Bute positive Ken Rattray - Harness - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Bute positive Ken Rattray - Harness - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Bute positive Ken Rattray  (Read 1755 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14862
O.P. « 2016-Sep-11, 11:50 AM »

IR decision on an application from K Rattray a harness racing trainer/driver after his horse returned a positive to "bute"

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0017-16-kenneth-rattray-internal-review-decision.pdf

Extract from above:-
"The Applicant sought a review, due to the penalty being excessive and conviction on the basis the certificates of analysis for the sample was completed by the same laboratory. The reviewer notes Australian Harness Rule of Racing 191(2) states: If another person or drug testing laboratory approved by the controlling body analyses a portion of the sample or specimen referred to in sub rule (1) and certifies the presence of a prohibited substance in the sample or specimen that certification together with the certification referred to in sub rule (1) is conclusive evidence of the presence of a prohibited substance.
 
The reviewer finds, testing the A and B portion of the sample by one approved drug testing laboratory, in this case the Racing Science Centre and analysed by two separate analystsí Ms Samantha Nelis and Mr Mark W Jarrett is in compliance with rule 191(2) and open to stewards to operate in such a manner. "

It'll be interesting to see if this goes to QCAT usually you would think the rule requiring samples to be confirmed by a different lab to the first otherwise what's the point in referring the sample to the same lab where the testing is simply repeated.


Giddy Up :beer:


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14862
« 2016-Dec-13, 09:42 AM Reply #1 »
Very interesting case the question of accreditation under the microscope ....... whether  different labs are required under the rules being resolved in the negative .......a comprehensive  case put up for the applicant by renowned racing barrister Jim Murdoch QC resulting in a reduction of penalty from 6 to 4 months on the outer.

I therefore order that:
a) The Respondentís decision that the Applicant was in breach of Rule
190 of the AHRR be confirmed;
b) The Respondentís decision that the Applicant be disqualified for a
period of six months be set aside, and in lieu thereof that he
disqualified for a period of four months from 25 August 2016

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2016/QCAT16-439.pdf


Giddy Up :beer:


Offline deepthroat

  • Open
  • User 2464
  • Posts: 161
« 2016-Dec-13, 10:33 AM Reply #2 »
It's important to compare trots vs gallops rules- trots only require X1 cert of analysis to constitute Prima facie evidence, gallops require 2 (although I believe when it comes to TCO2 in gallops it may be different)..
It makes you wonder if samples are now being analysed twice at the same facility (ie 'A' and 'B') only BECAUSE of method specific accreditation issues at external labs like in the Gollan corticosteroid case????
Why else, if method spec accreditation is not important, would they not send the samples on?

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14862
« 2016-Dec-14, 09:27 AM Reply #3 »
Already Mr Ashby has recommended that Harness racing adopt ARB R177C it follows that rules of both racing and harness should be the same on the issues of drug testing  where livelihoods are at stake.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14862
« 2018-Apr-16, 07:25 PM Reply #4 »
This is a classic Ken Rattray appealed to QCAT after he was disqualified for 6 months an offence to which he pleaded guilty the case was heard by Acting Judge on 29th August 2017 and the learned judge took until 10th April 2018 ..... Rattray had served his time before the hearing......his appeal was dismissed.

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2018/QCATA18-039.pdf

Except from the decision:-

"Background Mr Rattray, the appellant in these proceedings and applicant in the initial review proceedings (the appellant), is a licensed harness racing trainer. On 25 August 2016, he was charged with having breached r 190(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR) which provided: A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.
Rule 190(2) provides that if a horse is presented for a race otherwise than in accordance with r 190(1), the trainer of the horse is guilty of an offence. 3 The particulars of the charge were that the appellant as the trainer of a horse, Destreos, had presented the horse to race at Albion Park on 7 May 2016 when a pre-race urine sample taken from the gelding was found, upon analysis, to contain prohibited substances phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone.
 The appellant was charged following an inquiry before the Stewards conducted pursuant to r 181 of the AHRR (Stewards Inquiry). The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and was disqualified for a period of six months."

AND

"The appellant was aggrieved by the conviction and penalty and sought an
internal review of both. The review of the conviction was sought on the basis
that the certificates of analysis for the sample were carried out by the same
laboratory, which, it was submitted, contravened r 191(1) and 191(2) of the
AHRR.
The internal review considered both the penalty and conviction and affirmed
the original decision.
The appellant then sought a review of the decision before the tribunal.
Pursuant to s 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009
(QCAT Act), the review was conducted as a fresh hearing, with the purpose
of the review being to reach the correct and preferable decision. The review
was heard on 7 November 2016 and the learned Member delivered his
decision on 18 November 2016. The learned Member affirmed the conviction
and reduced the penalty from six months to four months.

The appellant now appeals to this appeal tribunal against his conviction.
During the course of oral submissions before this tribunal, we were informed
that the appellant, in fact, has served his period of disqualification but,
nevertheless, remains aggrieved by his conviction."



Giddy Up :beer:
« Last Edit: 2018-Apr-16, 07:29 PM by Arsenal »


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap