Lee and Shannon Hope are appealing their respective three and five-year disqualifications for administering cobalt to affect the performance of three of their horses. They are relying on a fairly obvious defence – in short, they are not denying administering cobalt to the horses, they just didn’t do it to deliberately enhance the horses’ performances.
The bottom line is that the Hopes believe that the feeding and supplementation regimen that was in place at their stable wasn’t changed after the introduction of the cobalt threshold in April 2014. They believed that the regimen they were using was in accordance with the Rules of Racing, so, when the reduced threshold came in, they saw no need to make any changes, and that led to an inadvertent administration of a higher than allowed cobalt content in the feeding and supplements given to the horses. Basically, they are saying that unless the bottle was labeled “Cobalt”, how could they know that they were doing the wrong thing?
There are several points to consider.
The obvious thing is that a supplement is a supplement. Trainers give horses supplements to their feed to improve their performance. It’s that simple. Even more obvious is that trainers feed horses in different ways simply because each trainer believes that feeding their horses in certain ways helps them to perform at their best. The feeding plans in any stable are there to maximise the horses’ performance. For Heaven’s sake, Usain Bolt didn’t break all of those records by stuffing himself with Maccas, so why would racehorse diets be any less stringent or any less studied. Just as Usain would have had a dietary regime, and probably an allowed supplement regime to help him to a physical peak, so do racehorses.
The issue is that feed stocks and supplements have to operate in such a way that testing for prohibited substances produces results inside the allowable limits for the bad stuff. But that means that trainers have to trust the content of the feedstocks and supplements they buy, or they have to get analyses done, independently of the supplier. So, what the Hopes are really relying on is the natural justice thing – if the stewards can’t prove that they gave the horses illegal levels of cobalt deliberately, then how can their appeals based on an admission of inadvertent transgression be turned down?
If their appeals are successful, they will still cop a penalty, but those penalties won’t be as harsh as their current disqualifications. It’s a bit like slow dancing with your sister!
The problem is that, under the current regulations, they have no other way of handling the situation. The horses had illegal levels of cobalt, full stop, so they are guilty, but are they guilty of being crooked, or careless?
Firstly, the allowable level of cobalt is quite arbitrary. No one in any racing administration has bothered to justify the cobalt limit. Is it at the “right” level or not? Secondly, why aren’t the racing administrators putting pressure on the producers and suppliers of feedstocks and supplements to ensure that they are not producing and supplying products that can lead to inadvertent administration of illegal cobalt levels?
The whole cobalt issue has been poorly handled, and it will continue to be poorly handled until somebody in the racing hierarchy takes responsibility for straightening out the whole mess. Straightening out the mess will mean:
- justifying the cobalt threshold;
- mandating full analyses by producers of all racing feedstocks and supplements;
- instituting random checks of feedstocks and supplements at training establishments; issuing a licensing system for feedstock and supplement producers; and
- nominating allowable supplements by brand and by product.
Until those things happen, trainers will continue to run the risks of inadvertent administration. Has anyone in racing administration got the backbone to sort it all out? The answer is “not so far”.