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

Racehorse TALK



Jarrod McLean - Trainer - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Jarrod McLean  (Read 841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15557
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: 31180
« 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 ?



Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15557
« 2019-Mar-18, 03:43 PM Reply #2 »
MCLEAN TO FIGHT IT OUT AGAINST RV
LEO SCHLINK
TRAINER Jarrod McLean will face Racing Victoria’s licensing panel today as he attempts to take over disgraced colleague Darren Weir’s Warrnambool stables.

McLean, under police investigation and already charged by RV stewards over the alleged possession of a jigger, has applied to move horses into Weir’s former 43-box complex.

While training in his own right, McLean previously served as Weir’s Warrnambool foreman.

RV integrity officials are believed to be considering changes to regulations to prevent trainers holding dual roles.

McLean will face four charges in May over the discovery of a jigger at Yangery in January. He has been allowed to continue training until a date is set for his appearance at the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board.

Weir was disqualified for four years by the RAD Board after the discovery of three jiggers at his former Ballarat stables during January 30 raids.

Victoria Police’s sporting integrity intelligence squad continues to investigate multiple lines of inquiry.

The squad recently returned to Warrnambool to conduct further searches, while also interviewing staff members.

ENDS

The wheels of justice move slowly it seems the alleged jigger charges and other matters from January won't be heard until some unspecified date in May

From my observations the RAD board doesn't appear to be overloaded Weir's case an example of little time time taken from the charges to the hearing..but McLean over 3 and into the 4th month for his hearing.

Giddy Up :beer:


Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31180
« 2019-Mar-19, 11:09 AM Reply #3 »
How did he go ?

I hope they laughed at him.


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15557
« 2019-Mar-22, 06:24 PM Reply #4 »
How did he go ?

I hope they laughed at him.

He'll find out on Tuesday according to a media report I saw.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15557
« 2019-Mar-27, 05:46 PM Reply #5 »
RV deny McLean's stable application
Andrew Eddy@fastisheddy   4:47pm
, (
Jarrod McLean's application to take over the Warrnambool stables of disqualified former trainer Darren Weir has been denied by the Racing Victoria Board.

RV announced on Wednesday that the directors had determined at the board meeting on Tuesday that McLean's application for the registration of additional stabling locations adjoining the Warrnambool Racecourse be denied in the interests and image of Victorian racing.

In a statement released on Wednesday, RV outlined its decision: "Acting in the interests and image of Victorian racing, the board determined that Mr McLean's application cannot be approved while serious charges laid by RV stewards are pending hearing and determination by the RAD Board and while the current Victoria Police investigation remains ongoing."

McLean was arrested at the same time as Weir last month and was charged with possession of an electronic apparatus and of bringing racing into disrepute.

No date has been set for his hearing but it is not expected to be heard by the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board until late May.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4547
« 2019-Mar-27, 06:34 PM Reply #6 »

guilty until proven innocent

This is another illustration of guilty until proven innocent in the racing industry.

Appealing this decision would add to the legal costs of the presumed guilty by association.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15557
« 2019-Mar-28, 12:50 PM Reply #7 »
guilty until proven innocent

This is another illustration of guilty until proven innocent in the racing industry.

Appealing this decision would add to the legal costs of the presumed guilty by association.

Very doubtful that this decision/refusal to entertain his application would be open to appeal ....... appeals lie against penalties imposed for alleged breaches of the Rules ...this is simply an applicant for tenancy being refused....possibly he could seek a judicial review but that would IMO be a shot in the dark.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4547
« 2019-Mar-28, 04:59 PM Reply #8 »


Justice delayed

Industry administrators and bureaucratic procedures are often a substantial discretionary penalty.

If Racing Australia is not to be dismissed as an irrelevance, it should be promoting uniform codes of practice and standards to preclude  penalties imposed as a bureaucratic discretion.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 26024
« 2019-Mar-28, 06:35 PM Reply #9 »
What a surprise. A fraud like Mair defending another one


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap