyer to advise him this time
That’s how it works in this country
Fact is Zarooni has been tested before Andyod and been negative. Those races you question were under the same NON-Performance enhancing drugs rules as we have now. But of course there must be a doubt about everything Zarooni has done in the past. Looking at Certify’s drug test – the main question I have is Blue Bunting’s 1000 Guineas.
May be Zarooni broke our rules in the past and got away with it, we dont know. But the point is Andyod – Australian trainers do NOT need to break ANY rules to get an unfair advantage.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 764
And I was really looking forward to betting on Opinion Poll this season
I can’t really see that he can claim he didn’t know the rules. It’s not like he’s a first year trainer after all, he’s been training horses here for some time. If you’re going to run horses internationally one of the most important things you need to do is know what and what isn’t allowed in each country.
I can list three pieces of evidence, all of which have been reported in the media, that suggest he may not have been aware of the rules
And here they are:
1) It’s unlikely that MAZ would have tried to get the drugs through customs in his suitcase if he had known they were illegal (ie not recognised by vets in GB) So much to lose, so little to gain
2) Handing over something to someone through a car window is not, as has been suggested by the BHA and the media, suspicious. Secret dealings are done behind closed doors, not out in the open where anyone can see them
3) The BHA claims that MAZ’s failure to record the drugs in his records is evidence that he was covering the matter up. But we know that his record-keeping has been habitually below standard – Crisford said that after the hearing
Len
And here they are:
1) It’s unlikely that MAZ would have tried to get the drugs through customs in his suitcase if he had known they were illegal (ie not recognised by vets in GB) So much to lose, so little to gain
2) Handing over something to someone through a car window is not, as has been suggested by the BHA and the media, suspicious. Secret dealings are done behind closed doors, not out in the open where anyone can see them
3) The BHA claims that MAZ’s failure to record the drugs in his records is evidence that he was covering the matter up. But we know that his record-keeping has been habitually below standard – Crisford said that after the hearing
Len
If he didn’t know they were illegal why didn’t he approach the stable’s vet to obtain them? That way presumably they would also have been recorded in the medical records, taking care of point 3 at the same time.
It wasn’t "something" it was 5 syringes of drugs and instructions on precisely which horses to give them to. Secret meetings behind closed doors/via car windows are by their nature suspicious until proven otherwise. Again, if there was nothing illegal going on surely it would have been safer/wiser to have a qualified vet administer the drugs. A jab of a syringe needle in the wrong place could possibly do untold damage to a valuable animal. Would any responsible trainer want to risk that if the drugs are all above board and allowed?
And here they are:
3) The BHA claims that MAZ’s failure to record the drugs in his records is evidence that he was covering the matter up. But we know that his record-keeping has been habitually below standard – Crisford said that after the hearing
Len
So what you’re saying Len is:
If you don’t want to log something illegal in to your records – make the rest of your record-keeping poor and those nice people will twist it to make you look innocent.
Value Is EverythingNo, what I said was that there was evidence 2 years ago that his record-keeping wasn’t good
There is no evidence that he deliberately omitted the entries in April
That’s the factual basis on which cases like this should be decided
Crisford told Nick Luck on C4 that MAZ had given 2 horses the drugs even though he knew the testers were on the way
Why would MAZ do that if he knew the drugs were outside the rules?
Interesting article by Nick Mordin in this weeks "Weekender" about how the evidence seems to suggest that two year olds in america and australia are given steroids- on average they are heavier than their counterparts over seas. He also suggests that it’s profitable to back US bred two year olds.
Ginger if what I read is true the evidence of the supplements would have worn off in plenty of time, the effects last for quite a while.I wonder about the breaking down of the horse next time he ran.In hind sight how explain the fact that after a big unexpected win Zaroonie’s horses don’t seem to pruduce their brilliant winning form again,if they appear again.So You Think also has a body which might lead one to think he too got growth enhancer drugs as a yearling.(Not to mention Frankel.)
Ginger if what I read is true the evidence of the supplements would have worn off in plenty of time, the effects last for quite a while.
According to an Australian expert Dr Tom Brannan of Flemmington Equine Clinic Andyod…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/super … 6627011132
…It seems although the drug may be worn off it is still performance enhancing, the muscle has been grown, which means the trainer can then "train the horse harder".
Value Is EverythingGinger if what I read is true the evidence of the supplements would have worn off in plenty of time, the effects last for quite a while.
According to an Australian expert Dr Tom Brannan of Flemmington Equine Clinic Andyod…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/super … 6627011132
…It seems although the drug may be worn off it is still performance enhancing, the muscle has been grown, which means the trainer can then "train the horse harder".
That was the ‘Dwain Chambers effect’ I was questioning earlier. The drugs may leave the bloodstream but the muscle advantage stays.
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.