Racing Appeal Board Decisions - Qld Gallops - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Racing Appeal Board Decisions - Qld Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Racing Appeal Board Decisions  (Read 34050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Aug-19, 09:26 PM Reply #75 »
The Internal Reviewer Mr Kane Ashby has been busy disposing of cases brought before him with commendable expediency most of his decisions upheld the penalties imposed although two applicants were successful in getting some relief..... one a reduction of $1000 off the original penalty while another was granted an additional 12 months to complete an apprecticeship...in Harness Racing Neale Scott lost his appeal and his DQ for 18 months for a Cobalt positive and the other case also failed to overturn the stewards decisions.

Giddy Up :beer:



http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/internal-reviews/decisions/
« Last Edit: 2016-Aug-19, 09:28 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Aug-28, 01:44 PM Reply #76 »
Three more reviews with little or no joy for the applicants the review concluding the stewards decisions were right although in one case resulted in an increased  penalty......it'll be interesting to see if any decide to apply to QCAT for a further review how that august body deals with them.

 http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0008-16-ricky-lock-internal-review-decision.pdf


http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0009-16-joshua-king-internal-review-decision.pdf

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0010-16-stuart-hill-internal-review-decision.pdf

Giddy Up :beer:


Offline gunbower

  • Group3
  • User 2463
  • Posts: 915
« 2016-Aug-28, 08:06 PM Reply #77 »
Of course the "reviewer" or whatever he is called is confirming Stewards decisions. He is on the same payroll. At least in the past the "reviewer" was trained in other substantive matters like the Law and not dependent on RQ or the taxpayer for his wages. The reviewer is simply a former bush jockey funded by the taxpayer. Does anyone seriously think he will rock the boat , while that boat pays his wages ? It is Disneyland stuff to suggest otherwise.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Sep-01, 10:19 PM Reply #78 »
https://www.punters.com.au/news/Darryl-Hansen-wins-appeal-against-ban_152598/

The basis of the decision .......the case concluded in May the decision came out today courtesy of Punters.com:-

"The hearings heard lengthy arguments about the two samples used by stewards to convict Hansen and whether the second of them complied with the state's Racing Act.

Hansen's lawyers argued the B sample certificate which was obtained from the RASL Laboratory in Victoria had failed to meet the mandatory compliance requirements of the Act.

In Thursday's judgment, the RDB found the compliance requirements in the case of the second sample had not been carried out making that sample worthless.

The RDB found the receipt, testing and results of the B sample had been contrary to the certification and requirements of the Act.

"In the absence of both certificates being valid a prima facie case under the presentation rule cannot exist and the charge cannot be sustained," the RDB said.

"We would also add that this is certainly not a case where the stewards are at fault."


More detail in Nathan Exelby's report in the CM .......the reasons for decision not yet available on the RAD board website.

Trainer Darryl Hansen wins appeal against nine-month suspension after B sample was ruled inadmissable
 
Nathan Exelby, @xlbnathan_cmail, The Courier-Mail
September 1, 2016 5:29pm
 
DARRYL Hansen has had his penalty against a nine-month positive swab sentence overturned by the Racing Disciplinary Board, which ruled the B sample tested in Victoria was inadmissable.
Hansen has been training on a stay of proceedings since last October, after stewards outed him for an elevated TCO2 reading from his horse How Can I Help, who was unplaced at Ipswich last August.
How Can I Help returned a total TCO2 A sample of 37.4 millimoles per litre in plasma, but the horse’s B sample came back at 36.5, which is within a 1mm variant of the limit and Hansen contended that as a result he did not have a case to answer.
Hansen also submitted evidence that the explanation for the horse’s elevated TCO2 reading was because of a mix-up by a stablehand in feeding the horse on race morning.
The RDB ruled the B sample inadmissable, owing to a clerical error, and upheld Hansen’s appeal because both A and B samples must sustain a positive swab.
The B sample was sent to Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) in Victoria where it was received by racing operations manager Naomi Selvadurai, who also signed the certificates of analysis.
Counsel for Hansen claimed Selvadurai was “not a lawfully nominated person” to take delivery of the sample and was not authorised to issue a certificate of analysis.

It was submitted her full authorisation came in September but was not official on August 18, when the sample was tested.
Counsel for Racing Queensland said this evidence should not be permissible because it had been tendered after the initial appeal hearing in December last year, but the RDB rejected the claim.

