QRIC - Qld Gallops - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK

QRIC - Qld Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: QRIC  (Read 64757 times)

1 Member and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15279
« 2019-Jan-11, 07:52 PM Reply #350 »
Media Release
11 January 2019
Currie Steward’s Inquiry delayed on consent
In lieu of a Supreme Court hearing today, the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC)
and legal representatives for Toowoomba Trainer Ben Currie have agreed to delay a QRIC
Steward’s Inquiry until a Supreme Court decision is finalised.
A Steward’s Inquiry into four alleged positive swab offences was due to be heard on Monday 14
Mr Currie’s legal representatives brought Supreme Court action earlier this week requesting
admission to Monday’s Inquiry.
A similar Supreme Court action also calling for the admission of Mr Currie’s legal representatives is
pending in relation to the resumption of a separate Steward’s Inquiry, where Mr Currie faces 28
alleged breaches of the Australian Rules of Racing.
As both Supreme Court actions relate to similar legal issues in each case, they will now be heard
By consent of both parties, the Stewards Inquiry previously set down for Monday 14 January and
the resumption of the Inquiry into 28 alleged breaches of the rules of racing will be held on a date
to be confirmed following the outcome of a Supreme Court hearing on 22 February 2019.

CM reports that  Currie’s legal representative is Michael O’Connor, whereas the previous application to the Supreme Court was filed by Jim Murdoch QC maybe Currie has changed counsel putting all his eggs in the one basket....probably an incorrect assumption by my goodself...... previous story by Nathan Exelby in the CM on 30 Aug referred to the original isuue which was to be heard in the Supreme Court on 28 Sept ...now both matters are listed for hearing on 22 Feb .......extract from Nathan's story previously posted is reproduced to aid understanding of what is involved .....it's not just the right for legal representation to be permitted at stewards inquiries.....the right to remain silent is a fundamental right in law.....as is the right to legal representation ......this upcoming hearing might settle the question of licensees to have the same rights in stewards inquiries especially when serious charges involving loss of livlihood are involved .

"A Supreme Court application for judicial review by Currie is set down for September 28.

Currie's lawyers will seek the review on the grounds stewards have not properly exercised their right of discretion to allow Currie to have legal representation at his hearing.

His lawyers to date have not been allowed into the previous inquiry hearings.

It will also be further argued QRIC has failed to provide proper particulars relating to some charges including how Currie was alleged to have influenced or been responsible for any breach of rules.

Thirdly, Currie's lawyers will allege he has been denied justice by QRIC refusing to release to them transcripts of a hearing in which some of Currie's employees were questioned under oath by a barrister."

Giddy Up :beer:
« Last Edit: 2019-Jan-13, 11:31 AM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15279
« 2019-Jan-20, 03:04 PM Reply #351 »
Extract from the stewards report on Race 6 from EF yesty

"MISHANI HUSTLER – Apprentice B. Nothdurft pleaded guilty to a charge under AR. 137(b) in that, whilst in contention for 3rd placing, he failed to ride his mount out to the finish of the race. Apprentice Nothdurft was fined $1000. In determining penalty, stewards considered the margin between 3rd and 4th and were also of the opinion that Apprentice Nothdurft’s actions had not materially affected his mount’s placing.

WINTER PASSAGE – Bumped on jumping.
VIRAL – Slow to begin. Inconvenienced by a fallen runner approaching the 600m. When questioned, J. Lloyd stated that connections had initially wanted to race back off the pace, however, the gelding overreacted when being steadied shortly after jumping and got its head up, resulting in it being further back than they had anticipated. He further stated that his mount was inconvenienced severely when another runner broke down, resulting in him having to take evasive action passing the 600m. He added that he then rode the gelding along in the straight, however it failed to respond and he was not entirely happy with its action and as a result he eased it down in the latter stages of the race. A post-race veterinary examination revealed the gelding to be lame in the near foreleg. Trainer T. Edmonds was advised that the horse will require a veterinary clearance prior to resuming racing.
CALZINI – Crowded on jumping between PARKO and REAL PATRIOT, which jumped outwards. Held up and unable to obtain clear running from the 500m until after passing the 200m where it clipped heels, blundered and lost ground.
RAMTASTIC – Bumped on jumping.
PINCH VISTA – Broke down and fell approaching the 600m, dislodging apprentice M. Murphy. The gelding fractured both front fetlocks and was euthanased on humane grounds. A swab sample was taken. Following the event apprentice Murphy was examined by the Club doctor, who recommended that he be stood down from his remaining engagements. Riding replacements in Races 7 and 9 were made as per the stewards race day summary. Apprentice Murphy was advised that he would be required to provide a medical clearance and undertake a cognitive test prior to resuming riding."


