Paul Lafferty responds

Leseding wrote: Paul Lafferty can "Respond" as much as he wants !

He pleaded GUILTY !

As the Bishop said to the Actress ;

Finish and Klaar !

Harris wrote:

Leseding wrote: Paul Lafferty can "Respond" as much as he wants !

He pleaded GUILTY !

As the Bishop said to the Actress ;

Finish and Klaar !

Before you judge others make sure you are perfect !

louisg wrote: Of course Laff is guilty. That's why he pleaded guilty ! But guilty of what ?
Laff would have been to the enquiry and would have been asked if he was the responsible person of the premises and if the empty tube was found in his premises. Being honest he would have said yes and would then plead guilty to that etc. quote]

Yes, Mr. G

We don't know what the actual charges against Mr. Lafferty were.

So everything is speculation.

Perhaps Paul himself or the NHRA can enlighten us on this.

Leseding wrote:

louisg wrote: Of course Laff is guilty. That's why he pleaded guilty ! But guilty of what ?
Laff would have been to the enquiry and would have been asked if he was the responsible person of the premises and if the empty tube was found in his premises. Being honest he would have said yes and would then plead guilty to that etc. quote]

Yes, Mr. G

We don't know what the actual charges against Mr. Lafferty were.

So everything is speculation.

Perhaps Paul himself or the NHRA can enlighten us on this.

Trainer P V Lafferty appeared before an Inquiry Board of the National Horseracing Authority of SA and was charged with a contravention of Rule 10.5.16.3 in that on 27 June 2014 he had in his possession at his stables a product “Nitrotain”, which contains ethylestranol, an anabolic steroid and “Omoguard”, a product which contains omeprazole.

We do know what the charges are

louisg wrote: Of course Laff is guilty. That's why he pleaded guilty ! But guilty of what ?
Laff would have been to the enquiry and would have been asked if he was the responsible person of the premises and if the empty tube was found in his premises. Being honest he would have said yes and would then plead guilty to that.

Then he would be charged and then the enquiry would begin. Laff ' evidence and explanation would be very much as what he has posted here.

To me, Laff should have been given the benefit of the doubt and should have received a warning based upon the simple fact that he could prove for which horse the empty tube was used and that it was years ago.

Further, the fact of the matter remains that a Trainer who is purposely cheating would have a very good system and the "dope" would not be left in a cupboard at stables.....

You believe what you want to. I have heard some ridiculous rreports on nhra searches and of Trainers being fined for having expired purbac antibiotics etc.

Will the real cheaters really keep their "stuff" at stables ?

Bob Brogan wrote: So who's to blame Laff or the Vet

If a bet issued the drugs 6 years ago surely the charges will be dropped ?

Another thing is it common for a trainer to keep a horse in his yard with Laminitis ? Would it not be better off on a farm or at a bats place ?