[/i]
Giddy Up :beer:
[/color]
[/color]
« Last Edit: 2016-Sep-02, 11:15 AM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Sep-02, 07:21 PM Reply #79 »
Interesting decision upholding Mr Hansen's appeal on a significant technical issue.......of the two samples taken A was over but B  was declared a nullity as it was received and analysed by a person not accredited at the time....so as only one sample was in evidence when two are required the learned board upheld the appeal. Hardly likely IMO that RQ would contest the decision by going to QCAT but you never know. :what:

 http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/appeal-board-decisions/thoroughbred/2016-08-30-daryl-hansen.pdf


Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Sep-11, 11:47 AM Reply #80 »
IR decision on an application from K Rattray a harness racing trainer/driver after his horse returned a positive to "bute"

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0017-16-kenneth-rattray-internal-review-decision.pdf

Extract from above:-
"The Applicant sought a review, due to the penalty being excessive and conviction on the basis the certificates of analysis for the sample was completed by the same laboratory. The reviewer notes Australian Harness Rule of Racing 191(2) states: If another person or drug testing laboratory approved by the controlling body analyses a portion of the sample or specimen referred to in sub rule (1) and certifies the presence of a prohibited substance in the sample or specimen that certification together with the certification referred to in sub rule (1) is conclusive evidence of the presence of a prohibited substance.
 
The reviewer finds, testing the A and B portion of the sample by one approved drug testing laboratory, in this case the Racing Science Centre and analysed by two separate analysts’ Ms Samantha Nelis and Mr Mark W Jarrett is in compliance with rule 191(2) and open to stewards to operate in such a manner. "

It'll be interesting to see if this goes to QCAT usually you would think the rule requiring samples to be confirmed by a different lab to the first otherwise what's the point in referring the sample to the same lab where the testing is simply repeated.


Giddy Up :beer:


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Sep-15, 07:46 PM Reply #81 »
http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/appeal-board-decisions/thoroughbred/2016-09-13-lyn-paton.pdf

Still no decision posted on upholding the appeal of Rochelle Smith.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Sep-19, 05:34 PM Reply #82 »
http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/appeal-board-decisions/thoroughbred/2016-08-31-rochelle-smith.pdf

Finally the decision has been made available on the website.

I got a headache reading this decision..... I think it's likely there'll be an application to QCAT by RQ or the QRIC whichever  to get the matter sorted...both positives were well over the threshold. :o

Giddy Up :beer:
« Last Edit: 2016-Sep-21, 07:56 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Oct-07, 07:24 AM Reply #83 »
This is a turn up one for the appellant Nathan Day suspended for 10 days amended on review to 8 days.

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0023-16-nathan-day-internal-review-decision.pdf

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Oct-24, 09:01 AM Reply #84 »
Internal Review decisions on two apprentices both charged over their "culpable : / "blameworthy" rides in the same race.

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0027-16-bridget-grylls-internal-review-decision.pdf

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0029-16-joshua-oliver-internal-review-decision.pdf

Nathan Exelby's story in the CM seeks an improvement in QCAT procedures on applications for a stay of proceedings......they need to get their fingers out.


Giddy Up :beer:



Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2694
« 2016-Oct-24, 09:51 AM Reply #85 »
I might be a bit precious . . but are the 'rules' different from location to location  :huh:

Stewards also had to consider that the breach occurred at a metropolitan meeting and the negative impact breaches of this kind have on the image of the industry.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Oct-24, 07:19 PM Reply #86 »
Speed up decisions on stays
NATHAN EXELBY
COMMENT
 
IN LIMBO: Josh Oliver.
LAST week’s uncertainty involving the availability to ride for Josh Oliver and Bridget Grylls underlined the need for the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to adopt a more streamlined process in granting or denying licensees a stay of proceedings.
Pleasingly, it is understood there is a desire at QCAT to speed up the process and to offset the uncertainty around the availability of riders who have been suspended and want to appeal their sentence.
That desperately needs to happen because it is probable more cases will be taken to QCAT, given the poor record licensees have with the new internal review system.
There is no doubt licensees would like to resurrect the Racing Disciplinary Board and its chairman Brock Miller.
Trainers and jockeys had a high strike rate of success when appealing to the RDB, but that has all changed with the Internal Review that has replaced it.
Internal reviewer Kane Ashby has published results from 26 reviews across the three codes of racing and in only two instances has the appellant had a penalty reduced or a ruling overturned.
The other verdicts have all gone with the original decision by stewards and in two instances, the original penalty was increased.
So the appeal fluctuations have gone from one extreme to the other, highlighting the need for QCAT to be more accessible and make decisions on stays more quickly.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Oct-27, 07:24 PM Reply #87 »
Trainer Tony Gollan's penalty of $8K for positives from Amexed has been confirmed by the internal Reviewer Mr Kane Ashby...right of appeal to QCAT is an option should TG decide to test it.