What's the logic in fining Apprentice B. Nothdurft $1K for failing to ride his mount right out when in the stewards own words they  "considered the margin between 3rd and 4th and were also of the opinion that Apprentice Nothdurft’s actions had not materially affected his mount’s placing."

In the same race VIRAL was heavily backed but performed poorly there were excuses but the jockey LLoyd claimed " that he then rode the gelding along in the straight, however it failed to respond and he was not entirely happy with its action and as a result he eased it down in the latter stages of the race."
From my observations riding it along wasn't obvious although it would have made no difference to the result he eased it down very quickly....the horse was lame after the race.

The most surprising thing about the stewards review of this race was there was no mention of the vastly improved form shown by the winner MAGIC FOX which on the back of it's last start on 29th Dec started at $81 and ran 10/14 previous to that 5/13 at $101and 6/8 at $15 different story yesty backed from $6.50 into $4.40 and bolted in but not one word from the stewards.


Giddy Up :beer:


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15279
« 2019-Jan-20, 03:38 PM Reply #352 »
 LONG WAY TO GO Nathan Exelby in the SM today

AS THE inquiries into 28 charges against Ben Currie and another four positive swab results from horses in his stable remain stuck in neutral, the date for an appeal hearing regarding his father Mark’s two-year disqualification is likely to be known by the end of the month.

QRIC and Mark Currie’s legal team are set to appear at QCAT on January 29, after which a date will be set for the appeal to be heard.

The next move in the Ben Currie case will not be until February 22, for a Supreme Court hearing, where among other items it will be determined if Currie has the right to have legal representation in the two separate stewards inquiries he is facing.

QRIC has sited AR199B, which in part states “A person attending or required to attend an inquiry or hearing conducted by the Stewards or the Committee of a Club or Association shall not be entitled to be represented by any other person, whether a member of the legal profession or otherwise” as the reason for its refusal to allow Currie to have representation at the two inquiries.

It is possible the result of that Supreme Court hearing could take a number of months to be known, further stretching out a case that dates back to April 7 last year, while one of the swabs is from a race in 2017.

Currie landed a winning double at Eagle Farm yesterday with Takings (pictured) and Mishani Electra.


The questions for the Supreme Court aren't just whether legal representation should be permitted in stewards inquiries there are other issues raised initially  by Jim Murdoch QC in seeking a judicial review arising out of the original 28 charges Currie is faced with ...as Nathan Exelby pointed out AR199B doesn't allow any form of representation ....which is contrary to the notion of natural justice ..so if somebody wants to go to the expense of having a representative present whether legal or otherwise.... a Union for example..... it shouldn't be any problem for stewards as it is only likey to arise where the licensee is facing serious charges...some time back I recall there was a jockeys' representative in attandance who I assume was allowed inside and apprentices would /should be able to have their master present.....maybe stewards should exercise discretion to save time and  money especially if QRIC gets lumbered with a costs order.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Deejayeff

  • Open
  • User 2387
  • Posts: 160
« 2019-Jan-20, 09:02 PM Reply #353 »
Arsenal why would there by any inquiry into Magic Fox ?

The three runs you referred to were against the A graders at Doomben from awkward barriers. Being a backs marker it was not in serious betting contention yet earned pass marks.

It went from listed and Group level, as suggested above, back to the B graders under handicap conditions and with the 3kg claim it actually dropped 6kg and for those who do the form and understand its ability it was a weighted certainty.

To consolidate its prospects it mapped to get a good run off a strong tempo and is one of many horses crying out for Eagle Farm.

At least $10 was freely bet before the QOP kicked in with the flucs you quote.

As I often say in my other forums, why do so many assume the fixed prices that appear are necessarily correct or the benchmark to form opinions or prosecute cases. It's an opinion only to be readily challenged in the market place.

This is a prescient case in point.

Noted form analyst Vince Aspinall also marked it as his best bet of the day.

So to end where we began, why the hell would there be any mention in the stewards report ?

