Racing NSW Appeals - N.S.W Gallops - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Racing NSW Appeals - N.S.W Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Racing NSW Appeals  (Read 19975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17194
« 2020-Feb-18, 10:40 AM Reply #50 »
Latest updates from Racing NSW on appeal decisions.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/appeals/

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17194
« 2020-Feb-25, 05:58 PM Reply #51 »
Several more decisions from the Appeals Panel three of which I've extracted and recommend for those interested in such matters .

Grant Allard secret commission case ...very confusing and conflicting evidence .....Anthony Newing .& Tommy Berry had some luck ..TB got out of jail free card .

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-A-Newing-22-Feb-2020.pdf

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-Tommy-Berry-20-Feb.pdf

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/APPEAL-OF-GRANT-ALLARD-Reasons-For-Decision-19-Feb-2020.pdf

Giddy Up :beer:




https://www.racingnsw.com.au/appeals/


« Last Edit: 2020-Feb-25, 06:08 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17194
« 2020-Aug-14, 09:39 AM Reply #52 »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17194

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17194
« 2020-Oct-20, 10:23 AM Reply #54 »
https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decisions-D-Boal.pdf

Breach of COVID-19 and false testimony DQ’d from 6 months on each charge to 4 a total 8 months on the sidelines.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-Marc-Lambourne-Glen-Pollett-AMENDED.pdf

This was a majority decision two lay members the majority still a big reduction in original penalties $6k and $5K both reduced to $2K quite a few precedents referred to very interesting observations most of them.

Orders Appeal by MrLambourne
1.In relation to the first charge for a breach of AR228(a):(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, Mr Lambourne is fined $1,000
(4)50%of the appeal deposit is to be forfeited and 50% is to be refunded.
2.In relation to the second charge of breach of AR228(d):
(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, no penalty is imposed.
3.In relation to the third charge of breach of AR232(b):
(1)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(2)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, MrLambourne is fined $1,000.

Appeal by MrPollett
4.In relation to the first charge for a breach of AR228(a):
(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, MrPollett is fined $2,000.
In respect of both appeals5.50% of the appeal deposit is to be forfeited and 50% is to be refunded


Giddy Up :beer:


Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 22964
« 2020-Oct-26, 04:54 AM Reply #55 »
https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decisions-D-Boal.pdf

Breach of COVID-19 and false testimony DQ’d from 6 months on each charge to 4 a total 8 months on the sidelines.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-Marc-Lambourne-Glen-Pollett-AMENDED.pdf

This was a majority decision two lay members the majority still a big reduction in original penalties $6k and $5K both reduced to $2K quite a few precedents referred to very interesting observations most of them.

Orders Appeal by MrLambourne
1.In relation to the first charge for a breach of AR228(a):(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, Mr Lambourne is fined $1,000
(4)50%of the appeal deposit is to be forfeited and 50% is to be refunded.
2.In relation to the second charge of breach of AR228(d):
(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, no penalty is imposed.
3.In relation to the third charge of breach of AR232(b):
(1)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(2)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, MrLambourne is fined $1,000.

Appeal by MrPollett
4.In relation to the first charge for a breach of AR228(a):
(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, MrPollett is fined $2,000.
In respect of both appeals5.50% of the appeal deposit is to be forfeited and 50% is to be refunded


Giddy Up :beer:


They are "the Media". They do and say what they like and are a protected species. The judiciary will always back them up regardless of what they have done.

There is one law for the media and one for the rest of us.

Can you imagine what would happen to us if we stole secure documents and gave them to the media? Nothing apparently


ABC reporter Daniel Oakes won’t be prosecuted over Afghan Files reporting

ABC journalist Daniel Oakes won’t be prosecuted over the public broadcaster’s 2017 series The Afghan Files, which wraps up the Australian Federal Police’s investigation into allegations he obtained classified information.

The Australian Federal Police has informed ABC managing director David Anderson that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions won’t proceed with any action against Oakes.

The news comes three months after the same decision was made in relation to ABC journalist Sam Clark, who also worked on The Afghan Files.


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/abc-reporter-wont-be-prosecuted-over-afghan-files-reporting/






Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17194
« 2020-Dec-08, 03:44 PM Reply #56 »
https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decisions-Dr-K-Squire.pdf

Dr  Squire  prescribed  and dispensed injectable  Altrenogest  (in  the form  of  Ovu-Mate  Injection)  to licensed  trainer  Mrs  Julie Pratten  on  1  January 2020,  to  use  such  substance  in  a  thoroughbred  horse,  with  such  advice  in contravention of advice published by Racing New South Wales, which led to Mrs Pratten breaching AR 240(2)  as  a  result  of the  detection  of  the  prohibited  substances  trendione  and  epitrenbolone  (both anabolic steroids) in a prerace urine sample taken from her horse, Rahaan, prior to it racing at the Ballina Races on 17January2020.

Very interesting case of a Vet 's professional responsibility to be aware of advice from Racing NSW regarding substances that are prohibited..he also failed to attend a stewards inquiry when required to do so ....6 months suspension.

Giddy Up :beer:



Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17194
« 2020-Dec-18, 10:36 PM Reply #57 »
Trainer and stablehand had their penalties reduced on appeal .......horse was injected with substances which included one which caused the horse to die .....the product had been prescribed for treatment to a harness horse trained by the stablehand......and not for the racehorse Lesham.


https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decisions-Ostini-and-Faulker.pdf

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decisions-Ostini-and-Faulker.pdf


Giddy Up :beer:



Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17194

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17194
« 2021-Jan-28, 09:40 AM Reply #59 »
Update on Appeal decisions by the RNSW Appeal Panel since the last report was posted.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/appeals/

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-S-Allen.pdf

Stablehand and track work rider Allen lost his appeal against the severity of the sentence .....imposed for failure to disclose some criminal convictions but was given some slight reduction ,,,thereby entitling him to a refund of the appeal deposit...it seems only a small win offsets the costs ..despite not having complete  success.

Giddy Up :beer: 


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17194

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17194
« 2021-Feb-23, 06:57 PM Reply #61 »
Stud master sent two horses to the knackery ...both were described as being in pain with no quality of life ...but he failed to have a vet certify to that or to certify that euthanasia was appropriate ...his disqualification was reduced from the two years penalty imposed by stewards.......to 11 months ...he was penalised for giving false evidence to the stewards... despite being disqualified...he received a green light in effect from PVL to carry on certain activities ...he was refunded his appeal deposit..

"On the day that the disqualification was imposed, Racing NSW, through its Chief
Executive Officer Mr P. V’Landys AM, lessened the impact of the disqualification
imposed on the Appellant by making a determination that the prohibition outlined in
AR263(l) (prohibiting a disqualified person from conducting or assisting with
thoroughbred breeding in Australia) and AR 263(n) (prohibiting a disqualified
person from permitting or authorising any other person to conduct any activity
associated with racing, sales or breeding on the disqualified person’s behalf) would
not apply to the Appellant.
 He was also granted permission to participate in
thoroughbred horse sales and related events (263(n)), but not to attend sales."



https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-T-Nolan.pdf

Giddy Up :beer:



BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap