VAN ZYL FINED R110,000 ON DOPE CHARGE

my Sharpei suffers from an autoimmuine disease and takes one tablet a day of this med - it has saved her life but i'd not say it has "made her stronger" - she get's a form of lock-jaw and when this happens we up the meds to about 6 per day for a week and then lower accordingly - she has taken one tablet per day for about a year and a half now - the effect on horses is not clear to me but i know vets/doctors often dispense this to their patients

easy Wrote:

---

> Dear Leon
>
> What part of this sentence (pardon the pun) are
> you actually struggling with?
>
>
> "Van Zyl pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of
> the charge."

As the trainer in charge he had no choice, effectively. However, it does not follow that he "doped" the horse on purpose, or that anything Leon wrote is automatically untrue. The trainer is a bit like a ship's captain in that he is ultimately held responsible even if he himself had nothing to do with it.

Some people are too quick to conclude that "banned substance" always means "dope", and that any illegal substance must have been given to the horse in an intentional bid to unlawfully improve its performance. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are doubtless instances where this happens, and I'm not pointing fingers at anybody in particular here, but in many cases it is more a case of medication gone wrong (i.e. the horse has raced before the substance was completely secreted), and modern technology can find the minutest traces of a forbidden substance in a horse's sample. Even traces that were so tiny they would have had no effect on how the horse ran.

Okay, please explain to me then, WHY IS IT A BANNED SUBSTANCE??

Good question Greg but would guess it's only banned when the horse is running but not for treatment?

scotia Wrote:

---

> Good question Greg but would guess it's only
> banned when the horse is running but not for
> treatment?

I'm pretty sure that would be correct. There's medication and then there's dope, although the line between the two can be fuzzy at times.

I am sure the same in humans, I remember they thought Ben Johnson was on drugs but they could not catch him to confirm ()

This speaks volumes to the industry and care of the horse. Horses have a short earning career span and therefore need to be treated to race. The two glaringly obvious issues that come out of this thread is that the horse is not even considered in any of the scenarios which leads me to wonder about poster / punters / owners / trainers

1. By the simple outcry seen here, posters are suggesting that they would rather not see a horse get treated for an ailment and in turn they would probably race anyway. I am sure there have been instances of this.
2. Perhaps owners / trainers and vets are in too much of a hurry to get horses back on the track and earning so they have to use medications that speed up the process and ultimately the horse.

There have been plenty cheats in this game I am sure but GVZ does not come across this way. Vets should be fined, in fact I am sure they have professional indemnity cover and if I was GVZ I would insist that the vet puts in a PI claim. Trainer is not a vet and cannot be liable for professional advice given to him.

Who said horse racing is clean?

Well said AL

My 2 cents worth :-
1)Trainer IS ALWAYS the responsible person. That's Law !
2)Even though Kobus Roux was NOT in PE for a long time before the horse was tested positive and could not possibly have administered the drug, HE was warned off. Gavin HAD TO plead guilty on that basis, (the rules) because HIS horse was positive.
3)We have 3 Vets who call, regularly , at Vaal. Each one will give you a different withdrawal date on, say, Bute (Phenylbutazone). Let's say one says 7 days, another wont go closer than 8 days and another says 9 days. Who is correct ?
4)When you goto NHRA, they will simply say "14 days"
5)It is important to note that this is not a performance enhancing drug. It is also important to note that the "half life" of the drug remains highly detectable, that the effects of the drug have long ago worn off, yet the drug will still be detectable, even in minute forms.
6)Our testing is qualitive and NOT quantitive. Minute trace and you are GONE.
7)As Francois Pienaar said in his book, he received a cortisone injection for his shoulder, just before going onto the field for the RWC Final in 1995 and that this did not make him play like someone else, but only to his own true ability, but without the pain.
8)And then there is the NHRA. They are doing their job, they have to apply the rules.

This is a very difficult issue. I feel for Gavin and I understand that NHRA are doing their job.

But, "DOPE" ? I CANNOT recall a "DOPE" positive, during the last 10 years or more, even. The positives have been on routine drugs, routinely used and available from reputable drug companies etc.

Yes, they are prohibitted, because they "could" enhance performance, but they are not "dope", as in hard line drugs designed specifically to enhance performance

Cheers guys some excellent contributions as normal (tu)

Nicely summed up, Louis!