Are Enough Pre-Race Swabs Being Taken?

[Messenger]

If you look at the Stewards Reports you will see it is not unusual for only 2 pre-race swabs to be taken for a whole meet in Vic

Pre race swabs are virtually the only way to detect bicarb administered pre race by tubing (unless a horse is kept back 3hrs after racing for a swab)

You would think we should be doing way more than 2.
I would think at least 1 horse every race like we generally do for Metro meets

The Bendigo meet on Mar 27 for which Hanging On A Dream was a late scratching and for which Jennifer Douglas was later disqualified had 97 starters and only 2 pre-race swabs

http://www.harness.org.au/NEWS/news2/uploads/Jennifer%20Douglas%20%20-%20RAD%20Board%20Media%20Release1.pdf

If she had not be caught at her stables, there was only about a 2% chance she was going to be caught with a pre-race swab at the track

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/stewards-reports/stewards-reports-detail/?mc=BN270319

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=BN270319

[arlington]

This one's going to VCAT courtesy of the stewards. Harsher penalty might be a cheaper way around than the fear factor of (only a couple of) pre race not being enough deterrent. Although, point taken but was there any suggestion alkalisers were used? That horse would have(?) been tested as well as the equipment(?).

It would seem some people are pretty adept at bicarb non detection irrespective of prerace swabs. The three hour option might catch more than pre race. But I can feel the wrath now.

[gutwagon]

How about getting a few more stewards that just show up randomly at stables on race day mornings and observe the horses until they get to the track. Especially the stables with multiple runners.

[Messenger]

Sounds good to me Rick

I had a poster email me the 4 runners he thought they would swab at Shep last night.
They only pre-swabbed 3 and he got them all right
If he can guess that - couldn't other trainers guess too?

[gutwagon]

I also notice that trainers that have arguments with stewards seem to get swabbed more often. Of course that's just a coincidence.

[aussiebreno]

I also notice that trainers that have arguments with stewards seem to get swabbed more often. Of course that's just a coincidence.
Chicken or the egg

[Messenger]

Does anybody else think this is just another cost cutting measure in Vic?

[Messenger]

Somebody has shown me that there was a pre-race swab every race in Vic until this financial year
The fact that the change to just 2 or 3 a meet, corresponds to the financial year would very much suggest it is a budgetary measure
Are we spending less on Integrity?
I suppose there is a possibility that they are spending it on some other integrity measure
Anybody out there that would like to fill us in?

[pards]

absolutely ,and when something improves about 50 yards ,how about keeping them back 4 hours

[arlington]

Pretty sure we've never had a pre race swab in every race in Vic Kev. A quick flick through the results pages, meetings at random during 17/18, shows we didn't last year. What resource did you use to confirm?

What did happen was post race swabs dropped by nearly 50% during the previous nine or ten years under the previous CEO. I don't think there was a significant pre race regime in place during that period.

As far as funding integrity measures, from memory, a $3mil grant was sought and given to HRV from the state government in 2017 to double swab rates amongst other integrity improvements.
As far as funding integrity now and into the future, that is a concern, along with all expenditure needed. I haven't noticed what might be a decrease in integrity measures due to budgetary constraints thus far but with the employment of additional personnel and skill sets there could be a different approach to catching out cheats. In the case of the infringement highlighted in this thread, I believe the integrity department acted on a lead.

Even if pre raced swabbed as part of the 2 or 3% there's no guarantee a result similar to the stable visit would have occurred. If pre race's were that successful why do some participants continue to stomach tube in breach of the rules?

Would pre race's have caught out Aquanita?

Similar to Rick, increase in steward stable visits and more out of comp testing might have more of an overall impact than more pre race swabs.

[Messenger]

Pretty sure we've never had a pre race swab in every race in Vic Kev. A quick flick through the results pages, meetings at random during 17/18, shows we didn't last year. What resource did you use to confirm?

What did happen was post race swabs dropped by nearly 50% during the previous nine or ten years under the previous CEO. I don't think there was a significant pre race regime in place during that period.

As far as funding integrity measures, from memory, a $3mil grant was sought and given to HRV from the state government in 2017 to double swab rates amongst other integrity improvements.
As far as funding integrity now and into the future, that is a concern, along with all expenditure needed. I haven't noticed what might be a decrease in integrity measures due to budgetary constraints thus far but with the employment of additional personnel and skill sets there could be a different approach to catching out cheats. In the case of the infringement highlighted in this thread, I believe the integrity department acted on a lead.

Even if pre raced swabbed as part of the 2 or 3% there's no guarantee a result similar to the stable visit would have occurred. If pre race's were that successful why do some participants continue to stomach tube in breach of the rules?

Would pre race's have caught out Aquanita?

Similar to Rick, increase in steward stable visits and more out of comp testing might have more of an overall impact than more pre race swabs.

Last day of last financial year (coincidence?)

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/stewards-reports/stewards-reports-detail/?mc=KI300618

12 races - 11 pre-race swabs

[arlington]

Might be good if the taxman only counted the income earned on one day of the year :)
Possibly pedantic but there were four races that weren't pre raced.

The coincidence...like local council road funding, if you don't use it you lose it.

[arlington]

Not wanting to digress from the title of the thread but what is significant, I think, in relation to the infringement example in this thread, is the appeal to VCAT by the stewards along with a reminder posted of the serious offence penalty guidelines.
Stomach tubing infringements are now 18 months DQ and TCO2 18 months DQ.
In a short period of time we've gone from 6 months suspensions/$5000(?) fines for TCO2 to substantial DQ's.
For a long time lots of people have believed it's one thing to catch but another thing to penalise effectively. A coincidence under the new administration things are changing?

[Messenger]

But your chances of being caught are 2-3% with so little testing - compare to other states Wayne. It could be the CEO is first and foremost concerned with balancing the books

[arlington]

Correcting the figures, yep Kev, a 20 to 30% chance of being pre race swabbed, not necessarily caught.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to think it would be to his peril if the funding of integrity wasn't first and foremost.
Would I like to see more pre race's or not having to be used on targeting (in reference to post #4), for sure.

As I expressed previously, what is a concern is future funding of integrity. We got a grant, a one off. Income streams are taking a hit, something's got to give. A cut in prize money to fund integrity? For me, pretty simple, if you don't have a fair chance of getting any prize money, does it matter what the prize money is?

I'm not sure if increasing participation rates is one of the KPI's but a decrease in integrity measures wouldn't see that target hit. Maybe I should rephrase, I'd like to think that target wouldn't be hit. I was at one forum where a prominent participant aired their dismay at the $3mil grant not going toward prize money.

[Messenger]

I have to correct the maths Wayne
If we have 9 races with 9 runners in each
And we only have 2 pre swabs
2/81 is less than 3% chance of being swabbed (or caught )

[Messenger]

Last week just gone...

7 meetings 64 races 16 Pre race

Same week last year....

7 meetings 59 races 60 Pre race


Last week of June 2018....

8 meetings 77 races 73 Pre race

First week of July 2018....

8 meetings 61 races 19 Pre race

Figures kindly supplied by another poster

Did HRV ever announce a change of strategy?

[arlington]

http://www.harnessracingforum.com/images/icons/icon14.png maths. I should have reread my own figures in post #10 Kev.

You posed other measures might be being undertaken which didn't necessarily mean funding had decreased. Stable visits have increased.

I'm not sure if the cases/infringements that went to court would have been uncovered by pre race swabbing. I'd suggest some of those might have been pre raced.
Another example, a trainer tossing the funnel and tube out of the float on the way to the track. A racegoer seeing that and reporting to stewards. Pretty sure those horses underwent pre race's on arrival but no positive's.
Drones, funding for those rather than pre race. Convictions which may not have come from pre race swabbing.
The latest stomach tubing investigations at Mildura with a visiting trainer to the region. Those horses would have been pre raced but I haven't seen any charges relating to positives.

[arlington]

Just saw your post 17 Kev. I still think my post 18 is relevant.
Is the question not necessarily about a change in funding of integrity but more so a change in direction or tactics?
Should the integrity dept announce what tactics they are going to use?

[arlington]

Not wanting to digress or divert but stable visits having been brought up - they've increased. Both race day and random. Focusing on the random, out of comp, I don't know if the stewards are ever accompanied by a HRV vet. Have thought, like others out of comp testing is a necessity. I don't know if I'd expect HRV to announce they're going to do that. However, strategies like that would impact on how the integrity budget was spent. Might out of comp testing be more useful than more pre race's as an example?

[Messenger]

Wayne, aren't out of comp testing - stable visits conducted by full-time employees and therefore should not affect the integrity budget (ie Require a cut back in pre race swabs)

[arlington]

Good point Kev, but, perhaps it's more a strategic redirection? There would be associated expenditure, travel costs etc. Not sure how much things like drones cost, could you slip that under contractors to 'balance the books'?
Does it depend on how you look at integrity overall? If pre race swab expenditure increased but you didn't bolster your integrity team with investigators, strategists, information and intelligence analysts who improve the way you attack, you'd be happy?
Somewhere along the line the books have to be balanced. No room for an increase in employees who happen to work in integrity, ok, but we'll increase pre race swabs to make up for that. Even though it might not be as successful a strategy.
Like I've said, if the 'overall' integrity budget took a hit I'd be like many others before. This time, if I deemed we went back to not being serious about a level playing field, I'm out of here. It's bad enough with all these VCAT stays and delayed RADB hearings.

[gutwagon]

I think it is obvious that certain stables are using substances that can't be detected via pre or post race tests. The only way to catch them is to catch them putting it in or test them out of racing. I think drones, stable inspections, surveillance and even spies will get better results.

It would be nice if every runner was tested before and after racing but I suppose they only have a limited budget.

[Dot]

HRV Integrity announces TCO2 changes

https://www.harness.org.au/media-room/news-article/?news_id=40411


Nsw has had a similar policy for awhile

[arlington]

HRV Integrity will implement a new policy on June 1 designed to reduce the number of horses presenting with elevated TCO2 levels and disrupt/prevent the likelihood of illegal race day treatment.
From June 1, where a blood sample collected from a horse returns a TCO2 level of greater than 35.1mmol/L, HRV stewards will implement one of the following options for that horse’s next three race starts.

OPTION A. The trainer of the relevant horse shall ensure it is present on course no less than four hours prior to the scheduled start time in which the horse is entered at a Victorian harness racing meeting.

OPTION B. The trainer of the horse which returned an elevated TCO2 level shall be retained on course for a minimum of three hours after the horse has completed its scheduled race at a Victorian harness racing meeting.

OPTION C. The Stewards shall attend the registered training address of the trainer of the horse which returned the elevated TCO2 level for as long as is deemed reasonably necessary on the day of the race to supervise the pre-race preparation of the subject horse(s) when engaged at a Victorian race meeting. The intention of this action is to disrupt and prevent the likelihood of any race day treatment occurring.


Follows the increase in penalties for tubing and TCO2

[gutwagon]

On the TCO2 rule changes, I think it's a good step but shouldn't it be the trainer that is monitored as well as the horse. Every runner that the trainer presents to the races after they present one with a high reading should come under the conditions. The horse doesn't tube its self. There may be a very small % of horses that have a naturally high reading but for most they only get it via tubing or feed.



OPTION B. The trainer of the horse which returned an elevated TCO2 level shall be retained on course for a minimum of three hours after the horse has completed its scheduled race at a Victorian harness racing meeting.

Shouldn't this say "the trainer and the horse" ? What use is it keeping just the trainer back ? I thought they may want to test the horse again after 3 hours. Not much point if the trainer stays but the horse has been taken away.

[Messenger]

Shouldn't this say "the trainer and the horse" ? What use is it keeping just the trainer back ? I thought they may want to test the horse again after 3 hours. Not much point if the trainer stays but the horse has been taken away.


:D

[Dot]

Well picked up Rick. But you never know being kept back after “school” regularly might change some trainers behaviour!