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0026-16-tony-gollan-internal-review-decision.pdf


Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Nov-10, 07:48 AM Reply #88 »
Trainer Jason Judge fined $1500 and partner given time for forging signatures of previous part owners who were to retain part ownership of King Ludwig but trainer reasoned that as they hadn't paid anything in training fees he decided to remove their names......horse ran unplaced at Wondai but won its next start at Goondiwindi worth $4550 so apart from the fine $3K purchase price recouped.......appeal dismissed by QRIC.

 http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0030-16-jason-judge-internal-review-decision.pdf


Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2016-Nov-28, 07:48 PM Reply #89 »
Mr Ashby the internal reviewer has upheld three of the latest applications before him.

Two of which overturned a Licensing Department decision to refuse training licenses for Sheila Laxon a bankrupt and her partner John Symons they're licensed under conditions and are employees of a company which has given a guarantee on their behalf.
It's unclear from the decision whether Laxon discharged the debt which landed her on the Forfeits List back in 2011 probably not I'm guessing in light of the bankruptcy.

The third case of Dale Evans was found guilty by Rocky stewards of failing to give his horse every chance the video shows it lost a lot of ground at the start and Evans persisted with trying for inside runs once he was within striking distance instead of taking the horse wider although it doe sappear the horse had had enough 50m out. Mr Ashby found Evans not completely blameworthy and upheld his appeal.

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0033-16-j-symons-internal-review-decision.pdf

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0032-16-s-laxon-internal-review-decision.pdf

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0040-16-dale-evans-internal-review-decision.pdf


http://www.racingqueensland.com.au/Thoroughbred/Racing-Calendar/Video-Replays/Race-Meeting-Videos/ROCK/20161011

Giddy Up :beer:




« Last Edit: 2016-Nov-28, 07:51 PM by Arsenal »

Offline deepthroat

  • Open
  • User 2464
  • Posts: 161
« 2016-Nov-28, 08:36 PM Reply #90 »
Ashby was probably well equipped information wise to rule on the Laxon/Symons licences.. He would've been a party to all internal proceedings when he was in Victoria..

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2017-Jan-27, 07:05 PM Reply #91 »
Ben Currie up for fines totalling $15K both internal reviews confirmed the penalty.

The recent decisions of the Internal Reviewer are lacking in reasons it's a fundamental principle that reasons are required to be given by administrative bodies such as the QRIC I expect they'll be called to account for their apparent cavalier attitude to the rights of licensees.

  http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0053-16-ben-currie.pdf

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/23-jan-2017-ben-currie-internal-review.pdf


http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0001-17-natalea-summers.pdf

Summers appeal successful......one out of 4.

http://www.qric.qld.gov.au/pdf/0002-17-robert-fradd-internal-review-decision.pdf

Giddy Up :beer:



Offline dean

  • Listed
  • User 2423
  • Posts: 274
« 2017-Jan-27, 09:33 PM Reply #92 »
Thanks Arsenal for keeping us up to date with the nonsense in QLD. They establish a new body with a stack of coppers and ex coppers who wouldn't have the foggiest about the Racing game. Faced with this dilemma they have  had to hire a couple of ex-interstate stipes to adjudicate on racing matters , presumably because they couldn't trust the ability or the soundness of the local product. What happens next though is farcical . They issue decisions with no reasons. Isn't Justice grand ! Amazing. I can remember that one of these gurus was more famous for his exploits chasing jockey wives than any contribution to the game itself.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15808
« 2017-Jan-28, 08:50 AM Reply #93 »
It seems very strange that up until the recent internal review decisions as posted below by my good self the Internal Reviewer gave reasons for his decision .........now in all of those recent cases there's no reason given ..........this is very dismissive of the applicant's rights to be properly informed of the decision particularly if  an adverse one.......how can a licensee be expected to appeal to QCAT without knowing the reasons for decision.

Maybe the mainstream media will pick up the ball and run with it if the representative associations haven't done so themselves.

Giddy Up :beer:


Offline aro

  • Class 4
  • User 565
  • Posts: 43
« 2017-Feb-01, 04:53 PM Reply #94 »

Must be a change of heart from the Internal Reviewer or within the Commission perhaps?

You have made a grave assumption though. No reasons are now given in the published decisions, however the applicant must receive, and would receive, the reasons for the decision (as you make mention, a further right of appeal lies to QCAT).

Get in contact with QRIC and find out!


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap