Racehorse TALK

Thoroughbred Racing Talk => Vic Gallops => Topic started by: Arsenal on 2019-Aug-23, 08:18 PM

Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Aug-23, 08:18 PM
The first decision of the VRT is available within days of the hearing on 19 th August media release on the decision dated 23 August no delay in decision making.

"DECISION
HARNESS RACING VICTORIA
and
MR MATTHEW CRAVEN
 
Date of hearing:      19 August 2019
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson), Magistrate John Doherty (Deputy Chairperson) and Mr. Robert Abrahams
Appearances:    Mr Nicholas Murray and Mr Neale Conder appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
            Mr Damien Sheales appeared on behalf of Mr Craven.
            Mr Matthew Craven appeared as a witness.

Charge:    Australian Harness Racing Rule 149 (2) states “A person shall not drive in a manner which in the opinion of the stewards is unacceptable”.

Particulars of charge:   The particulars of the charge being after driving forward from barrier 5 from the start on Bou Chard and after initially being obliged to race three wide to the outside of Goodtime Junior (Jackie Barker) and Huli Nien (Greg Sugars) into the first turn, Mr Craven then continued to persevere in obtaining the lead until near the 1200m which resulted in an exceptionally fast first quarter of 26.3 seconds being recorded. Thereafter, Mr Craven allowed Bou Chard to stride whilst in the lead, which resulted in the first half of the last mile being recorded in 55.6 seconds. In the opinion of the Stewards, the driving tactics employed by Mr Craven during the early and middle stages of the event were unacceptable and was the main contributing factor in Bou Chard being placed under pressure from the 400m and giving ground to be beaten into last position approximately 47 metres from the eventual winner.

Plea:             Not guilty



DECISION   Having viewed the video of the race and having heard the evidence of Mr. Craven and the submissions on behalf of the parties, the tribunal found Mr. Craven guilty of the charge. In particular, it found the driving tactics of Mr. Craven in failing to give the horse a "breather" after a long and hard battle to get to the front were unacceptable. Bearing in mind Mr. Craven's very good record and the impact of a suspension upon him at this particular time, the Tribunal set aside the period of suspension that had been imposed and ordered that he be fined $2,500.



Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal"

ENDS

Giddy Up :beer:


Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Sep-05, 09:34 AM
DECISION
GREYHOUND RACING VICTORIA
and
MR DAVID GRAHAM
 
Date of hearing:      29 August 2019
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson) and Ms Julie Nicholson.
Appearances:    Mr Paul Searle appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
            Mr David Graham (Owner) represented himself at the hearing.

Particulars of charge:   (Stewards report) An Exhibition Trial was conducted by Dusty’s Charlie at Healesville on Sunday 11 August 2019 in the lead up to the National Straight Track Championship on 18 August 2019.
After considering the circumstances surrounding the conduct and nature of the trial, the matter was referred by the Chief Steward to the Healesville Stewards Panel to officially open and hold an inquiry into the performance of Dusty’s Charlie in the trial, with specific regard to Local Rule 39.
39 Trials between Events
39.1 The Board may at any time permit greyhounds to run in a trial in between Events at a Meeting.
39.2 Without limiting LR 39.1 (Vic), any greyhound which runs in a trial in between Events at a Meeting shall be subject to the Rules as if the greyhound was running in an Event. It was found that, in the trial, Dusty’s Charlie failed to pursue the lure as required by Rule 69B.

Plea:             Not Guilty



DECISION   

There is a preliminary question of law in relation to this appeal. Pursuant to section 50X of the
Racing Act 1958 “A question of law arising in a hearing must be decided by the Chairperson or
Deputy Chairperson”. Accordingly, I am Ruling upon it.

The appeal concerns a charge essentially pursuant to LRR Rules 39 (1) and (2). On 11 August 2019 at Healesville a meeting was conducted. Before Race 1 the dog Dusty’s Charlie of which Mr. Graham is the owner, trialled in preparation for the National Straight Track Championships. Without going into details, it did not trial satisfactorily. Again without going through the intervening steps, ultimately a penalty was imposed resulting in the dog being stood down from racing for 3 days and no future nominations would be accepted until Dusty’s Charlie performed a satisfactory trial. The papers were marked accordingly.

It is from this decision that Mr. Graham appeals. Local Rule 39 (1) and (2) provides that greyhounds can run in trials between Events at a meeting and any greyhound which runs in a trial between Events at a meeting shall be subject to the Rules as if the greyhound was running in an Event.

There is no argument but in this case the relevant trial was not run between Events at a meeting. Dusty’s Charlie trialled before the first Event. The Rule is quite clear. It applies to trials between Events at a Meeting. Whatever the purpose of the Rule, that is what it specifically provides.

In the present case the Stewards, for reasons that may have seemed to be adequate, had Dusty’s Charlie trial not between Events at a meeting but before the meeting had started – that is before the First Event. That took it outside the specific wording of the Rule. Whatever occurred, it was not a Trial between Events and therefore not in accordance with the Rules. The Rules are not vague or ambiguous. They are specific.

What then is the effect of this? In my opinion, it means that the behaviour of Dusty’s Charlie did not take place in a trial for the purpose of Local Rule 39 (1) or (2).

I appreciate that the Stewards acted in good faith and for reasons that seemed sound. However, by not having the trial between events, what occurred simply did not fall within the requirements of the Rule.

Amongst other things and without wishing to be too legal, the Latin term of [expressio unius est exclusio alterius] applies – when a thing of a class is expressly mentioned, others of the same class are excluded.

A trial between Events falls within LR 39 (1) and (2). Other trials do not and are excluded. 

In my opinion the situation is not saved by rule 20, and particularly as argued by Rule 20 (3)(v). It allows the Stewards to determine any matter that arises but is not provided for by the Rules. However, what should have occurred here is simple and is provided for by the Rules – relevant trials should be run between Events. I also note that Rule 20 specifically applies to Race meetings, not necessarily to trials. 

Nor does the [Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984] save the day. The Rule in relation to the relevant trials is clear. They are trials run between Events. This one wasn’t. There is no need to turn to the [Interpretation of Legislation Act].

Similarly, the NSW decisions do not persuade me to alter my view. It is not a situation of ambiguity or vagueness needing a common sense interpretation. Rule 39 (1) and (2) are perfectly clear. They apply to trials between Events at the meeting.

Accordingly, my finding is that the Trial involving Dusty’s Charlie on 11 August 2019 was not a trial conducted in accordance with LR 39 (1) and (2).

The appeal is therefore upheld and the penalty is set aside. 

Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

ENDS

This is what is missing in QLD quick decision making no long delays in stays of proceedings licensees time out expires before a decision on penalty is made so effectively no penalty apart from a little black mark on the report card.

Giddy Up :beer:


Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Sep-05, 07:03 PM
https://www.racing.com/news/2019-09-03/news-test-looms-for-new-tribunal
Test looms for new tribunal
 
Andrew Eddy@fastisheddy
3 September, 2019

James McNamara says he intends walking away from the racing industry, but Victorian racing’s new judicial system means the Koroit hobby trainer might not find it so easy to simply cut his connection with horse racing.
McNamara claimed he will throw away his trainers licence and turn his back on the industry on Monday after he was charged with not permitting one of his horses Hornets' Nest from running on its merits in a hurdle at Casterton in late June.
These charges will be heard by the Victorian Racing Tribunal (VRT) on a date still to be fixed and McNamara could yet be forced to appear to answer questions.
One of the biggest differences between the new judicial body and the old – the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board – the VRT has the power to compel witnesses to appear if so desired.
The RAD Board had no such power as seen only last year with former trainer Robert Smerdon, who refused to attend his RAD Board hearing after handing in his trainer’s licence despite having numerous serious charges against him.
He was eventually banned for life for his role in the Aquanita scandal, but his absence from that hearing and subsequent appeals left a bad taste for many in the industry.
WATCH: Hornets' Nest at Casterton
On Monday, Racing Victoria issued charges against McNamara and jockey Paul Hamblin for not allowing the then 11-year-old Hornets' Nest every opportunity to win the Casterton race.
The stewards alleged Hamblin's riding of Hornets' Nest was contrary to rules in that he failed between approximately the 1200-metre mark and the 800-metre mark to improve his position and maintain contact with the field.
It was also alleged that between approximately the 800-metre mark and jumping the last obstacle, Hamblin did not ride his mount with sufficient vigor to improve their position.
The stewards also allege that McNamara's instructions to Hamblin prior to the race contributed to Hamblin's breach of the rules.
Hornets' Nest, who is now a 12-year-old so is in his final season of racing, has won nine races from 45 starts, including his maiden hurdle in 2014 by 18 lengths.
Nearly six years ago to the day, he contested the Group 2 Dato Tan Chin Nam (Feehan) Stakes, finishing less than three lengths behind the winner Fiorente, who went on to win the Melbourne Cup later that spring.

Crikey why would they pull it up it's 11yo?

Giddy Up :beer:

Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: nemisis on 2019-Sep-05, 10:00 PM
I've been a real Hornet's Nest fan but it has to be said they really over did the 'just having a run" at Casterton.......$11 out to $21 would suggest a few people knew something.

He is only a little fellow and was carrying 74 kgs in the $30k Hurdle at Casterton and no doubt the connections were eyeing the Kevin Lafferty`worth $100k the week after in which he carried 64.5 kgs.

They probably didn't want him to be hammered out or risk getting some more weight  for the target race but Hornet's Nest generally races up on the pace.

You can't help having some sympathy for James McNamara all the same because there are plenty of horses from the big stables having "a run" every week and there seems to be some acceptance of that by stewards.......must have overdone it.
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Sep-11, 07:29 PM
Another set of decisions all three codes included.......most didn't end well for the appellants.....this is the exception as well as the most interesting the case of Ms Hanna Powell whose horse Kissee Mee returned 2 positives due to eating grass contaminated by sewage which contained the prohibited substance from medication used by the trainer's husband.

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0009/1860822/VRT-Decision-Gerry-Orr-Appeal-29-August-2019-FINAL.docx

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0010/1860823/VRT-Decision-Hanna-Powell-Appeal-30-August-2019.docx
There is no argument but that Kissee Mee’s contact with the prohibited substance came as a result of eating grass in the area of a septic tank and where there was a sewage overflow. Your husband had regularly taken anti-depressant medication, which contains the prohibited substance. No other cause of the positive return has been suggested by the Stewards and we accept that all of these factors combined to form what Mr Nicholl, on your behalf, called a perfect storm. We accept that you were extremely unlucky and that there was no intention to give the horse any prohibited substance or to try and gain any unfair advantage. As soon as you found out about the positive return, you scratched the horse from its next engagement.
This is a rare case that the Stewards and yourself, with the assistance of Mr Nicholl, all agreed upon the appropriate penalty. That penalty is that a conviction be recorded but with no other penalty imposed.
We agree. We also point out that you will be hit with a substantial penalty by reason of the inevitable disqualification of Kissee Mee from both races. You are the 100% owner of her. This will cost you in excess of $20,000 and spoil what has been one of your most successful years.
In conclusion, we find the charge proven. A conviction, relating to both races, will be recorded, but no other penalty imposed.
Pursuant to AR 177, Kissee Mee is disqualified as the winner of race 4, the Bet365 Racing Cashback 0-58 Handicap at Kyneton on 2 November 2018 and the places amended accordingly.Kissee Mee is also disqualified as the winner of Race 6, the RMBL Investments Handicap at Kyneton on 6 December 2018 and the places amended accordingly.

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0007/1860901/VRT-Decision-Matthew-Horsnell-Appeal-2-September-2019-Final.docx

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0007/1860982/VRT-Decision-Monique-Burnett-Appeal-2-September-2019-Final.docx

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0009/1860984/VRT-Decision-Tony-Xiriha-Appeal-2-September-2019-Final.docx

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Peter Mair on 2019-Sep-11, 08:07 PM


Technology decisions -- racing past the 'post 'of insanity


Decisions on race outcomes, that could be declared 'dead heats' -- and would have been a few years ago  -- are now declared with digital technology 'evidence' ... 'showing' a margin not evident to a human eye.

Most of us will cop that 'on the chin' and move on -- akin to a penalty shootout deciding a soccer match.

The boundary of commonsense is being crossed in decisions on 'positive swabs' -- not repeating the stupidity of the 'charge' in this 'on the eaten grass' matter, I recall another.

A leading Sydney trainer was charged with a 'herion' reading tracked to a stable hand 'handling' a contaminated door knob at a local hotel and then 'not washing his hands' before dealing with the horse.

I was at the appeal  hearing  ............... I asked the 'chief tester' -- 'how high was the reading?'  ....       'not enough to fit on the head of a pin' ....... why prosecute? ........ that's the rules!

A substantial fine was 'set aside' but the 'presentation' offense was confirmed.

....... I stopped attending appeal hearings.
 






Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: napes on 2019-Sep-12, 10:26 AM
That would have been a relief for all involved!!
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: wily ole dog on 2019-Sep-12, 04:59 PM
Napes, can you imagine sitting in the same room as the bloke  :lol:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Peter Mair on 2019-Sep-12, 07:23 PM


............... thanks boys ....... embryonic signs of an alliance .......  uniting to endorse my views is most welcome.
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Sep-30, 04:21 PM
DECISION
GREYHOUND RACING VICTORIA
and
MR LAURIE MALLIA
 
Date of hearing:      25 September 2019
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson), Justice Shane Marshall (Deputy chairperson) and Ms Heidi Keighran.
Appearances:    Mr Marwan El-Asmar appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
Mr Laurie Mallia represented himself at the hearing.

Charge:    Greyhounds Australasia Rule 83 (1A) states:
A person who-    
(a) administers, attempts to administer or causes to be administered a prohibited substance to a greyhound;
(b) aids, abets, counsels or procures any person to administer a prohibited substance to a greyhound; or
(c) has prior knowledge of a prohibited substance being administered to a greyhound which is detected in any sample taken from such greyhound that has been presented for an Event or when subject to any other contingency provided for pursuant to these Rules, shall be guilty of an offence.

Greyhounds Australasia Rule 83 (2) states:
The owner, trainer or person in charge of a greyhound-
(a)   nominated to compete in an Event;
(b)   presented for a satisfactory, weight or whelping trial or such other trial as provided for pursuant to these Rules; or
(c)   presented for any test or examination for the purpose of a period of incapacitation or prohibition being varied or revoked
shall present the greyhound free of any prohibited substance.

Particulars of charges:   Charge 1 On the 6 May 2019 at the Ballarat Greyhound Racing Club, Mr Mallia administered, or caused to be administered, to ‘Dyna Diedre’, a prohibited substance, being cobalt, which was detected in a sample taken from ‘Dyna Diedre’ in that:
(a)   You administered products containing cobalt, namely Rapidvite Amino Cal Plus and Feramo D, to ‘Dyna Diedre’ on 5 May 2019;
(b)   A pre-race sample of urine was taken from ‘Dyna Diedre’ at the event (the sample);
(c)   Cobalt was detected in the sample at a mass concentration of greater than 100 nanograms per millilitre; and
(d)   The mass concentration of cobalt detected in the sample could only be caused by the administration of cobalt.

Charge 2 On 6 May 2019, you presented ‘Dyna Diedre’ at the Event not free of any prohibited substance, given that:
(a)   A pre-race sample of urine was taken from ‘Dyna Diedre’ at the Event (the Sample); and
(b)   Cobalt was detected in the Sample at a mass concentration of greater than 100 nanograms per millilitre.

Plea:             Guilty to both charges


DECISION

1.   Mr Laurie Mallia is a registered greyhound trainer and the trainer of the greyhound ‘Dyna Diedre’. Dyna Diedre competed in race 12 at Ballarat on 6 May 2019. A pre-race urine sample taken from the greyhound detected cobalt at a mass concentration of greater than 100 nanograms per millilitre. The level was 130 ng/ml.
 
2.   Stewards of Greyhound Racing Victoria (GRV) have charged Mr Mallia under Greyhounds Australasia Rule (GAR) 83(1A) with administering a prohibited substance to a greyhound that has been presented for an event, being a prohibited substance which is detected in a sample taken from a greyhound. There is also a charge under GAR 83(2) of presenting a greyhound for an event while not being free of a prohibited substance.

