Fritz Roux

This unpleasantness could have all been avoided if the NHA made the appropriate statement stating the circumstances which led to the reversal of the warning off (or did they just not check their records?)
Thereafter Zietsman states he has the truth and facts (which would have settled this before the sparks were ignited) but doesn't.
Well, what is it ?

Zietsman has changed a lot from the person/poster he used be. Just my observation.

Another question I was asked to ask

Did Piet Botha do his assistant badge before becoming a trainer?

Seemingly it’s necessary?

OTA ... Zietsman would like your contact details

Due to confidentiality and also the fact I don’t know them... I will let you two sort it out between yourself

Bob Brogan wrote: OTA ... Zietsman would like your contact details

Due to confidentiality and also the fact I don’t know them... I will let you two sort it out between yourself

Let him post the screenshot he claims he has or apologise for being a prick and then he can PM me. I have no interest in communicating with a buffoon unless he acknowledges his crap.

OTA
I think that due to Kobus not being there when the prohibited substance was administered and that there was no evidence that he had arranged the administration of the substance, he was only found guilty of being the responsible person of the horse. The way that I understand it, he could re apply in 3 years time...

It boggles my mind that Kobus is allowed near horses again ..I don't believe it ...It would be in any horses favour (that he has to do with ) to keep him the hell away from them ??

louisg wrote: OTA
I think that due to Kobus not being there when the prohibited substance was administered and that there was no evidence that he had arranged the administration of the substance, he was only found guilty of being the responsible person of the horse. The way that I understand it, he could re apply in 3 years time...

......we are all aware of this case and that he was not in PE when horse was medicated and duly won the race....but this does not belay the rules of responsibility.....what OTA wants to know and now I too am curious as to how this warning off was overturned....did they find out who was actually responsible... and why not published accordingly.....the fact that he has been reinstated and during a time when it seems that the NHRA may have ethical and moral problems with top staff....then it really gets the alarm bells ringing......:ohmy:

I have some sympathy for any trainer found guilty of being the person in charge of the horse
when the animal is in another centre
Example a satellite stable were the trainer has not even been for possibly months
Some years ago I employed a registered electrical company to carry out some
specialised work for my business
They in turn without advising me sublet the work
An unqualified person died on the premises and the Dept of Labour investigated the accident
They wanted to charge me with culpable homicide as the owner
Case fell away after some investigation

elmer wrote: I have some sympathy for any trainer found guilty of being the person in charge of the horse
when the animal is in another centre
Example a satellite stable were the trainer has not even been for possibly months
Some years ago I employed a registered electrical company to carry out some
specialised work for my business
They in turn without advising me sublet the work
An unqualified person died on the premises and the Dept of Labour investigated the accident
They wanted to charge me with culpable homicide as the owner
Case fell away after some investigation

.....the whole reason why there are these rules of responsibility in horse racing......is that a trainer must then if they wish to run satellite yards.....be fully responsible and ensure that they hire responsible people to care for horses accordingly.....NHRA purposely threw the book at J S Roux in this matter to set a precedent and warning to others..... that not being around does not exempt anyone from this responsibility.....if they start back tracking on this issue they will then invite others to try their luck and also set horses up.....while they are not there.....:S

I have no doubt in my mind that the 2 substances used in the Tara's Flight sudden return to form was a deliberate attempt at ensuring that the horse was given an unfair advantage in having a substance injected, alleviating pain and then dosed with a performance enhancing diuretic to attempt to purge the evidence. Both these medication are scheduled for veterinary use only and should have been entered in a register and if prescribed by a vet the horse had no right to race accordingly..... Hence I am interested in the defense.....condoning such an action....:dry:

is this the same guy who has runners next week at the Vaal?

louisg wrote: OTA
I think that due to Kobus not being there when the prohibited substance was administered and that there was no evidence that he had arranged the administration of the substance, he was only found guilty of being the responsible person of the horse. The way that I understand it, he could re apply in 3 years time...

Yes