G'day Punter!

Sign In Register

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 117 Non Members

Race day treatments of Chester Rd and Maschino

West Australian Racing
RodentRodent    7,446 posts
edited December 2012 West Australian Racing
RACE 8: TABTOUCH.MOBI-KINGSTON TOWN CLASSIC - 1800M
All runners in this race were placed under guard from 5am this morning and Stewards inquired into
reports received from guarding personnel regarding substances administered to MASCHINO and
CHESTER ROAD. It was established that CHESTER ROAD received Gastrozol paste at approximately
5:30am this morning and MASCHINO received Electrovite paste at approximately 7:30am. Stewards
also took Veterinary advice from Dr Peter Symons who advised that the substance Gastrozol (ulcer
treatment) contained an ingredient that is excepted from the Rules as a prohibited substance and
Electrovite (vitamin and mineral treatment) which are also not prohibited substances. Both CHESTER
ROAD and MASCHINO were subjected to Istat blood analysis prior to the race and the results were
within normal parameters. After consideration of such advice Stewards considered the provisions of
ARR.178E(2) which states: The Stewards may order the withdrawal from a race engagement any horse
that has received medication in contravention of subrule (1) of this rule; and subrule (1) which states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of AR.178C(2), no person without the permission of the Stewards may
administer or cause to be administered any medication to a horse on race day prior to such horse
running in a race; the Stewards did not order the withdrawal of CHESTER ROAD and MASCHINO from
this race. In addition to standard pre-race TCO2 testing, both horses then also had post race urine and
blood samples taken for analysis and further Stewards took possession of the syringe used to
administer Electrovite paste to MASCHINO and it will also undergo analysis by the ChemCentre.
Trainers A. Durrant and G. Yuill will be required to attend an Inquiry into the above matter at a time and
date to be advised.
+1 -1

Comments

  • goosegoose    1,638 posts
    If I was the trainer of Maschino I would save my money and forget the electrovite paste.
    +1 -1
  • ablesonableson    27 posts
    agree
    +1 -1
  • ablesonableson    27 posts
    the injections the pastes might help trainers feel better , dont think does much for the horse , ranvet and vetsearch ect must be laughing all the way to the bank
    +1 -1
  • TroppoTroppo    3 posts
    it helps for a better recovery after racing may not be obvious to 'untrained' eyes. as for the ulcer treatment unles you have suffered of a painful ulcer yourself you will not appreciate the value of the treatment. Ulcer pain can cause further trapping of gas and the pain from a gas in the stomach is very high even in human.
    +1 -1
  • goosegoose    1,638 posts
    yes Troppo have had a stomach ulcer and the treatments definitely work as for the other stuff unless the horse already has a deficiency of some sort they are a waste of time but happy to be proven wrong very interested in equine supplements.
    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    so you all agree the horses should have been declared unfit to race and scratched...yep me too.. :)
    +1 -1
  • TheFunksterTheFunkster    3,840 posts
    Not condoning it, but you could probably argue that Electrovite is a supplement and not a "medication". It'd be tough to argue the same wrt Gastrozol
    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    true.....but it still raises the question of fit to race??? As long as you report it it's okay???? too many questions and grey areas for a feature race for my liking..But it is a fine line in either direction...i would scratch both to clarify it...but as an owner, trainer, etc who wants their horse medicated as normal, i understand that'd be really harsh....i have one that lives on ulcer guard, so i really do sympathize with them.
    +1 -1
  • careycarey    6,424 posts
    guest wing
    +1 -1
  • ArloArlo    122 posts
    Every trainer would know the rule about treatments on race day. If they break the rule the horse should not run!
    How could the Stewards possibly know what was given to the horses before the race, they should not simply accept being told that it was just an ulcer treatment or electrolytes.
    With regard to treatment with Gastrozol, any horse that has regular doses would be on a maintenance dose and would suffer no detriment if the trainer dosed the horse when it got home after the race,.
    It is time the Stewards started protecting those who wish to abide by the rules and penalize those that wish to break them. It is quite simple really.
    +1 -1
  • ArloArlo    122 posts
    So withdraw the horses from the race and then hold the enquiry.
    +1 -1
  • thefalconthefalcon    20,471 posts
    the RVL enquiry could not have come at a worse time for durrant and yuill.
    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    but it also should have served as a warning to them to not try to bend the rules, due to what those guys are going through..but still they did..I don’t know either trainer but it reeks of contempt for the rules..
    +1 -1
  • TucoolTucool    174 posts
    Rules are Rules both should have been scratched immediately with enquiry to held at a later on. [-X
    +1 -1
  • tonytony    2,436 posts
    edited December 2012


    In this case you are wrong RIO. The rules clearly give the stewards discretionary power in this case and as Carey mentioned earlier in the thread there was a similar case with Guest Wing when he then won the Perth Cup in Jan last year.

    Brad Lewis mentioned the GW case when talking with Wes on radio this morning. (Actually Wes may have mentioned it to Brad first)
    +1 -1
  • thefalconthefalcon    20,471 posts
    GW was pretty blatant...but, look who the owner was.
    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    in that case i am a dickhead..i read the above as is and didn't interpret it properly...Studio 69 i am sorry for calling you a dickhead..Although then again i have a history of being wrong!!!!!

    Notwithstanding the provisions of AR.178C(2), no person without the permission of the Stewards may
    administer or cause to be administered any medication to a horse on race day prior to such horse
    running in a race;

    From the above i read that as meaning they had to gain permission to administer medication before administering it...but I'm happy to stand corrected Tony...or do you mean that it has happened before???
    +1 -1
  • tonytony    2,436 posts
    RIO
    The relevant rule is

    (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of AR 178C(2), no person without the permission of the Stewards may administer or cause to be administered any medication to a horse on race day prior to such horse running in a race.
    (2) The Stewards may order the withdrawal from a race engagement any horse that has received medication in contravention of sub-rule (1) of this rule.

    Note the wording MAY not SHALL.
    +1 -1
  • ChrisChris    5,697 posts
    As always a harmonious end
    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    edited December 2012
    I get that Tony, but in item (1) it says that they need permission to administer medication, and from all reports permission wasn't asked for..the medication is not performance enhancing from what i am aware, so they probably would have got permission.. the fact that they didn't ask is my concern..

    I'd seriously suggest the actual administration of those products is common, i suspect the approval to administer them on race day is very rarely sought...that is my issue...the rules are there to follow and abide by and these trainers took it upon themselves to thumb their noses at the rules and say.."that's okay it wont have any effect on the horses"...that is me adlibing, after a few sherbets..they probably gave it no real thought at all..

    In item (2) the May instead of the Shall is correct...and the stewards have a decision to make as to whether they do or don't withdraw the horses....and they made the decision not to....

    i agree with their decision based on what was administered....but trainers should not so flagrantly flaunt the rules in the first place....that is my concern...that's what I'm on about...

    And as I stated up above somewhere..I feel it is a very grey area..but i also wouldn't suggest that wording be changed to shall.....Stewards are there to make decisions..i have a feeling that if they had sought approval first there would be no issue...

    The fact they didn't..In my opinion..is the issue..Especially with the attention gained during Victoria's carnival for the guys that are being put through the wringer at the moment..you'd think that everyone would be crossing the T's and dotting the I's...
    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    Chris said:

    As always a harmonious end

    who said i had finished..i was writing a novel!!!! :)) :))
    +1 -1
  • AndrewCarterAndrewCarter    2,171 posts
    edited December 2012
    Maybe the rules should come into the real world and allow trainers to administer therapeutic substances in the first place that benefit the horse and all involved rather than consistently tying their hands behind their back and then they wonder why we have small fields sizes. Clearly not many on here have heard that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You guys can't be serious.
    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    Rules Andrew Rules..you of all people want everyone to abide by them and be punished when they are broken..

    There were 16 horses in that race and 14 of them were dealt with in the proper manner.. 2 weren't. Why should they be allowed to do their own thing???

    And as far as changing the rules to allow the treatment of animals...you don't need to change the rules Andrew..What needs to happen is if anyone wants to treat their race horse on race day, they seek permission from the stewards beforehand...and in this instance they obviously would have been granted permission, as once the stewards found out what had been administered the horses were allowed to run..

    So no rule changes are required.....2 out of the 16 horses trainers, just need to abide by the rules that are there....

    Some people in this industry really need to practice what they preach!!!!
    +1 -1
  • ArloArlo    122 posts
    On the morning of the race, how can anybody who did not actually administer the treatments be sure what was
    actually given? Stewards have obviously relied on the word of the trainers. So maybe in a situation were the trainers have not sought permission and there is not proof yet to hand as to what was administered, the Stewards should withdraw the horses and protect the interests of those who have chosen to abode by the rules!
    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    and that is the judgement call ....

    Did the stewards have full knowledge of what was administered????..that is where you have the grey area..You should be able to trust these trainers to do the right thing..but then the only reason the Stewards had a decision to make was due to the said trainers having broken rules..and then you trust them to tell you the truth??????

    They took heaps of samples and also i think i read the syringe used to administer one of the treatments..

    The Stewards made a really big call..you'd expect a serious fallout for the head steward if any of those results came back with anomalies....And that is why i agree with Arlo..... that the horses should have been scratched to remove the potential for another high profile incident in our industry..totally only my opinion.

    So that is dealt with...then you get back to what the punishment should be for the original breach of the rules..If the industry is serious about creating a level playing field, you would expect the penalty to reflect that..??? Well i would..
    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    soap box put away...I will leave this one alone and wait for the results from the hearing when we hopefully all learn a few more of the facts...so a free hit for anyone who i have had a go at... :D
    +1 -1
  • dungydungy    9,278 posts
    the falcon said:

    GW was pretty blatant...but, look who the owner was.

    Falc WTF has who owned GS got to do with it ???
    The owner[Lex Piper ] didnt touch the horse it was S Edwards wasnt it
    +1 -1
  • AndrewCarterAndrewCarter    2,171 posts
    Seriously I mean stuff like ulcerguard to have things like that banned on raceday is absurd that's my opinion and I stand by it, I was just speaking in general, if treatments like that are ok then you can concentrate on catching the real cheats who are revving their horses up. We have get to get over this so called drug free racing because it simply doesn't exist, everyone with half a brain in the industry knows that and ye no one wants to acknowledge that fact.
    Before anyone jumps downs my throat, no I am not advocating open slather but there needs to be a realistic approach as to what benefits the horse and all concerned and enables it to recover better from a run etc rather than this drug free racing fantasy the authorities peddle. Treatments such as ulcerguard etc are good for the horse and for those involved and the punter as the horse is more likely to run true to form if it's feeling its normal self.
    +1 -1
  • careycarey    6,424 posts

    now, i would be the last one to have a go at the writing skills of people.....but!

    how about some commas, and paragraphs, and whatnot, befitting of a scribe.

    you do that, and i might reciprocate with upper case when called for. L-)
    +1 -1
  • AndrewCarterAndrewCarter    2,171 posts
    Nothing like an insightful response.
    +1 -1
Sign In or Register to comment.