3.   Mr Mallia has pleaded guilty to each charge. The Tribunal finds the charges proven. It will fix an appropriate penalty on the more serious administration charge and impose no extra penalty on the presentation charge which arises out of the same substratum of facts.

4.   Cobalt is a prohibited substance when it is present in a sample at greater than 100 nanograms per millilitre. That is the combined effect of GAR 83(10) and the definition of prohibited substance in GAR 83(1).

5.   Mr Mallia is a small hobby trainer. For a 2 year period from 2015 to 2017 he was relatively inactive. That was the time in which the cobalt threshold was introduced into the GAR’s and when GRV generated much publicity about cobalt being contained in some feed substances. The history of the introduction of GAR 83(1) and the accompanying publicity is documented in a decision of the GRV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board (“the Board”) in the matter of Crawford on 12 July 2016.

6.   Mr Mallia was not aware that Amino Cal Plus and Feramo D, which he fed to his greyhounds, contained cobalt. He now knows and has ceased feeding substances containing cobalt to his dogs.

7.   In assessing penalty the Tribunal takes into account general deterrence and the importance of upholding the integrity of the industry by providing drug free racing. The Tribunal also takes into account penalties in recent like cases handed down by the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board. The Tribunal further takes into account Mr Mallia’s guilty plea, his remorse, co-operation with the Stewards and good record in over 30 years of training. In all the circumstances we impose a period of 12 months suspension but suspend 10 months of that period, pending no further breach of GAR 83 in the next 12 months. The suspension shall commence immediately.



Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

ENDS

Cobalt again but not a long stretch if he behaves hisself only out for two months.

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Oct-02, 08:10 PM
DECISION
GREYHOUND RACING VICTORIA
and
MR JOHN RENNIE
 
Date of hearing:      1 October 2019
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson), Magistrate John Doherty and Ms. Maree Payne.
Appearances:    Mr Andrew Cusumano appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
Mr John Rennie represented himself via telephone. 

Charge:    Greyhounds Australasia Rule 83 (2) states:
The owner, trainer or person in charge of a greyhound-
(a)   nominated to compete in an Event;
(b)   presented for a satisfactory, weight or whelping trial or such other trial as provided for pursuant to these Rules; or
(c)   presented for any test or examination for the purpose of a period of incapacitation or prohibition being varied or revoked
shall present the greyhound free of any prohibited substance.

Particulars of charges:   On 26 February 2019, you presented ‘Leeroy Rox’ at the Event not free of any prohibited substance, given that:
(a)   A pre-race sample of urine was taken from ‘Leeroy Rox’ at the Event (the Sample); and
(b)   Metformin was detected in the Sample.

Plea:             Guilty


DECISION

Mr John Rennie, you have pleaded “guilty” to a breach of GAR 83(2). Such a breach is classified as a serious offence. This is a presentation case. The charge is that a pre-race urine sample taken from Leeroy Rox, owned and trained by you, before race 5 at Geelong on 26 February 2019 proved positive to Metformin. Leeroy Rox ran last starting at $26.
We have taken into account what has been said by the Stewards and what you have told us. We accept as did the Stewards, that this was a case of accidental contamination resulting from you having handled your diabetes medication before touching your dog. Metformin is contained in the medication and is capable of affecting the performance of a dog in a negative way. Great care must be taken in handling medication before handling a dog which is going to race. General deterrence, the importance of a level playing field, and a drug free industry, are very important considerations.

As stated, we accept that this was totally accidental.

You are a hobby trainer, licenced since 2015, currently with no dogs. You are about to turn 80. Having lived in Port Stephens, you moved back to Victoria after your wife sadly passed away. You have stated that the dogs keep you going.

You now live at Beeac, some distance from Colac. You live on your own in a house that you have. You have no income other than the pension. You have no other assets, apart from having a couple of dogs. Doubtless they have been a great interest for you. You have no relevant prior convictions and obviously live a very modest lifestyle at Beeac.

Given your very good record, the circumstances in which the offence occurred and particularly bearing in mind your obviously very limited financial circumstances, we are of the view that a modest financial penalty is appropriate. Bearing in mind your particularly limited financial circumstances, we are of the view that a fine of $250 is appropriate. We also disqualify Leeroy Rox from race 5 at Geelong on 26 February 2019.   
Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

ENDS

A reasonable result accidental contamination.

Giddy Up :beer:


Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Oct-15, 05:28 PM
Several more decisions from the VRT published including jockeys Brad Rawiller and Luke Currie the former received the benefit of a one day reduction in penalty due to his exceptional record Currie not so lucky out for the full time......harness racing licensees plus some from the dishlickers all dealt with expeditiously.

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors/racing/victorian-racing-tribunal/victorian-racing-tribunal-decisions


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Oct-17, 08:00 PM
Stan Tsaikos overweight 1kg his ride beaten a nose out for 15 instead of 18 apparently he is a serial offender .

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors/racing/victorian-racing-tribunal/victorian-racing-tribunal-decisions

Jamie Kah overweight fined $1000 by stewards

https://www.racing.com/news/2019-10-16/news-jockey-overweight-in-feature-race


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Oct-23, 06:21 PM
https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors/racing/victorian-racing-tribunal/victorian-racing-tribunal-decisions

Paul Hamblin failed to give Hornet’s Nest the best possible chance AR 129 (4)  guilty and given 4 weeks on the sideline  to contemplate his error.....and James McNamara the trainer found not to be a party to the offence but guilty of abusing the stewards $500 lighter..interesting decision clearly the horse was just having a run.
DECISION
RACING VICTORIA
and
MR JAMES McNAMARA
 
Date of hearing:      21 October 2019
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson), Magistrate John Doherty and Mr Greg Childs
Appearances:    Mr Justin Hooper instructed by Ms Charlotte Landy appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
Mr James McNamara represented himself.   
            
Witnesses:   Mr Craig Durden appeared as a witness.
   Mr Wade Hadley appeared as a witness.
   Mr Paul Hamblin appeared as a witness.

Charges:    Charge 1 AR 129 (4)    A rider must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that the rider's horse is given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field. If, in the opinion of the Stewards, this rule has been breached: any person who was a party to the breach may also be penalised. (a) any person who was a party to the breach may be penalised.

   Charge 2 LR 84A A person must not, at any time or for any purpose: (a) engage in any form of intimidation or abusive conduct (either physical, verbal or otherwise), in any way related to racing, of: (i) any Steward, official or employee or officer of Racing Victoria.

Particulars of the charges:   Charge 1
1.   You are, and were at all relevant times, a trainer licensed by Racing Victoria and the trainer of Hornets’ Nest.
2.   You engaged Paul Hamblin to ride Hornets’ Nest in race 2, the Davis Blinds BM120 Hurdle over 3480 metres at Casterton.
3.   Prior to the race, you provided Paul Hamblin with riding instructions for the race.
4.   Paul Hamblin’s riding of the horse in the race was contrary to AR 129 (2) on the following basis:
4.1   Between approximately the 1200m and the 800m marks of the race Mr Hamblin failed to improve his position and maintain contact with the body of the field in circumstances where it was reasonable and permissible for you to do so; and
4.2   Between approximately the 800m mark of the race and jumping the last obstacle of the race Mr Hamblin failed to ride his mount with sufficient vigour to improve your position in circumstances where it was reasonable and permissible for you to do so.
5.   Hornets’ Nest placed fourth of seven starters in the race and was beaten by approximately ten lengths.
6.   Paul Hamblin rode Hornets’ Nest in the race in accordance with your instructions.
7.   Your instructions caused and/or contributed to Paul Hamblin’s conduct as set out in particulars (a) and (b) above, you were a party to Paul Hamblin’s breach of AR 129 (2).
8.   Your conduct, as set out above was in breach of AR 129 (4).


Charge 2
1.   You are, and were at all relevant times, a trainer licensed by Racing Victoria.
2.   On 2 September 2019, Stipendiary Steward Sam Cochrane called you and asked you to call him back. Later that day, you telephoned Mr Cochrane (the Call).
3.   During the Call, Mr Cochrane informed you that the Stewards were issuing a charge against you with respect to Hornets’ Nest’s race at Casterton on 29 June 2019, when you then engaged in verbally abusive conduct towards him.
4.   Your conduct, as set out above, was in breach of LR 94A(a)(i).


Plea:             Not Guilty




DECISION   

Mr James McNamara, you are the trainer of Hornets’ Nest. You are charged with a breach of AR129(4). You have pleaded “Not Guilty” to the charge. By reason of AR129(4) the additional allegation against you in that, in the opinion of the Stewards, you were a party to the breach of AR129(2). That is based upon the riding instructions allegedly provided to Mr Hamblin prior to the race. It is alleged that Mr Hamblin rode Hornets’ Nest in accordance with your instructions which caused or contributed to his breach of AR 129 (2). As stated, you pleaded “Not Guilty” but opted to give no evidence.

We are troubled by this charge and the evidence supporting it. True it is that, when interviewed by the Stewards on the day, you referred to the races as being “a paid trial” and that you told Mr Hamblin not to pull the whip on it. You told him not to knock the horse about. However, your evidence on the day was that your instruction went on “If he is in a position to win, you go for it, absolutely go for it” You said that you told Mr Hamblin to jump him out, but if they go too hard, “just sit in behind them” don’t break his neck. “He’s got 12 stone on his back”

You claimed you also said that “If you’re in a position to win, yeah you win”.

Instructions are the key to this charge. We are not comfortably satisfied, applying the Briginshaw test, that your instructions to Mr Hamblin resulted in a breach of AR129 (2). Certainly, he did not knock the horse about, but we are not comfortably satisfied that you were a party to the beach of AR129(2). The charge is dismissed. 

Charge LR94A

Certainly, the Stewards should not be abused in this fashion, it was over the phone, it doesn’t appear to have been seriously threatening, as I say the Steward should not have to put up with this kind of behaviour and it is appropriate that Mr McNamara is fined and we fix that fine at $500.



Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

ENDS

Giddy Up :beer:


Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Oct-24, 07:20 PM
https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors/racing/victorian-racing-tribunal/victorian-racing-tribunal-decisions

Greyhound found guilty of failing to chase appeal dismissed.

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Oct-30, 09:15 PM
Another two decisions from the VRT no delays here.......the first case involves a licensee Andrew Henderson trying to rehome retired racehorses but failing to provide proper veterinary attention due to his financial circumstances "bit off more than he could chew" although obviously well intentioned  he was treated compassionately by the Tribunal no more horses on the property and suspended his license ........Ben Melham 8 meetings suspension confirmed.

 
https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0010/1868599/VRT-Decision-Andrew-Henderson-25-October-2019.docx

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0011/1868600/VRT-Decision-Ben-Melham-29-October-2019-Final.docx

Giddy Up :beer:

Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Oct-31, 06:21 PM
Another dishlicker found guilty of failing to chase and suspended for 3 months appeal against the decision dismissed .

Acting under the provisions of GAR 69(A)(1) Zipping Storm was charged with failing to pursue the lure with due commitment. Mr Pieter Smoor pleaded not guilty to the charge, Zipping Storm was found guilty and suspended for 3 months at all tracks and must perform a Satisfactory Trial (all tracks), pursuant to GAR 69(A)(2)(b) before any future nomination will be accepted.


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Nov-11, 07:07 PM
https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors/racing/victorian-racing-tribunal/victorian-racing-tribunal-decisions

Matthew Walker DQ indefinite period ....his offence  failure to attend stewards inquiry.

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Nov-12, 06:19 PM
https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors/racing/victorian-racing-tribunal/victorian-racing-tribunal-decisions

Damien Oliver out for 9 meetings causing interference his appeal dismissed plus two dish licker cases also dismissed one a fine of $1250 with $1K suspended the other unsatisfactory performance.

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Nov-21, 06:29 PM
Samuel Payne suspended for 4 weeks for "unprofessional behaviour" my term  in assisting another jockey to break the rules.....click on the VRT link to view the decision .

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Dec-13, 12:23 PM
Large number of RAT decisions in the link below ...several positives in greyhounds due to feeding knackery meat against the recommendations of the GRCB one case of live baiting appeal against stewards decision to impose immediate suspension refused a number of other cases one in harness racing of failing to give the horse every opportunity decided in favour of the applicant..

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors/racing/victorian-racing-tribunal/victorian-racing-tribunal-decisions


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Dec-18, 11:05 PM
https://www.racingvictoria.com.au/integrity/rad-board/-/media/f610c5e1b31e45dfa993d48860158f43.ashx
Simon Beasley Bookie suspended and fined

https://www.racingvictoria.com.au/integrity/rad-board/-/media/2fdabd774db945d59af3e39a3cfa0959.ashx
Ashley Medson failing to provide proper care for horses in her care .

Two VCAT  decisions arising out of RAD board penalties on two greyhound licensees who got into a blue and charged with bringing the sport into disrepute
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sign.cgi/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2019/1551

GRV  v Scott 2 months suspension and fine..altercation with another Goss

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sign.cgi/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2019/1823

GRV v Goss appeal against decision of RAD Board varied

Giddy Up :beer:




Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2019-Dec-23, 01:41 PM
Decision for each of the three codes in the RAT decisions ......Jockey.......trainer medicated greyhound with cough mixture ...and fraudulent conduct by harness persons father and daughter both DQ"d 15 months and 9 months respectively .

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors/racing/victorian-racing-tribunal/victorian-racing-tribunal-decisions


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Jan-06, 06:27 PM
Another two decisions to end of December Jason Baldock jockey's appeal against penalty for causing a fall dismissed while failure to chase appeal got up due to inconclusive evidence failure of the head on view of the dog .

Jason Baldock, Racing Victoria Appeal, 30 December 2019 (DOCX 154.31 KB)

Wendy Hughes, Greyhound Racing Appeal, 30 December 2019 (DOCX 153.78 KB)


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Jan-17, 07:57 AM
Working the way it was designed to do the VRT  is a success another 4 decisions delivered without delay.


Jye McNeil, Racing Victoria Hearing, 14 January 2020 (DOCX 152.52 KB)

Jess Fothergill, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 14 January 2020 (DOCX 155.77 KB)

Jay Robinson, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 14 January 2020 (DOCX 155.71 KB)

Tony Romeo, Racing Victoria Hearing, 13 January 2020 ( 0 KB)

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Feb-06, 07:29 PM
Catching up on decisions by the VRT since the last post.

Several more matters decided three and four a day..one application for a stay of proceedings refused ...stalker.

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors/racing/victorian-racing-tribunal/victorian-racing-tribunal-decisions

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Feb-24, 07:38 PM
Mark Zahra, Racing Victoria Appeal, 20 February 2020 (DOCX 152.51 KB) Appeal dismissed out for 8 meetings

Max Keenan, Racing Victoria Appeal, 20 February 2020 (DOCX 153.45 KB) picnic racing appeal upheld penalty reduced

Ahmed Taiba, Harness Racing Hearing, 14 February 2020 Positive swabs fined and horses disqualified.

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Feb-26, 07:25 PM
Patricia Smith, Greyhound Racing Hearing, 24 February 2020 (DOCX 155.85 KB)

Douglas Hammerstein, Greyhound Racing Hearing, 24 February 2020 (DOCX 155.8 KB)

Both greyhound trainers with positive swabs.

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Mar-04, 08:01 PM
DECISION
HARNESS RACING VICTORIA
and
MR GEORGE SCHEMBRI
 
Date of hearing:      26 February 2020
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson), Judge Graeme Hicks (Deputy Chairperson) and Judge Marilyn Harbison.
Appearances:    Mr Daniel Caruana appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
            Mr George Schembri represented himself. 
            
Charge:    Australian Harness Racing Rule 190(1) states a horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.

Particulars of charges:   Charge 1

1.   On 23 April 2019, the horse ‘Dangerous Women’ was presented to race at the Bendigo harness racing meeting in Race 5, the ‘Empire Stallions Vicbred Platinum Country Series L (2nd Heat)’;

2.   At the relevant time you were the trainer of ‘Dangerous Women’;

3.    Following Race 5, the ‘Empire Stallions Vicbred Platinum Country Series L (2nd Heat)’, a urine sample was collected from ‘Dangerous Women’ with subsequent analysis of that sample revealing a cobalt concentration in excess of the allowable threshold;

4.   As the trainer of ‘Dangerous Women’, on 23 April 2019 you presented that horse to race in the ‘Empire Stallions Vicbred Platinum Country Series L (2nd Heat)’ at Bendigo whilst not free of cobalt, a prohibited substance when present at a concentration in excess of 100 micrograms per litre in urine.   
Charge 2

1.   At all relevant times, you were a licensed trainer with Harness Racing Victoria;

2.   When inspected by HRV Stewards on 19 May 2019, your log book failed to adequately list the minimum details required for regular administration of ‘Neutradex’, ‘Gastrazone’, ‘Rutin Mix’, and ‘Winning Formula: Equine Omega Plus’;

3.   On 23 May 2019, you gave evidence that your treatment regime includes regular administration of ‘Neutradex’, ‘Gastrazone’, ‘Rutin Mix’, and ‘Winning Formula: Equine Omega Plus’;

4.   You have failed to keep and maintain a log book as required.

Plea:             Guilty


DECISION   

Mr George Schembri, you have pleaded guilty to two charges under the Harness Racing Rules.

Charge number one is in relation to Rule 190(1) which reads: “A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances”. The particulars of that charge are that on 23 April 2019, the horse ‘Dangerous Women’ was presented to race at the Bendigo harness racing meeting in Race 5, the ‘Empire Stallions Vicbred Platinum Country Series (2nd heat)’. At the relevant time you were the trainer of ‘Dangerous Women’. Prior to Race 5, a urine sample was collected from ‘Dangerous Women’, with subsequent analysis of that sample revealing a cobalt concentration in excess of the allowable threshold.

Charge number two. The Stewards charge you with a breach of Rule 190B which reads “A trainer shall at all times keep and maintain a log book”. At all relevant times, you were a licensed trainer with Harness Racing Victoria. When inspected by HRV Stewards on 19 May 2019, your log book failed to adequately list the minimum details required for regular administration of ‘Neutradex’, ‘Gastrazone’, ‘Rutin Mix’, and a ‘Winning Formula’ product, later verified as ‘Winning Formula: Equine Omega Plus’. On 23 May 2019, you gave evidence that your treatment regime included regular administration of those products, but they were not in your log book. Accordingly, you have failed to maintain a log book as required.

We have taken into account your pleas of guilty to both charges and your cooperation with the Stewards and have considered your training history, your record that was placed before us and also heard of your personal circumstances. These include that your mother had a serious hip operation and as a result of your actions in attending to your mother, different work and practice regimes occurred and double doses of different products were given to the horse. We have heard material from yourself that changes have now been made to ensure that this does not happen again. At certain stages of your training career you have trained up to 10 horses. Your horses, we accept, are your life and it may affect you mentally if we reach a decision of disqualification or suspension. The Stewards stated that you have a relatively good record over a long period of time.

The minimum penalty guidelines do not apply to this case, as cobalt is not included in them. However, the Tribunal does consider this a serious matter.   

We have considered the purposes and objects of the Rules of Racing relating to prohibited substances. These are that the integrity of racing is protected, that harness racing is conducted on a level playing field, that horses race without assistance of drugs, that racing is conducted safely with regard to the horse itself and also with regard to the drivers of other horses involved in the race and finally that racing is conducted fairly with respect to the betting pubic.

We have considered current penalties that have been imposed in similar cases. Principles of general deterrence and, in your case to a lesser extent, specific deterrence also apply in determining the appropriate penalty. Though not determinative of the issues before us we have had regard to the minimum penalty guidelines.

In all the circumstances, we find that the appropriate penalty is as follows. In relation to charge one, 12 months suspension of all licences with 6 months to be served concurrently with the penalty that was imposed on 16 December 2019, backdated to 1 September 2019 for a period of 15 months disqualification which expires on the 1 December 2020. Accordingly, the situation is this. Once the current disqualification expires, you will then serve an additional 6 month suspension. Pursuant to AHRR 195 we order that the horse ‘Dangerous Woman’ be disqualified from Race 5 at the Bendigo harness racing meeting on 23 April 2019. We order that the placings be amended accordingly and that the prize money be refunded.

In respect to charge two, we order that Mr Schembri be fined $250.


Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal


DECISION
HARNESS RACING VICTORIA
and
MR DYLAN ACHISON
 
Date of hearing:      26 February 2020
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson), Judge Graeme Hicks (Deputy Chairperson) and Ms Marilyn Harbison. 
Appearances:    Mr Brett Day appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
Mr Dylan Achison represented himself at the hearing.   

Charge:    Australian Harness Racing Rule 231(1)(a) reads as follows: A person shall not threaten anyone employed, engaged or participating in the harness racing industry or otherwise have a connection with it.

Particulars of charge:
1.   On 7 December 2019 an incident occurred between licensed persons Joe Pace and Emma Stewart at the Cranbourne race meeting following the running of Race 7;
2.   On 7 December 2019 at 11.41pm you contacted licensed trainer/driver Mr Joe Pace via telephone. During this telephone call you made comments to Mr Joe Pace that you would burn down his stables and/or house with reference made to the prior incident involving Mr Pace and Ms Stewart;
3.   By contacting Mr Pace and making these comments you threatened Mr Pace a person participating in the harness racing industry.
Plea:             Not Guilty


DECISION

Mr Dylan Achison, you have pleaded ‘not guilty’ to a breach of Rule 231 (1)(a). In essence, the charge is that, on 7 December 2019, you, being a licensed person, made threats to Mr Joe Pace, also a licensed person. The alleged threat was that you would burn down his stables and/or his house. This followed a disagreement between Mr Pace and Ms Emma Stewart. At the time Ms Stewart, also a licenced person, employed you as a stablehand.

You admit that you used a mobile phone to make a phone call from a car to Mr Pace on his mobile phone at about 11.41pm. The call only lasted a little over 30 seconds. Mr Pace was also in a car, and he answered the call on speaker phone.

The only real dispute is whether in fact you threatened to burn down his stables and/or house if he caused more trouble to Ms Stewart.

You say that you criticised him for what he had done, but did not make the threats about burning stables and the like. The other witnesses in the car which you were in are not able to take matters much further.

Mr Pace and three other occupants of his car have provided statements to the effect that you did make the threats relating to burning and the like.

The only other matter of relevance is this. Certainly at least some of those in your car had been doing a bit of drinking.

The relevant test to be applied is the Briginshaw test of comfortable satisfaction. We are comfortably satisfied that you did make the threats that have been alleged and in so doing breached Rule 231 (1)(a). In short, we find the charge proven and we find you guilty of the offence. We will now hear from the parties on the question of penalty.

PENALTY

The appropriate penalty is that suggested by Mr Brett Day on behalf of the Stewards, namely, a 3 month suspension commencing from 26 February 2020. We have taken into account your circumstances, in that you are in fact a student and have limited income. In any event, we think a suspension is the appropriate penalty.


Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Mar-10, 09:02 AM
Experience has proved that the Victorian Guvment made the right decision in making  changes to the racing industry appeals process .....the VRT  hears and determine appeals in the three racing codes with commendable expediency.......unlike the unworkable appeals system in QLD where QCAT under rescoursed and over worked is the stumbling block to an efficient and timely process......the DAF charged with coming up with a better system has been considering (reportedly 27) submissions since August 2019  and any ideas they themselves might think appropriate but nothing has been seen even though State Parliament which would need to pass any proposed amendments to legislation is back from its long holidays early last month.

In the period from Jan this year up to the latest decision on February 26 the VRT has heard and determined 29 appeals in the same time frame QCAT has published only one decision.

Giddy Up :beer:





Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Mar-12, 07:42 PM
No time wasted in hearing appeals in Victoria here's the latest batch.

Fred Vassallo, Greyhound Racing Hearing, 5 March 2020 (DOCX 155.34 KB)

Kevin Chivell, Greyhound Racing Hearing, 5 March 2020 (DOCX 155.59 KB)

Melody Cunningham, Racing Victoria Hearing, 4 March 2020 (DOCX 155.55 KB)

Jayden Barker, Harness Racing Appeal, 3 March 2020 (DOCX 153.73 KB)

Geoffrey Howell, Greyhound Racing Appeal, 3 March 2020 (DOCX 153.47 KB)

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Mar-17, 05:28 PM
Latest decisions of the VRT.......
Fred Vassallo, Greyhound Racing Hearing, 5 March 2020 (DOCX 155.34 KB)

Kevin Chivell, Greyhound Racing Hearing, 5 March 2020 (DOCX 155.59 KB)

Melody Cunningham, Racing Victoria Hearing, 4 March 2020 (DOCX 155.55 KB)

Jayden Barker, Harness Racing Appeal, 3 March 2020 (DOCX 153.73 KB)

Since its establishment in August 2019 the VRT has heard 51 appeals to the end of 2019 and this year up to 5 March the VRT has heard 34 appeals .......the Registrar Mark Howard has advised to date only one appeal has been made to VCAT.....a record of achievement ........thanks to the Victorian Guvment ..... how much longer before (or will) it ever get better in QLD  :what:


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Mar-24, 04:07 PM
No stopping the VRT latest decisions

Margery Quick, Greyhound Racing Hearing, 12 March 2020 (DOCX 156.49 KB)

David Baker, Greyhound Racing Hearing, 12 March 2020 (DOCX 155.44 KB)

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Apr-07, 03:50 PM
Jack Laugher, Harness Racing Appeal, 23 March 2020 (DOCX 157.11 KB)

Ashley Manton, Harness Racing Appeal, 25 March 2020 (DOCX 155.76 KB)

James Herbertson, Harness Racing Appeal, 25 March 2020 (DOCX 155.27 KB)

Ross Payne, Harness Racing Appeal, 26 March 2020 (DOCX 154.95 KB)

Kate Gath, Harness Racing Appeal, 26 March 2020 (DOCX 156.11 KB)

DECISION
HARNESS RACING VICTORIA
and
MS KATE GATH

Date of hearing:      26 March 2020
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson) and Judge Graeme Hicks (Deputy Chairperson). 
Appearances:    Mr Mark Hill appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
Ms Kate Gath represented herself.   

Charge:    Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 149(2) states “A person shall not drive in a manner which in the opinion of the Stewards is unacceptable”.

Particulars of charge:   Ms Kate Gath, driver of Arden Voyager was found guilty of a charge under rule 149(2) in that when driving Arden Voyager Kate Gath failed to shift wider on the track to obtain clear running before being covered by Tiwanaku (Greg Sugars) at approximately the 450m, and then directing her drive inwards towards the peg line resulting in Arden Voyager being held up losing momentum, before then directing her drive outwards into clear running near the 300m. In assessing penalty Stewards took into account the relevant matters as per the HRV Minimum Penalty Guidelines, and Kate Gath’s not guilty plea. Stewards accordingly imposed a 4 week suspension of her licence to drive in races to commence at midnight 29th January 2020.

Plea:             Not Guilty


DECISION

Ms Kate Gath, you have pleaded “Not Guilty” to a breach of rule 149(2). It concerns your drive of Arden Voyager in Race 7 at Melton on 20 January 2020. The Stewards have alleged that you drove in an unacceptable manner.

The essence of the charge is this. Your horse was a short-priced favourite. It originally settled one off the peg line towards the rear of the field. After passing the winning post with a lap to go and on the turn out of the straight, you improved. In the back straight you were sitting fourth or fifth one horse off the peg line and behind a horse driven by Mr Caldow, which was in the breeze. You maintained this position for almost the length of the back straight. It may be Mr Caldow’s horse was a little wider than it might have been, but you continued to be virtually directly behind it and with no sign of your horse hanging to any noticeable extent. Mr Sugars was behind you and, for most of the back straight, not much wider. There was ample space for you to pull out from behind Mr Caldow without causing interference to Mr Sugars. However, you did not do this. When it seemingly became apparent to Mr Sugars that you were not going to move out, he went past you, leaving you behind Mr Caldow and the horse on his inside. We might add that, by this time, your horse was in fact on the peg line.

After Mr Sugars had got to the outside of the horses ahead of you and swinging for home, you pulled out very sharply, virtually to 4 or 5 horses wide. It was too late. Mr Sugars had broken away. Your horse finished strongly to be narrowly beaten by Mr Sugars by a margin of 1.2 metres, with 7.9 metres to the third horse.

The essence of the Stewards case is that by sitting behind two horses for most of the back straight and not pulling out and by allowing Mr Sugars to go past you in full flight, you effectively cost your horse the race.

Your explanation and evidence today focussed quite considerably on the allegation that your horse hung throughout the race and was found the next day to be lame. We do not consider these to be adequate excuses. Your horse may have hung at times, but not to any great extent. It ran in a straight line down the back straight and was able to be turned very sharply and effectively to get around Mr Caldow and another driver, approaching and on the home turn, and then finished very strongly and virtually in a straight line. For much the same reason, we do not accept that lameness detected the following day played any great role in things. A veterinary examination after the race detected no lameness and there was no obvious evidence of it during the race.

In summary, we are comfortably satisfied that the charge has been made out. We shall hear the parties on the question of penalty.

PENALTY 

In relation to penalty, we have heard the submissions of the parties. Ms Gath, we accept that you have an outstanding and exemplary record in harness racing, having had in excess of 7,000 drives, and you have had many, many winners, some of major races.

With offences such as this, general deterrence must be born in mind. Drives must be of an acceptable nature. Public confidence in harness racing is very important.

For these reasons a penalty of suspension must be imposed. However, referring again in particular to your outstanding record, we are of the view that a deduction of 1 week is appropriate. Accordingly, the appeal is upheld and the penalty varied to one of 3 weeks suspension.

Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX200120#MXC20012002


Kate was treated very leniently it was a shocker of a drive wins for sure if she went before Sugars . :o



Darby McGuigan, Harness Racing Appeal, 26 March 2020 (DOCX 155.87 KB)

Craig Widdison, Racing Victoria Hearing, 1 April 2020 (DOCX 157.29 KB)


DECISION
RACING VICTORIA
and
MR CRAIG WIDDISON

Date of hearing:      1 April 2020
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson) and Judge Graeme Hicks (Deputy Chairperson). 
Appearances:    Mr Justin Hooper instructed by Daniel Bolkunowicz appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
Mr Joe Ferwerda appeared on behalf of Mr Widdison.   

Charges:    AR 244 Administration of prohibited substance to affect race performance
(1)   A person must not:
(a)   administer; or
(b)   cause to be administered,

a prohibited substance on Prohibited List A and/or Prohibited List B to a horse for the purpose of affecting the performance or behaviour of the horse in a race, or of preventing it starting in a race.
(2)   If a person breaches subrule (1), a disqualification for a period of not less than 3 years must be imposed, unless there is a finding that a special circumstance exists, in which case that penalty may be reduced.

AR 245 Administration of prohibited substance in sample taken from horse before/after running in race
(1)   A person must not:
(a)   administer; or
(b)   cause to be administered,

a prohibited substance on Prohibited List A and/or Prohibited List B to a horse which is detected in a sample taken from the horse prior to or following the running of a race.

   AR 240 Prohibited substance in sample taken from horse at race meeting
(2)   Subject to subrule (3), if a horse is brought to a racecourse for the purpose of participating in a race and a prohibited substance on Prohibited List A and/or Prohibited List B is detected in a sample taken from the horse prior to or following its running in any race, the trainer and any other person who was in charge of the horse at any relevant time breaches these Australian Rules.

Particulars of charges:   AR 244 (Charge 1) in that on 6 February 2019, Cash Crisis ran in the Highways Lunar New Year Handicap over 1300 metres (the Race) at Sandown racecourse. Prior to the Race, you administered or caused to be administered to Cash Crisis a prohibited substance, being alkalinising agents as evidenced by total carbon dioxide (TCO2) at a concentration in excess of 36.0 millimoles per litre in plasma, for the purpose of affecting the performance or behaviour of Cash Crisis in the race. Alkalinising agents are listed as a prohibited substance pursuant to Division 3 of Schedule 1 of the Australia Rule of Racing.

AR 245 (Charge 2, Alternative to charge 1) in that on 6 February 2019, Cash Crisis ran in the Highways Lunar New Year Handicap over 1300 metres (the Race) at Sandown racecourse. Prior to the Race, you administered or caused to be administered to Cash Crisis a prohibited substance, being alkalinising agents as evidenced by total carbon dioxide (TCO2) at a concentration in excess of 36.0 millimoles per litre in plasma. Alkalinising agents are listed as a prohibited substance pursuant to Division 3 of Schedule 1 of the Australia Rule of Racing.

AR 240 (2) (Charge 3, Alternative to charges 1 and 2) in that on 6 February 2019, Cash Crisis was brought to the Sandown racecourse and ran in the Highways Lunar New Year Handicap over 1300 metres (the Race). A prohibited substance, being alkalinising agents as evidenced by total carbon dioxide (TCO2) concentration in excess of 36.0 millimoles per litre in plasma, was detected in a blood sample taken from Cash Crisis prior to the running of the Race. Alkalinising agents are listed as a prohibited substance pursuant to Division 3 of Schedule 1 of the Australia Rule of Racing.

Plea:             Guilty


DECISION

Mr Craig Widdison, you have pleaded guilty to a breach of AR 244. The basis of the charge is that Cash Crisis, trained by you, ran in Race 7 at Sandown on 6 February 2019. A pre-race blood sample taken from the horse revealed the presence of a prohibited substance, namely TC02, at a concentration in excess of 36 millimoles per litre in plasma. The sample in fact showed a concentration of 38.3 millimoles. The plasma blood sample showed 37.6 millimoles. These are high readings.

By pleading guilty to a breach of AR 244, you are accepting that you administered or caused the administration of a prohibited substance for the purpose of affecting the performance or behaviour of Cash Crisis in the race. TC02 enhances performance.

We have heard excellent and realistic presentations both on behalf of the Stewards and on your behalf. You are aged 41, a married man with two young children. You are a busy and successful full-time trainer and had approximately 35 horses in your Wodonga stables. You have an unblemished record. A large number of impressive character references from racing people in the Wodonga area, including the general manager of the Wodonga and Districts Turf Club, have been put before us. That a period of disqualification must be imposed has been accepted by you. You have already commenced the process of moving horses from your stables at Wodonga racecourse. You have organised employment as a concreter to support your family. It is your intention to apply for relicensing after the period of disqualification.

The penalty for a breach of this Rule is three years disqualification, unless special circumstances exist. The Stewards quite properly concede that your plea of guilty constitutes a special circumstance, meaning that we are at large on the question of penalty. The Stewards do argue that your plea of guilty is a late plea and that any reduction in the 3-year penalty should be a limited one. It is argued on your behalf that a delay was caused by your engaging in subsequent testing of the sample because of your mistaken belief that the horse had an endogenous elevated TC02 problem. We understand this, but the fact remains that you are pleading guilty to illegal administration in any event.

A factor that we do place greater emphasis upon is that a plea of guilty to a breach of AR 244 is an absolute rarity. Neither party could point to an earlier example of it and we know of none. Obviously, the benefit of pleading guilty to such a charge should be made known to the industry and, in appropriate cases, should be seen to have been a factor of significance in relation to penalty.

However, general deterrence also remains an important consideration. Hopefully specific deterrence does not loom large in your case, but those involved in the industry must realise that heavy penalties result from breaches of this Rule. Illegal administration of a prohibited substance is a very bad look indeed for racing, particularly given the wagering and prize money associated with it. A fair and level playing field is vital.

We turn now to the penalty. We again thank the parties and counsel for the very sensible approach taken on the question of penalty, even if they were not in complete accord.

Balancing all of the above and bearing in mind the rarity of a plea of guilty to this particular charge, we have agreed upon a period of disqualification of two years. We understand that a delay in the commencement date of 7 days is sought so that the transfer of horses can be finalised. We leave that to the parties.

Finally, Cash Crisis is disqualified from Race 7 at Sandown on 6 February 2019 and the finishing order amended accordingly.
Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal


Trevor Whitford, Greyhound Racing Appeal, 20 March 2020 (DOCX 153.16 KB)


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: wily ole dog on 2020-Apr-07, 09:15 PM
I was wondering when Mr Craig Widdison, was going to get his punishment
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Villa on 2020-Apr-08, 05:29 PM
Let’s hope the grub gets it sooner rather than later
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: wily ole dog on 2020-Apr-09, 08:10 AM
Villa, he got 2 years
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Apr-16, 06:30 PM
•  Kyal Costello, Harness Racing Appeal, 15 April 2020 (DOCX 156.52 KB) 4 weeks for an unacceptable drive

•  Donna Dean, Greyhound Racing Hearing, 9 April 2020 (DOCX 156.65 KB)Arsenic positive $500 suspended 6 months

•  Alan John Holman, Harness Racing Appeal, 8 April 2020 (DOCX 153.87 KB) Lengthy decision criminal conviction stalking DQ 3 years.

•  Craig Widdison, Racing Victoria Hearing, 1 April 2020 (DOCX 157.29 KB) TCO2positive  DQ 2 years

•  Ross Payne, Harness Racing Appeal, 26 March 2020 (DOCX 154.95 KB) 3 weeks for interference
DECISION
HARNESS RACING VICTORIA
and
MR ALAN JOHN HOLMAN
 
Date of hearing:      8 April 2020
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson) and Ms Amanda Dickens.
Appearances:    Mr Brett Day appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
            Mr Lance Justice appeared on behalf of Mr Holman. 
            
Appeal:    3 year disqualification of Harness Racing Victoria licence on 10 February 2020 under Australian Harness Racing Rule 267 – Disqualification by Conviction. 

Plea:             Guilty


DECISION   

Mr Alan John Holman, you have pleaded guilty to a breach of Australian Harness Racing Rule 267. The Rule relates to suspension or disqualification resulting from a criminal conviction.

The criminal conviction in the present case can be summarised as being in relation to stalking. This occurred by the way of text messages and obscene photos sent by you between 8 July 2018 and 3 September 2018. At the time you were a licensed trainer aged 72 years. The person who received the messages was a female junior driver aged 19 years old.

Without going into the lurid content of the messages and photos sent by you, you did not state who you were and you used more than one mobile phone number. In a message of 26 August 2018, you texted “seen you at Shepparton trots a couple of weeks ago”. In the same message you threatened that, if she did not send to you some nude photos of herself, the next message would be to her father.

The last message that you sent, which was on 3 September 2018, threatened that time was running out. Understandably the victim felt scared. She went to the police.

At the Bendigo Magistrates Court on 13 May 2019, you pleaded guilty to stalking. The Magistrate imposed a Community Corrections Order of 18 months duration and ordered that you undergo certain treatment and rehabilitation. But for the plea of guilty the Court could have imposed an additional penalty of 14 days imprisonment.
 
Your background is that you are now 74 years of age. You receive an age pension. You are essentially a hobby trainer, normally training only one or two horses, and having been a trainer since 2014. However, your involvement in harness racing goes back many decades. As we understand it, you were a breeder and an owner, although your full-time employment was with the railways. You retired from that when you were 59 years of age.

You live by yourself in a caravan at the Charlton caravan park. You are separated from your wife and have an adult family. You do some voluntary work at the Charlton track where two trainers are based, but this is not paid employment. A disqualification will have no effect on your income.

We take into account you have pleaded guilty from the outset.

This is an unpleasant case. You may not have disclosed to the young victim that you were a licensed trainer but, for example, your text message of 26 August 2018 made it clear that you had seen her “at Shepparton trots”. The link to the harness racing industry was made clear, particularly bearing in mind that the victim was a young female driver.

This offence and these incidents occurred in the context of the industry. They have the potential to be very damaging to the image of the industry with a much older trainer stalking a young female junior driver and referring to seeing her at the trots. There is a direct link to the industry, and not just a passing one.

The Stewards seek a penalty of 3 years disqualification, bearing in mind your early plea of guilty and your circumstances. This strikes us as a fair and proper penalty, bearing in mind the nature of your behaviour and the potential damage to the industry. Accordingly, we fix the penalty at disqualification for 3 years. The appeal is dismissed.

Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Apr-27, 07:06 PM
Jeffrey Frusher, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 16 April 2020 (DOCX 154.89 KB)

Derek Faulknall, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 16 April 2020 (DOCX 155.53 KB)

Christopher Morris, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 16 April 2020 (DOCX 157.59 KB)

The first case involved possession of an animal carcass fined .......... second case involved a prohibited substance procaine disqualified 12 months
 while the third person failed to provide food for the greyhounds in his care and was disqualified for 8 years.

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-May-19, 09:52 PM
Recent decisions of the VRT

Robert Tolson, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 13 May 2020 (DOCX 161 KB)
Boris Devcic, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 7 May 2020 (DOCX 156.85 KB)
Peter Kelly, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 6 May 2020 (DOCX 155.86 KB)
Bobi Veleski, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 6 May 2020 (DOCX 156.55 KB)
Raymond Gatt & Mrs Rita Gatt, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing Hearing, 30 April 2020 (DOCX 158.67 KB)
Kenneth Kubik, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, Hearing, 29 April 2020 (DOCX 156.58 KB)
Rob Kirkpatrick, Racing Victoria Appeal, 29 April 2020 (DOCX 152.95 KB)
Heath Bourke , Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 29 April 2020 (DOCX 157.29 KB)
Tony Cortese, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, Hearing, 28 April 2020 (DOCX 159.37 KB)
Des Douch, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, Hearing, 28 April 2020 (DOCX 156.45 KB)
Jarrod Fry, Racing Victoria Appeal, 28 April 2020 (DOCX 152.65 KB)
Christopher Tilley, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, Hearing, 23 April 2020 (DOCX 156.45 KB)
Bradley Debono, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, Hearing, 23 April 2020 (DOCX 160.78 KB)
Troy Scott, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 22 April 2020 (DOCX 157.54 KB)
Raymond Brittain, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, Hearing, 22 April 2020 (DOCX 155.92 KB)
Richard Laming, Racing Victoria Ruling, Hearing 21 April 2020 (DOCX 162.91 KB)
Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Jun-03, 08:40 PM
Keith Hall, Racing Victoria Appeal, 19 May 2020 (DOCX 152.9 KB)

Mr Keith Hall, you are appealing against a penalty of a fine of $750 imposed by Stewards in respect of an incident at Bendigo racecourse on 15 January 2020. As a result of that incident, you have been charged with a breach of AR 227(a). You now plead ‘guilty’ to the charge, but you are appealing on the basis that $750 is an excessive penalty.

The factual background is that at trackwork at Bendigo on 15 January 2020, you were holding the horse, Reoffered, when you were in the vicinity of Mr Rob Kirkpatrick, a trackwork rider. There had been some bad blood between you for 12 months or so. You claim that Mr Kirkpatrick approached you and used words to the effect that no one was going to ride the horse. You claim he adopted a threatening position with a raised arm and a closed fist. You continued to hold the horse, but admit that you kicked him in the vicinity of the chest or ribs. He then struck you a blow to the nose. This was of sufficient force to knock you to the ground and cause a laceration to the back of your head, in addition to causing you to bleed from the nose. The damage could have been worse. Mr Kirkpatrick’s version of events differs from yours, but there is no argument but that you kicked him in the area of the chest and ribs before he punched you. You did the right thing in not letting go of the reins. 

You are aged 69, on the age pension, and live on your own property at White Hills. You have been a trainer for some 50 years and have no relevant prior convictions. You train just the one horse.

General deterrence and specific deterrence are important factors. You initiated the physical side of this confrontation by kicking Mr Kirkpatrick in the chest. That does not excuse his punching you, but the physical contact started with your kicking him. This sort of behaviour by licenced persons cannot be tolerated and is dangerous.

Previous penalties imposed in circumstances like these have generally resulted in larger fines than $750.

In my opinion, the fine of $750 is at the bottom of the scale and, given your circumstances, including your financial circumstances, it is the appropriate penalty. The appeal is dismissed.

Joe Borg, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 18 May 2020 (DOCX 152.6 KB)

Dishlicker case dog deemed refusing to chase appeal dismissed.



Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2020-Jun-04, 12:26 AM


Joe Borg, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 18 May 2020 (DOCX 152.6 KB)

Dishlicker case dog deemed refusing to chase appeal dismissed.


I cannot see any "failure to chase" whatsoever.

Maybe I'm not an expert in greyhounds chasing, but I've watched the video twice and find it incredible that the stewards came up with this finding.

Sweet Impala is in the white rug, and after getting a severe check out of the straight the first time rallies to run a very good third.

https://fasttrack.grv.org.au/RaceVideo/RaceVideo/547979274
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: nemisis on 2020-Jun-04, 08:57 AM
I cannot see any "failure to chase" whatsoever.

Maybe I'm not an expert in greyhounds chasing, but I've watched the video twice and find it incredible that the stewards came up with this finding.

Sweet Impala is in the white rug, and after getting a severe check out of the straight the first time rallies to run a very good third.

https://fasttrack.grv.org.au/RaceVideo/RaceVideo/547979274
Not an 'expert' and 'can't see' sums you up pretty well.

The naughty little girl turns her head towards the black dog in the straight.
It's not easy to see on video.... would have been crystal clear to the stewards at the track.
It could have been a square up against the black for the earlier interference   :lol:   :lol:  but it happened

If I am in fact still in your sin-bin hopefully someone else will point out a trip to the optometrist is indeed required for you.
Bit lonely in here......I'm sure you said PM was in here as well.  :lol:   :lol:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Jun-04, 07:51 PM
I cannot see any "failure to chase" whatsoever.

Maybe I'm not an expert in greyhounds chasing, but I've watched the video twice and find it incredible that the stewards came up with this finding.

Sweet Impala is in the white rug, and after getting a severe check out of the straight the first time rallies to run a very good third.

https://fasttrack.grv.org.au/RaceVideo/RaceVideo/547979274

I'm not a follower of the greyhounds and didn't see the race but it appears that the dog was held to have turned its head which presumably invokes the failure to chase provision.

However, the Rule is the Rule. In Rule 1 ‘failing to pursue’ is defined as meaning ‘when a greyhound turns its head or visibly eases during the running of an event’.
As stated, there is no argument but that Sweet Impala turned its head. That is admitted by you. Therefore, the definition of ‘failing to pursue’ has been satisfied and Rule 69 (A)(1) applies. Accordingly, the charge has been made out.


Woof Woof  :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Jun-04, 07:59 PM
Another set of decisions by the VRT how much better than the cumbersome go nowhere fast we have in QLD. with Internal Reviews that don't publish reasons... stays of proceedings that are farcial ......by the time QCAT gets around to a hearing on the substance of the charge..... the frequent call backs for directions hearings and compulsory conferences all at a cost in time and money and still some cases take years to finalise.

Rohan Gladman, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 28 May 2020 (DOCX 152.83 KB)

David Aiken, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 28 May 2020 (DOCX 155.95 KB)

Mark Sues, Racing Victoria Hearing, 27 May 2020 (DOCX 155.15 KB)

Michael Dewan, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 21 May 2020 (DOCX 157.8 KB)

David Basile, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 21 May 2020 (DOCX 156.46 KB)

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: PoisonPen7 on 2020-Jun-05, 02:10 AM
I'm not a follower of the greyhounds and didn't see the race but it appears that the dog was held to have turned its head which presumably invokes the failure to chase provision.

However, the Rule is the Rule. In Rule 1 ‘failing to pursue’ is defined as meaning ‘when a greyhound turns its head or visibly eases during the running of an event’.
As stated, there is no argument but that Sweet Impala turned its head. That is admitted by you. Therefore, the definition of ‘failing to pursue’ has been satisfied and Rule 69 (A)(1) applies. Accordingly, the charge has been made out.


Woof Woof  :beer:

But it actually beat the black dog home. How can it be guilty of "failing to pursue" if it runs past the very dog that it turned it's head at? And given it was dead last after a check and then ran past a stack of other dogs to get third hardly qualifies as "failed to pursue".

