|
Post by johncox on Jul 29, 2015 19:19:16 GMT
I think the cost of appeal is beyond most folk due to the fees charged by the gbgb Qc`s,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 19:26:47 GMT
Thanks John. Closed shop then really!
|
|
|
Post by BVADMIN on Jul 30, 2015 6:42:25 GMT
TAKEN FROM THE RACING POST - THURSDAY 30/7/15
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 7:10:24 GMT
Good to know Mr Hardy has his finger on the pulse. He thinks our kennel strength is "quite good" at the moment but the track might want to scale back for a period. What planet does he live on?
|
|
|
Post by johncox on Jul 30, 2015 7:51:47 GMT
Perhaps if mr hardy had gone into the hearing with one of his leading trainers, he would have known the precis of the hearing...
|
|
|
Post by BVADMIN on Jul 30, 2015 7:55:01 GMT
Perhaps if mr hardy had gone into the hearing with one of his leading trainers, he would have known the precis of the hearing...
I DON'T THINK GENERAL MANAGERS ARE REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE GBGB OFFICES 'JC' THAT IS THE JOB OF THE RACING MANAGER IN THIS CASE Mr DAVID BRAYSHAW AND AT THE END OF THE DAY EVERYTHING TO DO WITH RACING IS DOWN TO HIM...
|
|
|
Post by benny on Jul 30, 2015 8:47:41 GMT
there are a good few more to be up for this offence and as the penalties are getting [it seems] harder case by case. when will the bloodletting be over.or will these cases go on indefinately.WILL all the trainers caught with these positives attend hearings. WILL there be anyone left to race dogs if this attitude persists. i think the gbgb have MORE than made there point.and it should be laid to rest. there should have been a cut of point,anyone using this substance after this date.WILL FACE SEVERE CONSEQUENCES. ALSO IT WOULD IN THIS AGE OF AUSTERITY.BE EYE OPENING TO SEE THE LEGAL CHARGES INCURRED BY THESE INVESTIGATIONS. .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 9:29:00 GMT
I doubt whether any of these guilty verdicts would have been obtained in a court of law.
Firstly the testing and sampling procedures would not have been deemed satisfactory e.g. did anyone receive or get offered a 'B' sample for their own independent testing? Would the retrospective nature of the test be deemed acceptable i.e. they were samples from early 2013 tested in late 2014. Was 5-hydroxtryptophan on a list of banned substances at the time? I don't know, but I'm sure Keith Singleton posted previously that it wasn't.
Furthermore the system of representation within these hearings is clearly against the accepted rules of natural justice. If you inform that GBGB that you are going to be represented by a solicitor / barrister then they will appoint their own. If you win the case can you claim your costs from them? Answer: NO. If you lose the case can they claim their costs from you? Answer: YES.
In any event which trainer can afford the services of a barrister? When John Mullins appeared for the third time (I think in that instance it was for amphetamine) the GBGB made a request for costs to be awarded against him and were looking for more than £22,000, although in the end he was only required to pay £5k towards this because of some administrative failing in relation to the paperwork provided by the GBGB. Chris Cronin has had orders in excess of £14.5k awarded against him following his case and unsuccessful appeal.
In other words any trainer who dares to be properly represented risks financial ruin but the GBGB can have the finest advocates in the land if they so desire.
Where's the justice in that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 9:38:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by BVADMIN on Sept 25, 2015 9:12:30 GMT
WHEN WILL BELLE VUE CONTRACT TRAINER BRIAN THOMPSON BE RETURNING TO THE TRACK.
I WAS TOLD NOVEMBER 1st CAN ANYBODY CONFIRM THIS ?
|
|