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15279
« 2019-Jan-21, 08:03 AM Reply #354 »
Dave  To answer your question in the spirit of concilliation in response to your unusually provocative dismissive post repling to my relatively mild opinion expressing surprise that the stewards report didn’t mention one word about MAGIC Fox’s return to the winner’s circle on Saturday .....let’s stick to the facts ..they don’t alter... only our opinions  differ.....It was evident that the horse was down in class although still only racing against  3yo company it drew the outside another handicap but which adds merit to its win...it had a 3kg allowance and blinkers for the first time they probably made the difference.
The stewards report focused on Mishani Hustler which opened favourite but blew like a gale  in the betting  ....despite having superior form ... the apprentice rider was fined $1K for failing to ride the horse out yet stewards admitted that made no difference to the result ......they couldn't overlook  the shocking run of VIRAL which finished lengths in front of MAGIC FOX  at their last contest ....VIRAL started favourite but was never in contention and finished last..pulling up lame and wasn’t ridden out .....yet MAGIC  FOX the big shortener backed from as much as $10 according to you into $4.40 was not an unexpected result..

None of your newspaper colleagues gave the horse any chance.... not one of the three expert tipsters in the CM included it in their four selections......the comment in the CM  form guide read “Was safely held at Doomben last meeting .Looks tested.” 

Unfortunately your tips which usually appear on the UBET/TAB website were not up on Saturday but I assume from your comments you backed it and probably would have tipped it had you had the opportunity ...I didn’t hear the Saturday tipping segment on Radio TAB in the morning.

What the stewards didn’t do is the issue ......IMO they have a responsibility to inform the public the reason for the horse’s improvement mindful of the massive confidence in the betting $81 one day $4.40 the next ....despite the drop in class .......you come on here after the event to point out it was a good thing on form .... down in class and its previous run was a pass mark... Vince Aspinall tipped it as a best bet ..... he’s a genius....it seems to me you’re implying that  everyone else was a mug not to get on ...no wonder Brisbane racing is on the nose with lots of former punters. ...Nathan Exelby reports in the CM today that it was a good result for Ladbrokes in their book the punters only wanted Mishani Hustler and Viral they weren’t on the Magic Fox tram.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Deejayeff

  • Open
  • User 2387
  • Posts: 160
« 2019-Jan-21, 01:34 PM Reply #355 »
Arsenal, I'm on holidays hence no public profile re Magic Fox.

I thought what I wrote prosecuted a solid enough case as to why there would be no stipes' mention of the winning performance.

What the Courier Mail tipsters select or what comment is written is not relevant.

The devil is in the detail or the SP's to be precise.

Why do you think it started $81 and then started $4.40. Isn't that bleedingly obvious.

To reiterate, the fact $10 was in the marketplace confirms the price assessors  got it wrong on this occasion.

It's not their first time and  won't be their last.

The favorites don't win every race.

Similarly,  I would tip more losers than winners.

If you can strike between 35 and 40% strike rate with on top winners selected, you're going OK.

I have written this on more than one occasion in recent months that prices firming or prices easing does not necessarily equate to untoward activity.

Yes, sometimes  it may,

But often it's the market correcting itself.

There were sufficient ticks in the right boxes to suggest Magic Fox should never have been put out at $10 in the marketplace.

Obviously most punters saw that as well, hence the $4.40 SP.

And let's not limit this scenario to Magic Fox.

You say Mishani Hustler "blew like a gale". Was it the right price in the first place ?

Betting fluctuations are simply a result of marketplace activity.

It's a false premise to suggest the fixed odds available on Wednesday or Thursday is the benchmark for post race opinion.

After all, those very fixed odds are only opinion.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15279
« 2019-Jan-21, 06:53 PM Reply #356 »
Have a happy holiday Dave........  :bye:

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline gunbower

  • Group3
  • User 2463
  • Posts: 813
« 2019-Jan-21, 09:44 PM Reply #357 »
Dave, I agree with what you say. I do the videos etc and I always thought the first price put up was way off the mark . As you say that happens. However I still defend what Arsenal says that if they start at Brisbane Heat batting score prices at their previous run and get beaten 8 lengths Stewards  and should  ask the question . Not all punters are as thorough with their form as many of us and it costs nothing to let connections  explain any perceived improvement. Overall it just adds to the total Integrity aspect of the Industry. That surely can't be a bad thing. Enjoy your holiday.

Online JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18368
« 49 minutes ago Reply #358 »
Why not query the price assessors about putting up 9/1  about a conveyance that was beaten 8 lengths at its previous start at 80/1?