Jarrod McLean - Trainer - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Jarrod McLean - Trainer - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Jarrod McLean  (Read 158 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15373
O.P. « 2019-Feb-10, 01:03 PM »
Jarrod McLean who  has been charged with offences under the same Rules as Darren Weir who was outed for 4 years by the RAD Board ...... Weir had 3 jiggers McLean only one and he is contesting the charges with the RAD board yet to set a date for hearing of his appeal...it has been reported that McLean will argue the electronic device found on his property is a cattle prod used to manage his herd of cattle.
 The relevant rule is :-
AR 175(hh)(ii) Possession of an electric or electronic apparatus capable of affecting the performance of a horse

Looking at previous decisions IMO McLean would be at write your own ticket odds to defend the charge for possession ...some years ago the RAD board  gave a Horsham owner/trainer 3 years after stewards found an electrical device which in her case was a cattle prod.

Also  there’s a precedent where a bush trainer in Qld was disqualified for 5 years after stewards found two cattle prods on his property .. One device was black in colour and short and the other was grayish colour and long...one was defective and not in operating order.

The trainer denied they belonged to him claiming  that they belonged to the piggery down the road which is owned by the property owner but that wasn’t accepted by stewards who held possession had been established and gave him 5 years.

The trainer then took his case to the then Racing and Disciplinary Board

The trainer’s advocate Jim Murdoch QC submitted that the devices were too cumbersome for a jockey to use when galloping a horse. In its decision the tribunal accepted “that these devices could not actually be used during a race but possible to believe that they could be used in training. One clear use would be in barrier practice.”

“The Tribunal is of the view that on a correct interpretation of the Rule it is not necessary to prove actual use and that the offence is made out by a person having in his possession a device capable of affecting the performance of the horse when it does engage in a race or training gallop. The reference to the race or training gallop could be deleted without derogating from this Rule."

"The Tribunal is of the very firm view that the penalty handed down in this case is well beyond the realms of reasonable. Major penalties can be imposed for on-course activities which breach the Rules but not for finding a cattle prod in a country training establishment."

"The sentence imposed is clearly manifestly excessive."

The Appellant is a trainer of horses in a small western Queensland town. His business contributes to the commerce of the community in which he lives and contributes to the support of local establishments upon which members of the local community rely for jobs. To visit upon him a disqualification of five years is, in all of the circumstances, unreasonable in the extreme. In the opinion to the Tribunal, the penalty of five years is excessive and should be varied to a penalty of 12 months’ disqualification together with a fine of $1,000.00 on each charge with the disqualification periods to be concurrent."

Giddy Up :beer:


Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31160
« 2019-Feb-11, 12:45 PM Reply #1 »
"The Tribunal is of the very firm view that the penalty handed down in this case is well beyond the realms of reasonable. Major penalties can be imposed for on-course activities which breach the Rules but not for finding a cattle prod in a country training establishment."

"The sentence imposed is clearly manifestly excessive."

The Appellant is a trainer of horses in a small western Queensland town. His business contributes to the commerce of the community in which he lives and contributes to the support of local establishments upon which members of the local community rely for jobs. To visit upon him a disqualification of five years is, in all of the circumstances, unreasonable in the extreme. In the opinion to the Tribunal, the penalty of five years is excessive and should be varied to a penalty of 12 months’ disqualification together with a fine of $1,000.00 on each charge with the disqualification periods to be concurrent."


How long ago did this take place and how did that community cope for the 12 months ?




BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap