Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
2012-May-28, 04:27 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Racehorse TALK
Racehorse TALK » Racing Talk » Topic: Racing Website: horseracingonly.com.au
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9   Go Down
« previous next »
 
Author Topic: Racing Website: horseracingonly.com.au  (Read 7547 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
dubbledee
Editor
Group 1
user 285
Offline Offline
Posts: 23917
Original Post 2009-Oct-16, 03:53 PM

 

Graham Potter, editor of  website horseracingonly.com.au  has approached  the Forum with an idea to give forumites an opportunity to broadcast their thoughts on racing issues to a wider community. 

Although not a member as such, Graham monitors our Forum in between his frequent visits to the racetrack and has been impressed by the depth of knowledge and diversity of opinion among our members.

Graham is seeking the Forum's view on a proposal that goes something like this:

Each fortnight, nominally on a Sunday, Graham will select what he considers to be "best of the Forum".  These will be copied onto the horseracingonly site under the Queensland Racing section - although the posts can be generic in nature.   Full credit will be given to both the Forum and the poster, using the poster's nickname. 

If accepted, Graham will invites forumites to send specific topics for discussion.  Priority will be given to the most passionate posts that provoke spirited debate.  He will not consider posts that contain personal attacks on any individual.

Thoughts, comments?

http://www.horseracingonly.com.au/
« Last Edit: 2011-Mar-24, 04:39 PM by dubbledee » Logged
 
Authorized
Steward
Group 1
user 18
Offline Offline
Posts: 19693
2009-Oct-16, 03:55 PM

Can you post a link to it please Dubbledee ?
Logged
dubbledee
Editor
Group 1
user 285
Offline Offline
Posts: 23917
2009-Oct-16, 03:57 PM

Premier trainer Rob Heathcote has taken the cudgel to QRL on behalf of his track-work staff.

STEWARDS’ TESTING PROCEDURES UNDER FIRE

By Graham Potter | Friday, October 16, 2009

The activities of Queensland Racing Stewards with regard to the testing of work-riders at Eagle Farm and Doomben on Monday has had a sequel with Premiership winning trainer Robert Heathcote slamming procedures which he says humiliated his staff.

Heathcote outlined his concerns in a letter to Jamie Orchard, Director of Integrity Operations at Queenland Racing. Orchard replied to Heathcote, giving a detailed response to the questions raised. This give and take of information and the opposing views that this procedure has brought bubbling to the surface is best represented by the arguments put forward in the letters themselves and they are thus reproduced here in their entirety with the permission of the two parties concerned.

This is the two sides of the story.

The letter from Robert Heathcote to Jamie Orchard reads:

Good morning Mr Orchard,

I wish to make comment on the track-work rider swabbing procedure which occurred at Eagle Farm and Doomben on Monday. Several of my staff have complained to me about the way the procedure is actually carried out.

Having an adult person having to urinate into a bottle in front of another person and in full view is not only embarrassing for many as commented to me by my staff and others including International riders who were downright disgusted by this procedure. And I'm quite sure it may well be an invasion of privacy laws.

Whilst I understand the reasons why you have to take these tests to ensure the safety of all riders, in today's society there are other means of actually carrying out these tests. For example, there are road side testing procedures carried out by the Police to detect the presence of drugs. Can this test not be used instead?

Perhaps having a qualified person to actually search a person prior to giving a urine sample so it can be done in the privacy of a cubicle. This would surely alleviate the possibility of a sample being supplied fraudulently as does the temperature device used on the sample bottles now.

The main issue is solely the degrading way in which these tests were carried out. I would think that this has to be reviewed for future cases. I would hate to think how the staff at Queensland racing offices would feel having to carry out the same tests, especially the female staff members.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours Sincerely,
Robert Heathcote.
14/10/2009 (5.09am).


Jamie Orchard replied to Robert Heathcote on the same day he received the letter of concern. Orchard’s letter reads:

Robert,

Thank you for your email.

We seek to balance the privacy of the person providing a sample with the need for integrity of the process. You might note in this regard that we are increasingly challenged in respect of the integrity of our testing programs as individuals are seeking to challenge each stage of the process. Very recently a rider questioned whether urine was his and despite the stringent process we had adopted and the Tribunal gave him the benefit of the doubt and upheld his appeal.

So we have little choice but to have strict measures in place.

In determining the appropriate approach, we have reference to the Australian and New Zealand Standard 4308, the World Anti-Doping Code and the process adopted by the Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority (ASADA).

The Standard provides for 'observed collection' when there is an unacceptable risk to the integrity of the sample and the World Code provides for the subject to be observed providing the sample by someone of the same gender. ASADA requires the following:

Urine sample collection process:

1. Athletes will be asked to select a beaker for urine collection and check that it is suitable and is not damaged or appears to have been tampered with.
2. Athletes will provide a urine sample in the presence of a chaperone who is the same gender as the athlete.
3. The chaperone will directly witness the provision of the urine sample from the athlete's body into the beaker. In order for this to occur the athlete must comply with the chaperone's instructions.
4. Athletes are responsible for controlling their sample until it is sealed in a sample collection kit.
5. If an athlete provides an insufficient sample (that is less than the required volume) he or she is required to provide further sample(s) in accordance with the procedures outlined above.

You will see from both of these bodies that direct observation is expected. That is the standard that we adopt and the standard which I understand to be adopted by racing authorities in other states.

We nonetheless seek to protect privacy by having only one person at a time providing a sample and
ensuring that the only other person present is the QRL chaperone and that the chaperone is of the same gender.

I am satisfied that in accordance with the authoritative standard and codes, we provide as much privacy as possible without affecting the integrity of the sample.

You are correct in assuming that QRL staff don't enjoy having to witness urine collection but unfortunately it is necessary to ensure the integrity of the process. It would certainly be preferable to allow a greater degree of privacy for those providing the samples but unfortunately there have been a number of instances where to do so would have seen the sample not being correctly provided.

We have considered the possibility of conducting searches first and then allowing privacy however such a search would have to be very thorough (in light of methods that have been used to provide
false tests in the past) and would involve a much greater invasion of privacy that a direct observation, given that the QRL official would have to run their hands over every part of the person's body capable of hiding a 'clean sample'.

The temperature of each sample is tested and that might go some way toward ensuring the integrity of the sample however recently we have found an attempt to avoid that by storing 'clean' urine in a condom and seeking to elevate its temperature by having the subject keep it in their armpit until it was provided - so temperature is not a sufficient test in itself.

Similarly, we have researched the possibility of using saliva testing kits (similar to police roadside tests) and took advice from the police in this regard. However such tests do not appear to be sufficiently accurate to rely upon. In particular, I note that such screening processes will not
test for all of those substances which are prohibited by the Rules of Racing. We did consider the 'split cup' screening process but that would not alleviate the concern you have raised.

So in summary, the process we have adopted is one which balances integrity and privacy and which meets the expectations of the relevant standard and anti-doping codes.

Unfortunately, we are not able relax the standards without significantly affecting the integrity of the process.

Regards,
Jamie Orchard.
Director of Integrity Operations.
14/10/2009 (1.57pm).

In a follow-up conversation with HRO, Jamie Orchard said he was sympathetic with the concerns that had been expressed about the collection procedure, but he reiterated that the stance that needed to be taken to ensure the integrity of the process had to be a stringent one by the very nature of the exercise.

Orchard also pointed out that, apart from Heathcote’s letter of concern, Queensland Racing had received no complaints about the testing procedures undertaken on Monday.

After the exchange of the above correspondence, Heathcote, for his part, was still not a happy man.

Robert Heathcote: “If Queensland Racing had said, yes there are some areas they may look at, it would be a non-issue. I am not doing this because I want my name in print, but I’ve got an obligation to do what’s right by my staff.

“The work-riders are not riding for gold medals and where does it leave my business if next time some of my staff say, they are not doing it ... they are not going to go through that again, they would rather get out of the industry then endure that sort of humiliation.

“The urine had to be given in the direct view of the person observing. The stewards were adamant they had to see the urine pass into the container. You can’t get more personal than that ... and this procedure is carried out by Queensland Racing Stewards on licences who they see at work on a regular basis. It’s caused a fair bit of anxiety with track-work riders. It should, in my opinion, be carried out, at the very least, by qualified, independent, medical personnel ... you know, people aside from those in the industry. It is bad enough to be asked to do that with a stranger. To be asked to do that with someone you work with everyday is even worse.

“There was some pretty irate track-work riders ... irate is not the word, distressed is more like it. They were distressed at having to go through this process. I believe that common-sense should take place. They saying that to do a full body-search is more invasive than showing your genitals to some-one while you urinate.

“Get serious !

“I mean go into the room there, take off your shirt and your pants and stand there in your underwear and hold your hands up. OK, you’re fine. Go in the cubicle and give your urine sample. That is far more decent than what they had to go through.

“We’ve got people who have been in the industry for years and now, because of the happenings of one or two individuals, all of a sudden, everybody in this industry has got to be subjected to this kind of thing.

“Look, I fully understand where Queensland Racing is coming from and I fully support them in what they are trying to achieve. All I’m saying is there has got to be a better way of going about it.”

Offer feedback on this story: editor@horseracingonly.com.au
Logged
ted e turner
Group 2
user 311
Offline Offline
Posts: 3961
2009-Oct-16, 04:07 PM

the qrl staff should be used to it....theyve seen their dispised despot leader piss millions of stakeholders money up and down the walls on  his kooky wooky plans,consultants,recruiters,spin doctors and lawyers....bugger them work riders says the lemon from asic bye
Logged
Max Manewer
Group 2
user 414
Offline Offline
Posts: 4998
2009-Oct-16, 04:10 PM

Be equally distressing for the witness.......imagine having to eat sausages and eggs for brekkie after that  bleh
Logged
DJH
Group 2
user 425
Offline Offline
Posts: 3395
2009-Oct-16, 04:11 PM

Firstly very good website, I am told it will continue to grow in its coverage. I look forward to that.
Secondly the current headline story amazes me.
It seems to me like yet another way people are being lost to racing.
It seems to me those in control of racing ie Govt. and stewards are doing everything they can to kill racing.
Logged
JWesleyHarding
Group 1
user 231
Offline Offline
Posts: 10314
2009-Oct-16, 04:14 PM

Okay, they might be of the same gender, but are they of the same persuasion?

"Hey mate, is that a gun in your pocket, or are just pleased to have this job?"
Logged
Authorized
Steward
Group 1
user 18
Offline Offline
Posts: 19693
2009-Oct-16, 04:15 PM

We seek to balance the privacy of the person providing a sample with the need for integrity of the process. You might note in this regard that we are increasingly challenged in respect of the integrity of our testing programs as individuals are seeking to challenge each stage of the process. Very recently a rider questioned whether urine was his and despite the stringent process we had adopted and the Tribunal gave him the benefit of the doubt and upheld his appeal.


I find it hard to believe that the relevant authorities could not substantiate whose pee it was there and than.

We are drug tested in my line of work and there is nobody watching us take the test.

As Heathcote says the riders are not riding for sheep stations like those the world anti dopiing policy was made for.
Logged
dubbledee
Editor
Group 1
user 285
Offline Offline
Posts: 23917
2009-Oct-16, 04:21 PM

In every urine sample you can bet ya punting bank that there'll be epithelial cells of some sort.

If there was any doubt about the integrity of the sample, molecular typing of those cells - by any competent forensic lab - will identify the "owner".

It's best to avoid the need for this, but Heathcote is on the right tram, IMO - and will get support from all reasonable people.
Logged
DJH
Group 2
user 425
Offline Offline
Posts: 3395
2009-Oct-16, 04:25 PM

It should be remembered these track work rider are on minimum wage usually taking home $600-700 per week max. in an industry which is high pressure and based on celebrations upon success.
IMO to be drug testing those that have not shown a reckless behaviour is ludicrous and detrimental to the industry.
Logged
dubbledee
Editor
Group 1
user 285
Offline Offline
Posts: 23917
2009-Oct-16, 04:32 PM

I'd have a lengthy process of education to start with.  Then some consultation.  Explain the possible health consequences, WHS obligations, etc.  Then implement an agreed testing process - and turn up with appropriate allied health personnel.
Logged
Max Manewer
Group 2
user 414
Offline Offline
Posts: 4998
2009-Oct-16, 04:32 PM

It should be remembered these track work rider are on minimum wage usually taking home $600-700 per week max. in an industry which is high pressure and based on celebrations upon success.
IMO to be drug testing those that have not shown a reckless behaviour is ludicrous and detrimental to the industry.


Totally far king ridiculous alright. Heil Hitler !
Logged
monologue
Group 1
user 200
Offline Offline
Posts: 5342
2009-Oct-16, 04:55 PM

Does anyone remember the case a couple of years back when a prominent Toowoomba  based jockey substituted his real pecker for a censored  filled with someone else urine for all to see.

I think he was fined and suspended as well as having to face the embarrassment of this story breaking.

I suppose there will always be someone trying to "cheat " the system.
Logged
DJH
Group 2
user 425
Offline Offline
Posts: 3395
2009-Oct-16, 04:58 PM

I'd have a lengthy process of education to start with.  Then some consultation.  Explain the possible health consequences, WHS obligations, etc.  Then implement an agreed testing process - and turn up with appropriate allied health personnel.

All sounds good DD except that everyone already knows the dangers of drugs and WH&S.
You must remember in general these are relatively uneducated people who are happy being that way.
I have spent quite a few years in the industry and have come across a handful who I would regard as dangerous WHS wise because of their drug use. Most of the outstanding riders I have come across would all return positives given the wrong day and would be lost to the industry as a result.
I think if the stewards feel a need to test it should be done based on a report from possibly the track supervisor or someone similar who sees who is a danger.
If a rider is not a danger they should not be penalised IMO.
Logged
gratlog
Group 1
user 5
Offline Offline
Posts: 12700
2009-Oct-16, 04:59 PM

A few footballers have admitted to cheating the system
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9   Go Up
 
« previous next »
 
Back to "All Topics"      Back to "Home Page"
Jump to:  

 - Links - Luxbet Horse Racing Betting - Racenet - Horse Racing - Noms and Acc - QTAB - TAB Horse Racing Betting - Racing and Sports - Horse Racing Only
Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc | Adagio design by Bloc