Paul Peter fined R650 000

Correct Lionel. But what happens to the Springbok coach when a player tests positive?
Did the coach provide the drug or was it a third party ? Or was it the player himself ?

Now the horse, unlike the player, cannot administer anything himself or by his/her decision. So, with the horse, that leaves the Trainer and the third party. ...
So, notwithstanding the rules of NHA, how does anyone prove, in a court of law, that the Trainer administered instead of a third party....
The onus, in court, on a Gerrie Nel would be to prove that the Trainer did it. Nothing else. Just PROVE that the Trainer did it....

And simply finding empty syringes, no fingerprints taken, somewhere in a yard is just not enough. Not in a court of law. ...

I agree with Louis. The rules of the NHRA seem to be in a vacumn, as if they are not accountable to the laws of the land. I do not have the figures, but I am unaware of any NHRA successes when rulings are challenged in a public court?

I'm not saying the rules are fair and just but trainers accepted the NHRA rules when they became trainers, so for me in a court of law, the NHRA rules stand.

Mac I am with you on this - however as I say the rules seem to be in a vacumn of sorts. Another point is that if you want to be a trainer you have no choice but to accept the rules.

Let's look at this from a different angle. What if the rules were that every doping positive got handed over to the SAP for investigation? What about as part of the non-negotiable rules that a polygraph becomes mandatory? I think that it is clear ( not necessarily in all cases ) that the trainer could be unaware of the doping having taken place. What about a mandatory minimum standard of cctv footage in every racing yard? The current rules are punitive and in my opinion solve and/or prove nothing besides the horse was doped.

Over the Air wrote: Mac I am with you on this - however as I say the rules seem to be in a vacumn of sorts. Another point is that if you want to be a trainer you have no choice but to accept the rules.

Let's look at this from a different angle. What if the rules were that every doping positive got handed over to the SAP for investigation? What about as part of the non-negotiable rules that a polygraph becomes mandatory? I think that it is clear ( not necessarily in all cases ) that the trainer could be unaware of the doping having taken place. What about a mandatory minimum standard of cctv footage in every racing yard? The current rules are punitive and in my opinion solve and/or prove nothing besides the horse was doped.

Accepting the rules are part of getting a licence, your are licenced under the rules. Being a coach or a manager, or in racing a trainer, is knowing the rules of a sport, that is the point of competition you would think. The rules are the opposite of vacuum, if there were no rules you might argue vacuum.

Why are you insistent on the SAPS? How do you imagine anything getting better for racing is the SAPS have to be called? Do they have labs, do they have any clue about something as specific as this?

Having said that, if someone is doping their horses with cocaine you would think the NHRA would have a public duty to inform the police of illegal substances found. But some of the things trainers can be fined for are things beyond the police. SAPS can do nothing if I don't send colours with my horse to races or if I glug 2 bottles of cough mixture, maybe trainer would get 20K fine if found in his horse? Cops give evidence to courts, so are you arguing everything goes to court every time?

As for mandatory cctv... what country do you live in? Should there be a backup generator and streaming to cloud?

Of course it's punative, or are you suggesting rehabilitation (pun intended)?

It would make sense that NHRA rules are WITHIN the bounds of the law, not beyond. How is it reasonable to "force" trainers to put up cctv? Most trainers have never been tested positive, and even fewer for something they never gave.

Polygraphs... it would be interesting to see if that makes things better or worse. Does that catch people, or let them wiggle free?

Louis, admittedly it's a tough ask trying to keep your horse clean, considering the ease of access outsiders have to the animal. But, I guess by holding one person accountable, it drives the trainer to take necessary precautions to protect the horse, and thereby the sport.

Similarity in sports. An athlete is dependant on their team to guide them correctly. If a trainer compromises an athlete without the athletes knowledge, the same athlete cannot claim ignorance. They
are still accountable.

Maybe unfair, but certainly just.

louisg wrote: Correct Lionel. But what happens to the Springbok coach when a player tests positive?
Did the coach provide the drug or was it a third party ? Or was it the player himself ?

Now the horse, unlike the player, cannot administer anything himself or by his/her decision. So, with the horse, that leaves the Trainer and the third party. ...
So, notwithstanding the rules of NHA, how does anyone prove, in a court of law, that the Trainer administered instead of a third party....
The onus, in court, on a Gerrie Nel would be to prove that the Trainer did it. Nothing else. Just PROVE that the Trainer did it....

And simply finding empty syringes, no fingerprints taken, somewhere in a yard is just not enough. Not in a court of law. ...

Mr G

Can you agree with that? If an athlete tests positive, does it matter how? Can you allow any excuse, and if so how would that work?

You must agree any horse tested positive loses the race, no other question asked? If you allow ANY if's or but's, every single positive will have the "I didnt do it" excuse.

After that, you have to ask yourself who takes responsibility? If the buck does not stop with the general, then there is always some captain, or private to fall on their sword so clearly that doesnt work. The only thing that does work, which is why it is in place everywhere, is that if it happens on your watch, you HAVE to take the blame. So YOU have to secure your horses, and your home, and your car etc etc.

If you run a horse that just moved into your yard, you put yourself in the firing line and if you send a horse to someone else obviously you can't be blamed for the positive as it was not under your control.

So they do NOT have to prove who did it, if that were true there is no system left. Lets just say it's the buck stops here system, and to use your rugby example...when the team keeps losing-the coach gets fired.

Mini
I am talking out of competition testing....And also referring to Easy getting into a training centre with no Trainer or Assistant being present....

I see P Peter is appealing

So will he pay up now ? Or go to court ?

www.sportingpost.co.za/2016/12/paul-peter-appeal-outcome/

To avoid keeping undesirable in the following year Simply make the trainer license renewable annually with no cost, ensure a clause. That allow the NHA the right to reject any renewal. Once its rejected your automatically suspended from all training activities while you pursue your other legal options, Paul Peter can afford to drag his case on because his still making money off the system. If he was wasn't where would he find the money to finance his appeal which he hopes to win on technicality . He is no better then a common thief , how else would you explain giving a horse testosterone apart from cheating and robbing the poor man in the tote of money that others take for granted.

Disgusting