Seems to have been chucked out on a technicality. I think the trainer should feel a bit aggrieved. Obviously he wouldn't have launched an appeal if it was so cut and dry.
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Jun-17, 08:32 PM
Some more decisions from VRT
Peter Dunlevey, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 15 June 2020 (DOCX 154.15 KB)

Robert King, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 11 June 2020 (DOCX 157.47 KB)

Terry French, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 10 June 2020 (DOCX 157.04 KB)

Justin Hetherton, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 4 June 2020 (DOCX 260.82 KB)

Jayden Brewin, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 3 June 2020 (DOCX 155.44 KB)

Darren & Joseph Manton, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 2 June 2020 (DOCX 161.22 KB)


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Jun-29, 06:28 PM
Jim Morrissey, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 18 June 2020 (DOCX 156.37 KB)

Ken Rogers, Kaela Hryhorec, Michelle Phillips, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 17 June 2020 (DOCX 162.14 KB)

Ciaron Maher & David Eustace, Racing Victoria Hearing, 16 June 2020 (DOCX 155.7 KB)

Jessica Hampshire, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 15 June 2020 (DOCX 153.86 KB)

Trevor Whitford, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 15 June 2020 (DOCX 153.75 KB)

Giddy Up :beer:

Seeing that the mainstream media ran a story on the "blue" between participants at Mildura after race 10 on Feb where Rogers ran second this is the transcript of the Tribunal's decision .......Ms Phillips fine seems out of proportion to her involvement imo.
DECISION
HARNESS RACING VICTORIA
and
MR KEN ROGERS, MS KAELA HRYHOREC, MICHELLE PHILLIPS

Date of hearing:      17 June 2020
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson) and Ms Heidi Keighran.
Appearances:    Mr Brett Day appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
Mr Ken Rogers represented himself.
Ms Kaela Hryhorec represented herself.
Michelle Phillips represented herself.

Charges:    Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 231(1)(a) states:
(1)   A person shall not
(a)   threaten anyone employed, engaged or participating in the harness racing industry or otherwise having a connection with it.

AHRR 231(2) states a person shall not misconduct himself in any way.

AHRR 231(1)(e) states:
(1)   A person shall not
(e)   assault anyone employed, engaged or participating in the harness racing industry or otherwise having a connection with it.
Particulars of charges:      Ken Rogers
(1)   On 6 February 2020, you attended the Mildura harness racing meeting and participated as a driver;
(2)   Licensed person Matthew Maguire attended this meeting;
(3)   Following the running of Race 10 at this race meeting you approached licensed trainer/driver Matthew Maguire and instigated a conversation;
(4)   During this conversation you remarked to him “if I find out it was you that told the Stewards I will put a bullet in your head” or words to the effect thereof;
(5)   By making these comments you threatened Mr Maguire a person participating in the harness racing industry.
Kaela Hryhorec
Charge 1
(1)   On 6 February 2020, a harness racing meeting was conducted at Mildura which you attended;
(2)   Licensed person Michelle Phillips attending this meeting and participated as a driver;
(3)   Subsequent to the running of Race 10 on this evening you engaged in a verbal alteration with licensed person Michelle Phillips in the stabling area;
(4)   By doing so you misconducted yourself.
Charge 2
(1)   On 6 February 2020, a harness racing meeting was conducted at Mildura which you attended;
(2)   Licensed person Michelle Phillips attended this meeting and participated as a driver;
(3)   Subsequent to the running of Race 10 on this evening you engaged in a verbal altercation with Ms Phillips in the stabling area;
(4)   Shortly afterwards Ms Phillips walked towards you and you grabbed Ms Phillips around the neck, held her by the collar, pushed her up against a wall and punched her in the back of the head;
(5)   By grabbing, holding, pushing and punching Ms Phillips, you assaulted Ms Phillips a person participating in the harness racing industry.
Michelle Phillips
Charge 1
(1)   On 6 February 2020, a harness racing meeting was conducted at Mildura which you attended and participated as a driver;
(2)   Licensed person Kaela Hryhorec attending this meeting;
(3)   Subsequent to the running of Race 10 on this evening you engaged in a verbal alteration with licensed person Kaela Hryhorec in the stabling area;
(4)   By doing so you misconducted yourself.
Charge 2
(1)   On 6 February 2020, a harness racing meeting was conducted at Mildura which you attended and participated in as a driver;
(2)   Licensed person Kaela Hryhorec attended this meeting;
(3)   Subsequent to the running of Race 10 on this evening you engaged in a verbal altercation with Ms Hryhorec in the stabling area;
(4)   Shortly afterwards you walked towards Ms Hryhorec to confront her in response to the verbal altercation and were grabbed around the neck, held her the collar, pushed up against the wall of the wash bay and punched in the back of the head by Ms Hryhorec;
(5)   You retaliated by pushing Ms Hryhorec and pulling her hair;
(6)   By pushing Ms Hryhorec and pulling her hair, you assaulted Ms Hryhorec a person participating in the harness racing industry.
Plea:    Guilty


DECISION
We shall hand down our decision on penalty in these matters separately. The three persons involved have pleaded guilty to all charges. However, the charges arise out of the one set of facts or events, which we shall summarise briefly at the outset.
Mr Ken Rogers is a harness racing driver based in South Australia and is currently serving a period of suspension. Ms Kaela Hryhorec is a licenced driver who also resides in South Australia. She is the partner of Mr Rogers and lives with him.

Ms Michelle Phillips is a harness racing driver based in Victoria. She is also a full-time employee of Mr Chris Svanosio, who is an A Grade Trainer/Driver with a training establishment at Romsey

The boyfriend of Ms Phillips at the relevant time was Mr Matthew Maguire, who is also a trainer/driver. There is some history of a relationship between Mr Maguire and Ms Hryhorec prior to his relationship with Ms Phillips, which relationship has now ceased.

All four persons were present at the Mildura harness racing meeting on 6 February 2020. There were some rumours of possible trouble developing at the Mildura meeting.
After the running of Race 10, a verbal dispute developed between Mr Rogers and Mr Maguire at the track. Mr Rogers threatened to put a bullet in the head of Mr Maguire if he had been talking to the Stewards about certain matters. This is the subject of the charge against Mr Rogers.

During this confrontation, Ms Phillips was also on the scene. She claims that she tried to break up the situation, but Ms Hryhorec also arrived. Insults were exchanged and Ms Phillips, having commenced to walk away, returned. We accept that Ms Hryhorec then grabbed Ms Phillips in the vicinity of the throat and pushed her up against a wall. It would seem that punches were exchanged before other people intervened. The end result was that Ms Phillips suffered lacerations in the area of the neck, to the right side of the head and the eyebrow. Ms Hryhorec lost an acrylic fingernail. We would add that the whole thing was a particularly bad look for harness racing and shameful behaviour by all involved.

We turn now to the individual charges and penalties. We would repeat that all three pleaded guilty to all charges.
Mr Ken Rogers – breach of Rule 231(2)
Mr Rogers is aged 32 years and is currently serving a period of suspension. There is also a suspended fine of $250 hanging over his head. Mr Rogers has a very poor record, having three prior convictions for misconduct offences. He has been suspended and, on various occasions, fined.

The threat which he made to Mr Maguire of putting a bullet in his head if he had told the Stewards of certain matters was a particularly nasty one.

Mr Rogers told us that he and Mr Maguire effectively settled the matter on amicable terms within 5 minutes. Even if this is so, a seriously nasty threat had been made publicly and one that involved revenge for a possible reporting to the Stewards.

Even if the threat was made on the spur of the moment and later retracted, it was a very serious and public threat made at a meeting and made by one licenced person against another.
We are of the view that
 a period of suspension is inevitable. However, we also take into account the guilty plea and co-operation of Mr Rogers and the apparently undisputed fact that the situation was under control and finalised within a very short time.

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that a period of suspension of 4 months is warranted and that it should be cumulative upon the period of suspension currently being served by Mr Rogers. The fine of $250 is now payable.

Ms Kaela Hryhorec – breaches of Rule 232 and Rule 231(1)(e)
Ms Hryhorec is aged 20 years. She has pleaded guilty to 2 charges. She lives with Mr Rogers at his Buchfield house in South Australia. The house is on a property where harness racing horses are stabled. Her income is from driving and from looking after horses that are being rehabilitated.

In our opinion, she was the person who started the physical side of this confrontation. The verbal dispute with Ms Phillips may have been on foot, but it was Ms Hryhorec who launched a physical attack on Ms Phillips. That attack caused some damage to the head and face of Ms Phillips. The whole affair at a harness racing meeting and in front of others made it a particularly bad look, in addition to Ms Phillips sustaining the injuries which she did.

We agree with the Stewards that a fine is warranted on the misconduct charge. We also agree that the penalty for this breach of Rule 231(2) should be a fine of $1,000, with $500 of that amount suspended for a period of 2 years.
 
We also agree that a period of disqualification is warranted for a breach of Rule 231(1)(e). Bearing in mind the very good record of Ms Hryhorec, her guilty plea and her co-operation with the Stewards throughout, we are of the view that she should be disqualified for a period of 4 months.

Ms Michelle Phillips – breaches of Rule 232 and Rule 231(1)(e)
Ms Phillips is aged 22 years. She is a licenced driver and stable hand. She put before us very impressive references, including one from her employer, Mr Chris Svanosio. Her income is from driving and her full-time work for Mr Svanosio.

Her contribution to the dispute was to intervene between Mr Rogers and Mr Maguire, but also to turn back and return to confront Ms Hryhorec. We accept that the physical aspect of the confrontation was launched by Ms Hryhorec, but Ms Phillips also admits to throwing punches. These appear to have had little impact and she certainly emerged the worse for wear. She did take part in this very unseemly behaviour, but we are of the view that her level of culpability is considerably less than that of Ms Hryhorec.

She pleaded guilty from the outset and co-operated fully with Stewards. She has again expressed remorse and placed before us the references to which we have referred.
We are of the view that, on the misconduct charge, she is fined $1,000, of which $500 is suspended for 2 years.

On the breach of Rule 231(1)(e), the assault charge, we agree with the Stewards that a financial penalty is appropriate. However, in all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that it should be in the sum of $2,500 with $500 suspended for a period of 2 years.


Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

Giddy Up :beer:


Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Jul-03, 10:22 AM

(https://i.postimg.cc/6y7mPgXx/Kaela-Hryhorec.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/6y7mPgXx)

(https://i.postimg.cc/DJyCPYgD/index-michelle.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/DJyCPYgD)

Couple of nice looking young women Kaela & Michelle both featured in stories in the Harness Racing Media


Race 10 at Mildura Rogers is on the leader Phillips in the death Rogers gets second run down by the easing fav came from last ...stewards report on the race.


http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=ML060220#MLC06022006

RACE 10 – SUNRAYSIA DAILY PACE (1790 MS)
The start of this event was delayed when the breast plate on Superstar Xpress was required to be refitted.
Superstar Xpress underwent pre and post-race veterinary examinations in accordance with HRV policy with no abnormalities detected.
The Tooth Fairy began badly. The Tooth Fairy will now be placed outside the draw in future mobile start events.
Dungeon Dragon pulled hard during the early and middle stages whilst positioned outside the leader.
Michelle Phillips, driver of Dungeon Dragon, will be questioned regarding the tactics adopted on the gelding during the early and middle stages.
Stewards opened an inquiry into the conduct of various licensees following the running of this race. After obtaining initial evidence the matter was adjourned. 



Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Jul-03, 07:53 PM
Ashley Manton, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 23 June 2020 (DOCX 153.2 KB)

Sofia Arvidsson, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 23 June 2020 (DOCX 153.54 KB)

Manton charged with interference VRT dismissed the charge against him as the learned judge said they could not be comfortably satisfied that he was guilty..... in the second case Sofia Arvidsson mistook the laps and went up the passing lane with two laps to go an honest mistake by an inexperienced driver her suspension was reduced to 2 weeks from the 5 imposed by stewards.

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Jul-18, 07:31 PM
Catching up with recent results from the VRT

James Forbes, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 10 July 2020 (DOCX 156.46 KB)

Phillip Dower, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 10 July 2020 (DOCX 156.1 KB)

Damien Wilson, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 8 July 2020 (DOCX 156.76 KB)

Ian Montgomery, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 8 July 2020 (DOCX 155.85 KB)

Sean Lithgow, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 6 July 2020 (DOCX 153.25 KB)

Jess Tubbs, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 2 July 2020 (DOCX 156.64 KB)

Mark Grima, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 1 July 2020 (DOCX 158.37 KB)

John Buckley, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 1 July 2020 (DOCX 156.63 KB)

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Jul-28, 12:23 PM
 Four more decisions from the hard working VRT none more interesting than number 3 in the list below,


Rhys Nicholson, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 21 July 2020 (DOCX 151.28 KB)

Joe Farrugia, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 14 July 2020 (DOCX 156.08 KB)

Richard Laming, Marnu Potgieter, MD Zayaur Rahman, Racing Victoria Ruling – Preliminary Dispute, 25 June 2020 (DOCX 166.84 KB)

Cassandra Barnard, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 17 July 2020 (DOCX 158.29 KB)

The preliminary dispute to the evidence taken by the stewards in the Richard Laming, Marnu Potgieter, MD Zayaur Rahman,case is most unusual.... probably because the evidence is likely to be damaging to the licensees position..... they would benefit if it was ruled inadmissable ...unfortunately for them the learned judge ruled against excluding most of the evidence objected to ...... Damien Sheales counsel for the trainer and his stable staff had some success with parts of the evidence ruled out by the learned judge ..it'll be a free for all when the substantive hearing on the charges comes on 20th October.
Laming is still training presumably on a stay while  Potgieter is now riding in NQ presumably licensed by QRIC

Giddy Up :beer:



RULING – PRELIMINARY DISPUTE
RACING VICTORIA
and
MR RICHARD LAMING, MR MARNU POTGIETER & MD ZAYAUR RAHMAN

Date of hearing:      25 June 2020
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson).
Appearances:    Mr Justin Hooper appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
Mr Damien Sheales appeared on behalf of Messrs Laming, Potgieter and Rahman.

Charges:         

AR 255 Stomach-tubing prohibited at certain times

(1)   A person must not, without the permission of the Stewards:
(a)   stomach-tube;
(b)   cause the stomach-tubing of;
(c)   attempt to stomach-tube; or
(d)   be a party to the stomach-tubing or attempted stomach-tubing of,
a horse engaged to run in a race, official trial or jump-out:
(i)   at any time on the day of the race, official trial or jump-out and prior to the start of that event; and/or
(ii)   at any time during the 1 clear day prior to 12.00am on the day of the scheduled race, official trial or jump-out.   
(2)   Provided that the stomach-tubing or attempted stomach-tubing occurred on race day or during the 1 clear day prior to 12.00am on race day for a horse engaged to run in a race on that race day, if a person breaches subrule (1) a disqualification of not less than 12 months must be imposed (other than where the person is not, in the opinion of a PRA (or a person employed or engaged by a PRA) or the Stewards, the principal offender), unless there is a finding that a special circumstance exists, in which case that penalty may be reduced.



AR 232 Failure to observe processes and directions of PRAs or Stewards
A person must not:

(c)   while the Stewards are exercising their powers, performing their functions or carrying out their duties:

(ii)   obstruct, hinder or delay the Stewards in exercising their powers, performing their functions or carrying out their duties; or
(iii)   incite any other person/s to obstruct, hinder or delay the Stewards from exercising their powers, performing their functions or carrying out their duties, or fail to prevent any other person/s on premises the Stewards have entered under AR 22(1)(l) from doing so.

Particulars:

Richard Laming – Charge 1 AR 255

1.   You are, and were at all relevant times, a trainer licensed by Racing Victoria.
2.   You are, and were at all relevant times, the trainer of Jamaican Rain. 
3.   You train from licensed premises at 1-11 Cyril Beechey Lane, Cranbourne (the Premises).
4.   On 5 November 2019, Jamaican Rain was entered to run in Race 6, the Group 3 Jim Beam Stakes over 1400 metres at Flemington Racecourse at 1:55pm (the Race). 
5.   Without the permission of the Stewards, on the morning of the Race and prior to the Stewards arriving at the Premises at approximately 8:44 am, you stomach-tubed, caused the stomach-tubing of, attempted to stomach-tube and/or were a party to the stomach-tubing or attempted stomach-tubing of Jamaican Rain at the Premises.
6.   Your conduct as described at paragraph 5 above was in breach of AR 255(1).
Richard Laming – Charge 2 AR 232

1.   You are, and were at all relevant times, a trainer licensed by Racing Victoria.
2.   You are, and were at all relevant times, the trainer of Jamaican Rain.
3.   You train from licensed premises at 1-11 Cyril Beechey Lane, Cranbourne (the Premises).
4.   You have security cameras installed throughout the Premises which record motion detection and audio activity (Unifi System). The footage captured by the Unifi System is recorded onto a Network Video Recorder (NVR) at the Premises.
5.   At approximately 7:30 am on 5 November 2019, exercising their powers as Stewards under the Rules of Racing, in particular AR 22(1)(l), Racing Victoria Stewards Mr Mark Stevens and Mr Dion Villella attended the Premises and conducted a race day inspection.
6.   At approximately 8.44 am on 5 November 2019, exercising his powers as a Steward under the Rules of Racing, in particular AR 22(1)(l), Racing Victoria Steward Mr Mark Stevens attended the Premises and conducted a further race day inspection (Second Inspection).
7.   Shortly after Mr Stevens’ arrival at the Premises for the Second Inspection, he commenced an investigation into the potential race day treatment of Jamaican Rain (Investigation). The Investigation was an exercise of the Stewards’ powers pursuant to the Rules of Racing, in particular AR 20(a) and AR 22(1)(a).
8.   During the Investigation, at approximately 10:30 am on 5 November 2019, the NVR was collected from the Premises by the Stewards.
9.   On 5 November 2019, prior to the NVR being collected from the Premises by the Stewards, you deleted, or incited another person to delete, files from the NVR. 
10.   Your conduct, as set out above in paragraph 9, was in breach of AR 232(c).     
MD Marnu Potgieter – Charge 1 AR 255   
1.   You are, and were at all relevant times, a stable employee registered by Racing Victoria and employed by licensed trainer, Mr Richard Laming.
2.   Mr Laming is, and was at all relevant times, the trainer of Jamaican Rain.
3.   Mr Laming trains from licensed premises at 1-11 Cyril Beechey Lane, Cranbourne (the Premises).
4.   On 5 November 2019, Jamaican Rain was entered to run in Race 6, the Group 3 Jim Beam Stakes over 1400 metres at Flemington Racecourse at 1:55pm (the Race). 
5.   Without the permission of the Stewards, on the morning of the Race and prior to the Stewards arriving at the Premises at approximately 8:44 am, you stomach-tubed, attempted to stomach-tube and/or were a party to the stomach-tubing or attempted stomach-tubing of Jamaican Rain at the Premises.
6.   Your conduct as described at paragraph 5 above was in breach of AR 255(1).

MD Zayaur Rahman – Charge 1 AR 255
1.   You are, and were at all relevant times, a stable employee registered by Racing Victoria and employed by licensed trainer, Mr Richard Laming.
2.   Mr Laming is, and was at all relevant times, the trainer of Jamaican Rain.
3.   Mr Laming trains from licensed premises at 1-11 Cyril Beechey Lane, Cranbourne (the Premises).
4.   On 5 November 2019, Jamaican Rain was entered to run in Race 6, the Group 3 Jim Beam Stakes over 1400 metres at Flemington Racecourse at 1:55pm (the Race). 
5.   Without the permission of the Stewards, on the morning of the Race and prior to the Stewards arriving at the Premises at approximately 8:44 am, you were a party to the stomach-tubing or attempted stomach-tubing of Jamaican Rain.
6.   Your conduct as described at paragraph 5 above was in breach of AR 255(1)(d).
Pleas:    Reserved in each case

GENERAL BACKGROUND
This application comes before me by way of a preliminary dispute as to whether certain documents and material proposed to be placed before the Tribunal by the Stewards at the ultimate hearing currently listed to commence on 26 October 2020 should be excluded. Oral submissions were made by Mr Damien Sheales of counsel, representing Messrs Laming, Potgieter and Rahman, in support of a proposed order that the material in question be excluded. Ms Amy Wood of counsel, representing the Stewards, resisted the making of such an order. The dispute involves questions of admissibility of evidence, this intern involving questions of law or mixed fact and law.
The case itself concerns the alleged breach of AR255 by all three persons charged. This in turn relates to alleged stomach tubing of Jamaican Rain on the morning of 5 November 2019, on which day it was to run in the Jim Beam Stakes at Flemington. Mr Laming, who was the trainer of Jamaican Rain, is also charged with a breach of AR232 – in essence, hindering or obstructing the Stewards in the exercising of their powers. Messrs Potgieter and Rahman, employees of Mr Laming, are only charged with the stomach tubing offence.
Thus, this preliminary hearing is a dispute which concerns proposed evidence to be adduced by the Stewards, inherent in which is consideration of the Tribunal’s powers to exclude same and of the issue of whether such power should be exercised.


STATUTORY PROVISIONS
The relevant provisions of the Racing Act 1958 (the Act) concerning the operation of this Tribunal include the following, to be found in Section 50Q:
“(h) must act fairly and according to the substantial merits of the matter;
(i) is bound by the rules of natural justice;
(j) is not bound by the rules of evidence or any practices of procedures applicable to courts of record, except to the extent that it adopts those rules, practices or procedures; and

(k) may inform itself on any matter as it sees fit”.
SOME OBSERVATIONS AS TO THE OPERATION AND APPLICATION OF THE ABOVE IN PRACTICE
Perhaps the starting point is the well-known statement of Evatt J. in R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal: Ex parte Bott 50 CLR 58 that the rules of evidence should not simply be ignored because they “represent the attempts made, through many generations, to evoke a method of enquiry best calculated to prevent error and elicit truth”.
True it is that Evatt J. was dissenting generally  but that general approach has since been considered and at least in part adopted in appropriate circumstances – see, for example, the discussion in Pires v DibbsBarker Canberra Pty Limited [2014] ACTSC 283. It and other cases are discussed in the helpful article “Tribunals not bound by the laws of evidence” by Stephen Warne on “The Australian Professional Liability Blog”. I would also refer to such texts as “Natural Justice”, by Flick and “Pizer’s Annotated VCAT Act” by Pizer and Nekvapil.
In Rodriguez v Telstra Corporation Ltd. (2002) 66 ALD 579, Kiefel J. made the observation that decisions (of the type being discussed) must not be made without evidence having probative force, inferences must not be drawn without evidence and the tribunal must not base its conclusion on its own view of a matter which requires evidence. A corollary of this is that tribunal members are not to carry out their own investigations and take into account evidence other than that put before them.
In addition, regard should be had to what was said by Brennan J. in Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 26 ALR 247. Rules of evidence which have been excluded expressly by the Stewards should not be allowed to creep back through a domestic procedural rule.
However, in the present case and, as set out above, Section 50Q(1)(j) of the Act specifically contains the words “except to the extent that it adopts those rules (of evidence), practices or procedures (applicable to courts of record)”.
From my experience, whilst strict application of the laws of evidence is not appropriate in cases heard by a disciplinary body or administrative tribunal, the degree of assistance which such laws can provide varies. That assistance tends to be much greater in a large case, such as the present, where each side is represented by experienced and competent counsel, as compared to a small case involving unqualified representatives or litigants in person.
The bottom line is that, as stated in Pires,:
“…the underlying principles of fairness, natural justice, reliance on credible and relevant evidence which underpin those rules remain applicable. The approach is to be determined from the circumstances of the precise case”.
THE APPLICATION OF THE ABOVE TO THE PRESENT DISPUTE
As stated, in the present disciplinary dispute I am fortunate to have before me experienced and very competent counsel. This enables me to take an approach closer to that of a court of record, should that be necessary. However, it does not mean that I am to adopt strict rules concerning the admissibility or interpretation of documentary evidence.
Mr Sheales has objected to a considerable number of documents contained in what could be described as the Stewards’ court book of proposed evidence, effectively claiming that they are inadmissible. In virtually every instance, the basis of the objection is that the documents concerned, and the proposed evidence involved, consist of no more than speculation. That is particularly so in relation to what Mr Sheales described as “the boots issue” – essentially a footprint or “boot print” found in a stall in the relevant part of Mr Laming’s stables.
It may be that, ultimately, some speculation is involved in “the boots issue”. It is also possible  that the weight to be attached to the documentary and other evidence concerning such issue turns out to be virtually zero. However, bearing in mind the above discussion as to the principles involved, I am not prepared to strike out or rule inadmissible these documents. They are simply documents and photographs which may or may not carry any evidentiary weight, depending on how the hearing unfolds. Their alleged evidentiary value has been asserted. Providing that at the hearing there is no attempt to introduce some surprise evidence in relation to them (which seems unlikely and would probably provoke an application for an adjournment), I do not see why they should be excluded from evidence at this stage.
The above ruling concerning “the boots issue” takes care of 10 of the 14 photographs or documents ultimately in dispute.
I turn now to the remainder. The first of these relates to the report of Dr Grace Forbes, veterinary surgeon. The Stewards agree that certain paragraphs – namely, paragraphs 30 – 34 inclusive – do not require any argument and can be deleted from the evidence. However, one sentence in paragraph 29 remains in dispute. In essence, Dr Forbes has stated that the fact that the person handling Jamaican Rain is seen in a photograph and video to have a windsucking strap in his hand may be consistent with replacing, removing or refitting the horse’s rug and windsucking collar.
Mr Sheales has submitted that this is just speculation that does not require expertise and that the photographs “show what they show”. Ms Wood has argued that the significance of the windsucking strap is something that Dr Forbes can and ought to give evidence about.
In this instance, essentially I agree with Mr Sheales. The observation of Dr Forbes is hardly conclusive – “may be consistent with” – and does not read as a useful piece of expert evidence. It may be that some expansion upon it based upon the experience and expertise of Dr Forbes may render it both admissible and of assistance to the Tribunal. However, in its present form, the observation is indeed speculative, and, on face value, not a matter requiring expert evidence. To give an example, one would not need an expert tailor to give evidence as to whether a person in the street with an overcoat over his or her arm on a day when rain had just ceased had recently taken it off.
In summary, I am of the view that the sentence in question should be excluded, but I am not ruling that this topic cannot be the subject of further evidence and examination at the hearing.
The next objection, also based on speculation, concerns a proposition put by a Steward, Mr Villella, to one of those charged, namely Mr Rahman. It effectively enquires as to the state of mind of another person charged, Mr Potgieter, at the time of certain behaviour by him. Mr Sheales argued that this is sheer speculation and an enquiry or observation that should not form part of the evidence contained in the interview. Ms Wood submitted that the particular question should not be viewed in isolation and was part of a line of enquiry as to why Mr Potgieter had left so unexpectedly, bearing in mind the presence of the stomach tubing equipment.
In my opinion, this line of questioning is quite appropriate and, whilst the wording of the question under consideration is not ideal, it is part of a line of enquiry concerning the allegedly sudden and unexpected departure of Mr Potgieter and the alleged cessation of his activities. As stated, the wording may not be perfect, but the topic is certainly potentially relevant and admissible. It seems to me that the statement or question of Mr Villella is something that can be explored at the ultimate hearing, but, when seen in context, should remain in evidence at this stage.
The next objection concerns the interview of Ms Sarah Francis, stablehand, by the Stewards. In my opinion, the questions and answers to which objection is taken are admissible. Essentially, it is questioning concerning the possible use and location of a bucket. It seems to me to be potentially relevant. Ms Francis is a stablehand employed by Mr Laming. Of course, the relevance and weight to be attached to her answers can be the subject of submissions and of further questioning at the ultimate hearing. However, I am not prepared to exclude the questions and answers to which objection has been taken at this stage.
That leaves the objection to parts of the interview of Mr Potgieter concerning the horse having a dripping nose and the possible attempted drenching of it. Again, at this stage, the questions and answers in relation to this seem to me to be admissible. As pointed out by Ms Wood, Mr Potgieter is the assistant trainer. These seem to me to be legitimate matters for the Stewards to pursue, and that includes the colour of substances found in and around the floor of the stables and buckets. Again, the weight to be attached to this evidence seems to me to be a matter to be dealt with at the hearing. Potentially, it could be relevant, and I am not prepared to rule at this stage that it be excluded.
I believe that I have dealt with the aspects of the potential evidence that were in dispute. I would again refer to the earlier discussion concerning evidence and the like at a disciplinary hearing (as this upcoming hearing will be), bearing in mind the statutory provisions and at least some of the relevant decisions and material.



Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal



Giddy Up  :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Aug-04, 07:10 PM
Kenneth Mitchell, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 24 July 2020 (DOCX 160.09 KB)

Dennis Pulis, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 23 July 2020 (DOCX 153.43 KB)

Austin Mifsud, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 22 July 2020 (DOCX 153.84 KB)

Unacceptable drive suspended 4 meetings.


"A useful test in this regard is whether the knowledgeable harness racing spectator might be expected to exclaim words to the effect of ‘What on earth is he doing’ or ‘My goodness, look at that’ – see the New South Wales decision of McMullen.

We are comfortably satisfied that a knowledgeable spectator would have used such words when you again urged your horse forward, applying the whip, between the 1200 metre mark and approximately the 1000 metre mark. The horse had not had an easy run. There was still a lap to go. You were being challenged strongly for the lead. However, rather than taking a sit, you commenced to drive vigorously once more. "

Politically correct terms attributed to the knowledgeable spectator if those who were on this one more likely to be saying WTF is this moron doing. :chair:

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Aug-16, 01:28 PM
Current decisions
2020

    Lyndon Hall, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing on the papers, 12 August 2020 (DOCX 155.9 KB)

    Michelle Mallia, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 7 August 2020 (DOCX 160.1 KB)

    Peter Parr, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 31 July 2020 (DOCX 158.07 KB)

    Maria Musselwhite, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 31 July 2020 (DOCX 153 KB)

    Laura Lafferty, Racing Victoria Appeal, 31 July 2020 (DOCX 153.14 KB)

    Ben Divirgilio, Rinaldo Divirgilio & Chris Scanlan, Greyhound Racing Victoria Adjournment Ruling, 30 July 2020 (DOCX 152.42 KB)


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Aug-26, 09:51 PM
VRT Decision Martyn Empson Hearing 14 August 2020 (DOCX 156.79 KB)

VRT Decision Louie Biccheri Hearing 14 August 2020 (DOCX 158.62 KB)

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Sep-21, 07:46 PM
Quite a few decisions to catch up on from the hard working VRT.......The case of McDonald is an interesting one he was disqualified for 20 years with 10 years suspended for live baiting in 2015 ..since then he has been a regular patron at race meetings ...5 years later RVL found out and disqualified him for the same period to coincide with the original sentence ...but in doing so RVL neglected to give  him a show cause notice thus denying him procedural fairness ........this hearing is an appeal against RVL's decision to disqualify him from attending race meetings ......to cut a long story short the learned judge upheld the appeal against penalty and imposed a period of suspension which allows McDonald to attend race meetings as a spectator and bet to his heart's delight to 2025.



    Darren McDonald, Racing Victoria Appeal, 14 September 2020 (DOCX 178.05 KB)
    Aaron Farley, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 11 September 2020 (DOCX 159.86 KB)
    Shane Jack, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 11 September 2020 (DOCX 153.02 KB)
    Liam Riordan, Racing Victoria Appeal, 9 September 2020 (DOCX 155.12 KB)
    Joe Bajada, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 7 September 2020 (DOCX 165.91 KB)
    Michael Walker, Racing Victoria Appeal, 4 September 2020 (DOCX 156.28 KB)
    Michael Poy, Racing Victoria Appeal, 4 September 2020 (DOCX 154.93 KB)
    Darren Kee, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 4 September 2020 (DOCX 156.83 KB)
    Hugh Cathels, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 3 September 2020 (DOCX 157.1 KB)
    Ross Graham, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 1 September 2020 (DOCX 156.94 KB)
    Gary Joske, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 28 August 2020 (DOCX 157.79 KB)
    Gregory/Tyson Burns, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 27 August 2020 (DOCX 160.67 KB)
    Braden Finn, Greyhound Racing Victoria Ruling, 25 August 2020 (DOCX 163.3 KB)


Giddy Up :beer:


Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Oct-08, 10:29 AM
Melham cleared on Singapore bet RACENET Report
Melham cleared on Singapore bet

(https://i.postimg.cc/cgztdFh1/34dd12f1e4f423b561a34b62041d4386-Ben.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/cgztdFh1)
Ben Melham has been cleared on a charge of betting in Singapore. Pictu Getty Images
Leo Schlink
Article Author

7:28PM07 October 2020
2 Comments

Ben Melham has been cleared on one of seven alleged betting charges after the Victorian Racing Tribunal found Australian rules of racing do not explicitly prevent a local jockey punting overseas.

In arriving at his decision, Judge John Bowman said “Mr Melham’s behaviour in placing the bets occurred in Australia, but the races involved did not.”

“He is a person licensed in this country and thus subject to these Rules, as discussed above,” Judge Bowman said.

“If, whilst he was in Singapore but still licensed here, he placed bets on Australian races (assuming that such can be done), that would seem to me, prima facie, to be a breach of the Rule.

“However, to state the obvious, that is the opposite of what occurred.

“The Rule under consideration, like many other Rules, is designed to protect the integrity of Australian racing, not Singaporean racing.

VRC St Leger

Ben Melham had a win at the Victorian Racing Tribunal in his fight against alleged betting charges. Pictu Getty Images

 (https://i.postimg.cc/gLPdyRkq/be6d297dc5503a9efd9f09d766acbb3c-Ben-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gLPdyRkq)

“It does so by prohibiting jockeys from betting on Australian racing or being seen in Australian betting rings.

“Absent clear wording to the contrary, that seems to me to be the way in which the Rule is intended to operate and does in fact operate. Thus, I am of the opinion that Charge 5 is not a valid charge within the meaning of AR 115 (1) (c).”

The VRT is yet to consider the remaining six charges against Melham.

Judge Bowman’s judgment also contained an apology for jockey Liam Riordan, who was given a suspended six-month sentence in 2016 for placing a $20 bet at Deauville.

“Obviously, I am now of the view that such a decision was incorrect,” Judge Bowman said.

“All I can say in my own and the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary board’s defence is that it was a plea of ‘guilty’ and no jurisdictional issues or other technical arguments were advanced. In any event, l apologise to Mr Riordan.”

In another ruling, Richard Laming was found not guilty of administering or causing to be administered cobalt to Iam Ekstraordinary at Ballarat on May 23, 2018.

The VRT said there was “no evidence Mr Laming even knew of the injection being administered.”
Related Topics: Jockeys VIC

ENDS


Giddy Up :beer:

Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Oct-15, 07:11 PM
More decisions from the VRT

•  Lui Forte, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 6 October 2020 (DOCX 153.96 KB)
•  Melissa Forte, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 6 October 2020 (DOCX 163.76 KB)
•  Joshua Moody, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 5 October 2020 (DOCX 156.96 KB)
•  Craig Trickett, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 2 October 2020 (DOCX 158.46 KB)
•  Dallas Massina, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 30 September 2020 (DOCX 157.13 KB)
•  Marcus Lloyd, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 29 September 2020 (DOCX 156.15 KB)
•  Gary Lane, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 21 September 2020 (DOCX 153.38 KB)
•  Mark Sues, Racing Victoria Hearing, 16 September 2020 (DOCX 171.42 KB)

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Oct-20, 09:39 AM
They earn their fees the hard working VRT members more decisions released for public consumption..

Current decisions
2020

    James Theodotou, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 9 October 2020 (DOCX 159.65 KB)

    Dean Yendall, Racing Victoria Appeal, 9 October 2020 (DOCX 153.97 KB)

    Daryl Douglas, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 8 October 2020 (DOCX 154.44 KB)

    Amanda Scott, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 7 October 2020 (DOCX 157.03 KB)

    Giddy Up :beer:

   
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Oct-30, 12:01 PM
repeat unnecessary  :shy:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Oct-30, 01:41 PM
Andrew Vozlic, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 21 October 2020 (DOCX 160.81 KB)

Robert Palmer, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 20 October 2020 (DOCX 159.65 KB)

Jason Formosa, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 16 October 2020 (DOCX 154.7 KB)

Colin Baker, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 15 October 2020 (DOCX 159.9 KB)

Paul Rowse, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 15 October 2020 (DOCX 154.65 KB)


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Nov-15, 05:52 PM

Kerrin McEvoy, Racing Victoria Appeal, 9 November 2020 (DOCX 164.58 KB)

James Ennis, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 30 October 2020 (DOCX 160.71 KB)

Ian Anderson, Greyhound Racing Victoria, Ruling, 22 October 2020 (DOCX 161.24 KB)

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2020-Dec-03, 10:14 AM
DECISION
HARNESS RACING VICTORIA
and
ALEX ASHWOOD

Date of hearing:      27 November 2020
Panel:   Justice Shane Marshall (Deputy Chairperson) and Mr Robert Abrahams.   
Appearances:    Mr Shane Larkins appeared on behalf of the Stewards.
Mr Damian Sheales appeared on behalf of Mr Ashwood. 

Charge:    Australian Harness Racing Rule 149(2) states “A person shall not drive in a manner which in the opinion of the stewards is unacceptable”.

Particulars of charge:   The particulars of the charge being, in that after racing four wide into the first turn, you elected to remain in that position for such distance until leaving the 1200m mark in a first quarter which was recorded in 27.5 seconds. As a consequence, Heaven Attracts then raced without cover until the 800m when Kissmelvis improved in advance of that runner. Heaven Attracts then tired badly to be beaten 104m at the conclusion of the race.

Plea:             Not Guilty


DECISION

1.   On 22 July 2020, Mr Ashwood was the driver of the horse “Heaven Attracts” in race 7 at the Shepparton harness racing meeting.

2.   The Stewards conducted an inquiry into the drive of Mr Ashwood. At the conclusion of the inquiry they charged him with a breach of Rule 149(2) of the Rules of harness racing. Mr Ashwood pleaded not guilty. The Stewards found him guilty and suspended his licence for 3 weeks. He now appeals to the Tribunal against the finding of guilt and against the severity of the penalty.

3.   Rule 149(2) provides that “A person shall not drive in a manner which in the opinion of the Stewards is unacceptable”.

4.   In order for an appeal against a decision made under Rule 149(2) to succeed it must be shown that the decision of the Stewards was not reasonably open to them. The professional assessment of the Stewards must be open to serious challenge for the appeal to succeed. It is not for the Tribunal merely to substitute its view of how a horse was driven for that of the Stewards. For the appeal to succeed the Tribunal is required on the evidence before it to find that the decision of the Stewards was not one which was reasonably available to them.

5.   In written submissions filed on behalf of the Stewards it was stated that:

“The essence of the Stewards case is that Mr Ashwood adopted tactics throughout the course of the race which did not allow his horse to continue to compete throughout, by running fast times when very wide for the first 600 (metres), which simply was beyond the reasonably exposed capabilities of his drive”.

6.   From the replay of the race the following can be seen:

(a)   Heaven Attracts started from barrier 7.
(b)   The horse raced wide into the first turn.
(c)   The horse remained four wide at a fast tempo for several hundred metres.
(d)   At the 1400 metre mark Mr Ashwood had the opportunity to ease back with cover rather than to press forward four wide.
(e)   Having chosen not to restrain the horse Mr Ashwood was trapped four wide by the aggressive driving of other drivers seeking to hold their positions.
(f)   Heaven Attracts dropped out of the race alarmingly at the 600 metre mark and was beaten by 104 metres.

7.   Stewards submit that Mr Ashwood had a choice to make at the 1400 metre mark, either to come back and allow his horse to compete during the whole race or to drive aggressively forward. He choose to drive aggressively from the 1400 metre mark to the 1200 metre mark.

8.   Counsel for Mr Ashwood contended that the trainer of the horse and Mr Ashwood had a plan to drive the horse aggressively and considered that the horse performed better when that happened.

9.   Mr Ashwood believed that the ultimate winner (Didn’t I) would lead and that Heaven Attracts would come across with him. However, two horses kicked up on Mr Ashwood’s inside forcing him four wide. This resulted in the horse travelling wider than expected for up to 150 metres.

10.   Mr Ashwood enacted plan B and pushed forward into the death seat and still considered the horse to be “thereabouts” and racing aggressively “under its own steam”.

11.   Counsel contended that the early speed for the race was not objectively fast.

12.   On the day after the race the horse was examined by a veterinarian who diagnosed an “inflammatory airway disease” and said that the disease was “the likely cause for poor performance”.

13.   Counsel also referred to the fact that horse had performed well when driven aggressively at its subsequent 3 starts.

14.   The Stewards contend that the recorded sectional time for the first quarter of the race was objectively fast and indeed 1.4 second faster than the 5 year average.

15.   The Stewards submit that as Heaven Attracts raced 4 wide for 500 metres, a reasonably minded harness racing observer would question what the driver was doing.

16.   The Stewards observed that Heaven Attracts recent runs have been in significantly lesser grades and the horse made slower times.

17.   The Steward’s veterinarian did not detect any illness in the horse in the aftermath of the event. They say that there is no evidence that inflammatory airway disease was present on the day of the event. They argue that Mr Ashwood made a deliberate effort to race forward and failed to adopt tactics which would have assisted the horse by taking cover.

18.   In our opinion the decision of the Stewards was reasonably open to them. Mr Ashwood pushed forward for 500 metres longer than necessary at a relatively fast pace. It was no surprise that the horse was spent by the time it reached the 600 metre mark. The drive would look questionable from the viewpoint of an independent observer.

19.   Counsel for Mr Ashwood contended that Heaven Attracts was not well on the night and that affected its performance. The horse was examined by a veterinarian on the night after the race and no abnormality was discovered. A subsequent examination by another veterinarian disclosed an illness affecting the horse’s airways. This evidence does not contradict the evidence that on the night no abnormality was discovered.

20.   We also reject the submission on behalf of Mr Ashwood that Heaven Attracts was capable of working hard from the start in order to perform well. The evidence concerning other performances of the horse does not conclusively support that conclusion.

21.   We dismiss the appeal. Nothing was put to us to take issue with the penalty imposed by the Stewards. The three week penalty stands. The penalty shall start at midnight on 6 December 2020. 


Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

ENDS

Watching the replay the horse had a hard run for a short distance but after getting the death seat it was relegated to one one but couldn't keep up finished tailed off I don't blame him for his appeal  pity the vet report didn't reveal the horse's infection on the day.
What you need to do to win an appeal ..........]In order for an appeal against a decision made under Rule 149(2) to succeed it must be shown that the decision of the Stewards was not reasonably open to them. The professional assessment of the Stewards must be open to serious challenge for the appeal to succeed. It is not for the Tribunal merely to substitute its view of how a horse was driven for that of the Stewards. For the appeal to succeed the Tribunal is required on the evidence before it to find that the decision of the Stewards was not one which was reasonably available to them.

Maybe the not blameworthy excuse ...an error of judgment .....hasn't been heard of in Victoria .



Alex Ashwood, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 27 November 2020 (DOCX 162.49 KB)
•  Donna Dean, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 20 November 2020 (DOCX 161.32 KB)
•  Nicole Lund, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 19 November 2020 (DOCX 160.04 KB)
•  Matthew Marshall, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 18 November 2020 (DOCX 160.45 KB)
•  Alan Tharle, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 13 November 2020 (DOCX 158.16 KB)
•  Matthew Clark, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 11 November 2020 (DOCX 156.28 KB)
•  Bradley Costello, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 11 November 2020 (DOCX 156.74


Giddy Up :beer:



Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Jan-28, 09:44 AM
Updating decisions of the very busy VRT since last time.

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors/racing/victorian-racing-tribunal/victorian-racing-tribunal-decisions

Ben Melham & Karlie Dales, Racing Victoria Hearing, 21, 22, 23 December 2020 (DOCX 161.78 KB)

Ben Melham & his partner Karlie Dales' decision above Ben got 5 months

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Feb-24, 06:42 PM
Updating decisions of the hard working VRT  there are quite a number not previously posted .....no doubt the VRT get through their cases in reasonably quick time not like the dead pool that applies in QLD with QCAT under staffed and over worked ...... with the guvment lacking in willpower to introduce a workable system along the lines of Victoria and NSW......   submissions on a review of the current appeals process closed ages ago :chair:

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors/racing/victorian-racing-tribunal/victorian-racing-tribunal-decisions

I have extracted the decision to confirm Jarrod McLeans 3 year DQ for EPO offences ...there are further charges of alleged criminal activity which are still to be heard and determined. 


DECISION

Mr Jarrod McLean, you have pleaded guilty to a breach of AR 244(i) and of AR 250 (a). Two alternative charges drop away accordingly.

The breach of AR 244(i) is a particularly serious offence. The Rule involves the administration of a prohibited substance. The prohibited substance involved is recombinant human erythrupten, or EPO. The substance was administered to the horse Cat’s Fun, trained by you, over a period of time. Administering EPO is a particularly serious offence. It can have a dramatic effect upon a horse. The administration of it has no purpose other than to effect performance. Apart from damaging the concept of a level playing field, there are associated risks to the welfare of horses and jockeys. There is no excuse for its administration. The injection of it, as occurred here, requires a wilful act – a wilful attempt to obtain an unfair advantage without regard to risk or welfare.

The breach of AR 250(a) concerns EPO also and the same basic facts. It is a charge of possession, as opposed to administration. It is also a very serious offence, but ranks below the actual administration.

Turning to your situation, you are currently stood down as a trainer and have so been since October 2019. You face criminal charges in relation to racing matters and you are contesting those charges. You face further charges in relation to racing. You have been stood down for some time, essentially awaiting disposal of the criminal matters.

Since being stood down as a trainer, you have been working on a waste disposal truck. You have also had employment in a restaurant. You have fallen a long way from the position of a very successful trainer.

We accept that the financial pressures which you are under have caused you stress and pressure. You have sold off such things as horse trucks and floats. You have sold all your training gear. Your training establishment lies idle and may well have to be sold. You are receiving assistance from a psychologist.

You are a married man with a family of three children. We appreciate the strain that all of this must have placed upon you all. However, you brought it all upon yourself and now must wear the consequences.

Further, you have a very poor record. You have twice been put out by the Stewards. On 30 August 2013 you were disqualified for 6 months in relation to the prohibited substance TC02. The other offence related to false and misleading statements and for that you received a penalty of a little over 6 weeks suspension. You have also committed various other offences of a lesser nature. All in all, your record is, as stated, very poor.

Via their counsel, Mr Dinelli, and those instructing him, the Stewards have sought a period of disqualification of three years for the breach of AR 244(1). They have sought a penalty of two to two and a half years on the breach of AR 250(a), concurrent with the penalty for the breach of AR 244(1). The only like case involving EPO that was put before us involved a period of disqualification of three years, although the factual background had considerable differences.

Through your counsel, Mr Gullaci, you have indicated that you do not contest these proposed penalties. Obviously, we are not bound by what is in essence the agreed penalties. However, we do take this agreement into consideration. In particular, we note that those are the penalties sought by the Stewards. We appreciate that obviously there has been considerable discussion between the parties.

We repeat that we are not bound by this agreement. Ultimately, the penalties to be imposed a matter for us. However, particularly bearing in mind the attitude of the Stewards and the competence and experience of their legal representatives, we accept and adopt their suggested penalties.

On the charge of a breach of AR 244(1), you are disqualified for a period of three years, commencing immediately.

On the charge of a breach of AR 250(a), you are disqualified for a period of two years, such period of disqualification to be concurrent with the penalty for the breach of AR 244(i).

Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

ENDS
Giddy Up :beer:


 
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Mar-22, 03:08 PM
Alfio Grasso, Harness Racing Victoria Ruling, 18 February 2021 (DOCX 158.68 KB)

Nathan Jack, Mark Pitt, Russell Jack and Tammy Gibbons, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 12 February 2021
(DOCX 164.59 KB)

Reece Moore, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 11 February 2021 (DOCX 159.65 KB)

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Apr-13, 09:01 PM
Current decisions
2021

    David Burnett, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 26 March 2021 (DOCX 177.4 KB)
    Melanie Lithgow, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 25 March 2021 (DOCX 176.04 KB)
    Sean Lithgow, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 25 March 2021 (DOCX 176.4 KB)
    Barry Mills, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 24 March 2021 (DOCX 175.9 KB)
    Braden Finn, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 23 March 2021 (DOCX 166.15 KB)
    Mario Briganti, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 23 March 2021 (DOCX 175.81 KB)
    Terry French, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 22 March 2021 (DOCX 177.03 KB)
    David Willcocks, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 22 March 2021 (DOCX 175.96 KB)
    Lisa Miles, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 19 March 2021 (DOCX 177.28 KB)
    Craig Webb, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 18 March 2021 (DOCX 181.54 KB)
    Kerryn Manning, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 17 March 2021 (DOCX 177.23 KB)
    Shane Keating, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 17 March 2021 (DOCX 177.98 KB)
    Rhys Nicholson, Harness Racing Victoria Appeal, 16 March 2021 (DOCX 178.9 KB)
    Kathryn Medcraft, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 15 March 2021 (DOCX 168.18 KB)
    Cameron Medcraft, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 15 March 2021 (DOCX 166.71 KB)
    Peter Terry, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 12 March 2021 (DOCX 174.49 KB)
    Clinton Capuano, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 12 March 2021 (DOCX 173.25 KB)
    John Mangion, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 11 March 2021 (DOCX 178.76 KB)
    Pia Triaca, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 10 March 2021 (DOCX 1164.93 KB)
    Alfio Grasso, Harness Racing Victoria Hearing, 10 March 2021 (DOCX 158.77 KB)
    Ryan Duffy, Harness Racing Victoria Appeals (5), 2 March 2021 (DOCX 160.4 KB)
    Matthew Marshall, Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeal, 1 March 2021 (DOCX 157.08 KB)
    Colin O’Donnell, Greyhound Racing Victoria Hearing, 18 February 2021 (DOCX 169.09 KB)
Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Apr-27, 08:10 PM
Updating recent decisions of the VRT 

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/victorian-racing-tribunal/decisions-and-reasons

Recommended reading is the Archie Alexander decision.

Archie Alexander, Racing Victoria Ruling, 15 March 2021 (DOCX 173.19 KB)


Giddy up :beer:

Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-May-24, 07:18 PM
https://djpr.vic.gov.au/victorian-racing-tribunal/decisions-and-reasons

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Jul-20, 05:13 PM
Strange there aren't any decisions listed on the VRT website since 30 June . :o

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Aug-13, 08:11 PM
Updated decisions by the VRT

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/victorian-racing-tribunal/decisions-and-reasons


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Aug-19, 10:19 PM
https://djpr.vic.gov.au/victorian-racing-tribunal/decisions-and-reasons

Michael Bellman harness racing driver suspension 3 months for flicking a female driver between her thighs with his whip saying  "where's your face mask "she apparently was unmasked.

You would think a fine would be more appropriate than suspension.

Giddy Up  :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Sep-09, 10:08 PM
Full Airbnb party transcripts: Zahra's wife was ‘sitting right there'
Mark Zahra is appealing the severity of his spring carnival-ending ban. Pictu Getty Images
Mark Zahra is appealing the severity of his spring carnival-ending ban. Pictu Getty Images
By Gilbert Gardiner
02:19pm • 09 September 2021
Suspended jockey Mark Zahra allegedly lied to stewards asking whether he attended an illegal Mornington house party because his wife was “sitting right there” when the phone rang.

The verbal exchange, which led to Zahra being given a three-month spring carnival ending ban for the Covid-19 breach, formed part of written submissions to the Victorian Racing Tribunal.

VRT Judge John Bowman on Thursday asked submissions made by counsels acting for Racing Victoria Stewards and Zahra be made public so as not to create an impression of “clandestine dealings”.

Zahra, who is appealing the severity of the three-month ban, also faces a charge in relation to giving false and/or misleading evidence to stewards.

The submission prepared by Zahra’s counsel, Patrick Wheelahan, QC, reads: “The reason Zahra first denied his presence at the Airbnb when first called by (chief steward) Mr Cram was because when he took the call from Mr Cram, he was in the presence of his wife — ‘sitting right there’.

“Zahra called Mr Cram back later that same day after the races, when he had ‘cleared up his home front’.

“As explained by Zahra to Mr Cram, his personal life came before racing; he wanted to tell his wife what actually happened ‘before it hit the press’.

“After sorting out his personal life on the home front, Zahra took it upon himself to call Mr Cram and tell him he was in fact present at the Airbnb gathering.”

Zahra has pleaded guilty to misleading stewards.

As indicated in a directions hearing last week, Zahra’s “substantial” earning capacity during the spring carnival is the basis of an appeal of the severity of the three-month ban.

Last year Zahra pocketed more than $200,000 from three Group 1 wins alone, including $150,000 for the Caulfield Cup.


Zahra said he wanted to tell his wife what was happening first before he confessed to stewards of his presence at the Airbnb party. Pictu Racing Photos via Getty Images

Stewards in their submission provided a timeline of interactions with Zahra on Saturday, August 28 — starting with a voicemail 11.33am.

“Mr Zahra rang the stewards back at 11:53am … where he denied being at the Airbnb gathering.

“The stewards rang Mr Zahra because there were ‘some rumours going around’ that he was at the Airbnb gathering.

“Mr Zahra could not have been more emphatic in his responses:

Chairman: Mark … There’s some rumours going around that you were at the Mornington gathering on Wednesday evening. Is that correct or not?

Mr Zahra: No, it’s not correct.

Chairman: That’s good to hear, that it’s not. I’m just wondering where that would be emanating from?

Mr Zahra: Yeah, I don’t know … I wasn’t there.

Chairman: Yes. You were definitely not there?

Mr Zahra: No, definitely.”

Zahra called back at 5.30pm on Saturday and confessed to being at the party.

The time between the denial and confession was five hours and 37 minutes, according to the submission.

Stewards rejected Zahra’s submission that telling his wife ‘before it hit the press’ justified earlier denials.

“Regardless of the circumstances, Mr Zahra was required to answer questions truthfully and honestly.

“Notwithstanding that the stewards may have rejected his offer, once Mr Zahra became aware of the reason for the stewards’ call, he could have asked for the opportunity to call the stewards straight back.”

Stewards asked the VRT to consider an additional two month ban — for the charge relating to giving false or misleading evidence — on top of the three-months received for the Covid-19 breach house party.

Stewards are satisfied for one of the two additional months to be served concurrently.

In essence the jockeys would be suspended for five months but be eligible to ride after four months.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE PENALTY SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RACING VICTORIA STEWARDS


CLICK HERE TO READ THE PENALTY SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF MARK ZAHRA

https://www.racenet.com.au/news/suspended-jockey-mark-zahra-wanted-to-clear-up-home-front-before-airbnb-party-confession-20210909

Racenet reports that Jamie Kah who is not appealling her penalty is seeking an expedited hearing on the charge of giving false or misleading evidence to stewards...it was reported that Kah was not forthcoming about the presence of  other jockeys  at the party..she is being represented by Damian Sheales who indicated he would be making a brief submission.

Barrister Damian Sheales, acting on behalf of Kah, said the case needed to be dealt with urgently as the 25-year-old has “very serious” matters ”going on in the background”.

“To close off other matters going on in the background we really seek an urgent date to end the matter,” Sheales said.

“There are things going on in the background that really now make this more pressing.

“I don’t really want to raise publicly the things going on in the background and they are very serious.”


The other jockeys
Melham, Brown dispute claims they misled stewards
Ben Melham is appealing his three-month ban. Pictu AAP
Ben Melham is appealing his three-month ban. Pictu AAP
By Gilbert Gardiner
06:31pm • 09 September 2021
Suspended jockeys Ben Melham and Ethan Brown will plead not guilty to allegedly misleading stewards in the investigation into an illegal Mornington Airbnb party last month.

Melham and Brown, along with jockeys Mark Zahra, Jamie Kah and Celine Gaudray, received three-month bans for breaking State Government and racing Covid-19 protocols by attending the gathering.

Melham, Brown and Zahra are all appealing the severity of their respective sanctions.

A further directions hearing for Melham and Brown is scheduled for September 17.

Barrister Matthew Stirling, acting on behalf of both Melham and Brown, clarified his clients’ position before the Victorian Racing Tribunal on Thursday.

“Not guilty on the false and/or misleading evidence charges in relation to both Melham and Brown and in relation to their Covid appeal,” Stirling said.

“They are most certainly guilty and are only appealing penalty.”

Ethan Brown also pleaded not guilty to misleading stewards.

The providing false and/or misleading evidence relates directly to Kah, Melham, Brown and Gaudray not telling stewards, at the earliest opportunity, whether other riders attended the party.

Zahra was outed as the fifth jockey attendee about 24 hours after stewards suspended the quartet.

Stirling indicated his clients’ defence hinges on the time Zahra spent at the gathering.

“We only have one point in that case,” he said.

“To use an analogy, if six people went out to dinner – three couples – and a seventh person joined them for half an hour.

“They went home and their daughter inquired of them, who was there?

“If they each stated the people that were there for the whole night but they didn’t mention the person that dropped in for a drink, are they liars? We would say no.”

Stirling last week told the VRT Melham and Brown had been at the Mornington rental property for 16 hours whereas Zahra dropped in for “a couple of drinks”.

Meanwhile, News Corp Australia has confirmed Kah, Melham, Brown and Gaudray have all returned negative day 13 Covid-19 tests and could resume riding track work and jumpouts as early as Friday, pending a clearance from the RV chief medical officer.

The quartet’s initial 14-day stand down expired on Thursday.

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Sep-13, 10:28 PM
STATEMENT ON APPEALS
RACING VICTORIA
and
MARK ZAHRA
and
BEN MELHAM
and
ETHAN BROWN

Date of statement:      9 September 2020
Panel:   Judge John Bowman (Chairperson), Judge Graeme Hicks (Deputy Chairperson) and Justice Shane Marshall (Deputy Chairperson).   


STATEMENT
   
At the start, I wish to read the following statement on our behalf, so that the general public, and the media, can better understand what is occurring.

At the last directions hearing involving all parties in these matters, there was some discussion about the cases of Messrs Zahra, Melham and Brown proceeding by way of what is called “on the papers” – that is, with no oral evidence or submissions and with written submissions only by each party. No finality was reached in that regard at the time.

On Friday, 3 September 2021, it was confirmed clearly to the Registrar that, in the case of Mr Zahra, the Stewards agreed with and consented to his application for a hearing on the papers. A timetable was being worked out.

When the Registrar conveyed this to me, I became concerned that there may have been some misunderstanding. It may have been thought by the Stewards and Mr Zahra that, once an agreement had been reached, automatically the hearing would be conducted on the papers and without any oral input. In fact, it was intended to be a two-step process. Firstly, the parties had to agree to proceeding in that way. Secondly, the Tribunal had to give its approval and, if there was approval, apply such conditions as it saw fit.

Lest there had been any misunderstanding, I determined that there should be a further directions hearing as soon as possible. Luckily Judge Hicks was available at very short notice and we conducted a directions hearing early last Friday afternoon.

This may seem to be a storm in a teacup or much ado about nothing, but we do not view it that way.  These are important cases of which the public is well aware. The last thing we want to do is create the impression that there are some secret or clandestine dealings occurring. We do not for a moment suggest that anyone was attempting to do that, but we want to eliminate any possible cause for concern.

The bottom line is that we approved of Mr Zahra’s case proceeding on the basis of written submissions only, but imposed certain conditions. These were agreed to by the legal representatives of both parties.

Those terms or conditions are as follows.

Firstly, as the written submissions are replacing the oral submissions that would otherwise be heard in an open hearing, all such written submissions are to be posted on the Tribunal’s website. Thus, they will be available to all.

Secondly, they will be so posted forthwith, and not just after the ultimate decision is handed down.

Thirdly, they will be so posted virtually simultaneously. This was a suggestion of Mr Zahra’s legal team, and a sensible one. There is the potential for unfairness if the submissions of one side appear days before the submissions of the other.

Fourthly, barring unforeseen circumstances, both sets of submissions will appear on the Tribunal’s website this afternoon or evening.

Fifthly, the Tribunal reserves the right to request further written submissions on the same terms. It also reserves the right to hear oral evidence in the unlikely event that it considers this to be important or essential.

Finally, last Friday the following was pointed out, and this does not apply to Ms Kah or Ms Gaudray, neither of whom is conducting an appeal against a three month penalty. However, we wish to state it clearly again.
in relation to an appeal against penalty, we would refer to Section 50ZE (2) of the Racing Act 1958. We have four options. We can leave the penalty where it sits. If the circumstances warrant it, we can decrease the penalty. We can quash it. Or, if the circumstances warrant it, we can increase the penalty. 

We shall give consideration to the circumstances of each individual appeal, and of each individual appellant.

This statement will appear on the Victorian Racing Tribunal website.


Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

ENDS

Both Zahra's and RV stewards statements were posted as indicated ...Zahra has pleaded guilty to giving the false and misleading evidence to stewards..his appeal is on the severity of the penalty........a three months suspension for COVID breach and some yet to be determined penalty for the false evidence charge...stewards submit 3 months +2 months of which one month to be served concurrently 4 months total but it's up to the VRT to determine how long he'll get. 

Giddy Up :beer:

Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Sep-22, 12:01 PM
Melham, Brown to face VRT
Andrew Eddy
Andrew Eddy
@fastisheddy
21 September, 2021

The appeals of jockeys Ben Melham and Ethan Brown against the severity of their three-month bans for COVID-19 offences are set to be heard by the Victorian Racing Tribunal on Wednesday.

The VRT will also rule on charges against both riders for providing false and/or misleading evidence to stewards concerning who was at the illegal Airbnb gathering at Mornington last month.

Three other jockeys have already fronted the VRT for charges of attending the gathering and of subsequently providing false and/or misleading evidence.

Neither Jamie Kah or apprentice Celine Gaudray appealed their three-month bans but Mark Zahra's appeal over the severity of the suspension was last week dismissed by the VRT.

Kah has put an appeal in to the Supreme Court against a further two-month ban - which would see her sidelined until late January - for providing false and/or misleading evidence to stewards.

Gaudray received a further two weeks while Zahra had a month added to his original three months for the same charge.

ENDS

Melham & Brown are pleading not guilty to the false and misleading evidence charge.....as far as I know we haven't seen the questions and answers they gave.....but on previous cases Zahra pleaded guilty copped one month extra ,,the 3 Months penalty appeal is a no go imo .....Jamie Kah was found guilty of the false and misleading evidence charge which cost her 2 months extra  which she is taking to the Supreme Court for a judicial review on the question of law.

Giddy Up :beer:

Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Sep-22, 08:35 PM
Airbnb jockeys: Melham, Brown guilty of misleading stewards

By Gilbert Gardiner
02:38pm • 22 September 2021
BANNED jockeys Ben Melham and Ethan Brown will donate 20 per cent of all prizemoney earnings to charity for three months upon their return to race riding.

Counsel acting for Melham and Brown revealed the “act of decency” after the jockeys were found guilty by the Victorian Racing Tribunal for lying to stewards during the Mornington Airbnb probe.

Melham, a father of three, has elected to share the donation between the Red Cross (Covid relief) and Royal Childrens’ Hospital, while Brown‘s money will be paid to Unicef’s Covid-19 Appeal.

The “no strings attached” make good offered to Racing Victoria prior to Wednesday’s hearing will stand regardless of any penalty the tribunal sees fit to impose.

Melham’s barrister Matthew Stirling conceded his client “is at the crossroads of his career”, with the Group 1 jockey having only recently returned from a five-month disqualification.

“He had the issue with the betting charges which he resolved… and was riding exceptionally well and then he’s breached again under these Covid rules,” Stirling said.

“For Melham to sit back over the last three or four weeks… take the bit between his mouth and say I’ve done the wrong thing by the industry and for that matter done the wrong thing by Victoria.

“Take on board that burden of contributing 20 per cent of prizemoney, the greater part of a jockeys’ income of course, that’s no mean feat for somebody who earns money at the level that he does.”

Jockeys are entitled to five per cent of all prizemoney won by their mounts.

Melham’s status and ties to leading stables could see him earn a hefty six-figure salary inside three months.

The charge stems from Melham and Brown not being forthcoming at the earliest opportunity about Mark Zahra having attended the gathering.

The tribunal indicated Melham’s priors, including a period of disqualification for misleading stewards during the betting probe, which was finalised last December, would be taken into account on the penalty.

Melham and Brown earlier on Wednesday abandoned their appeal on the severity of three-month bans for the August 25 Covid breach.

Stirling pleaded for leniency on Brown’s behalf also, citing the 22-year-old’s relative inexperience and mental health challenges.

Brown, who moved to Melbourne from Alice Springs as a 16-year-old to become a jockey, has struggled in the past with homesickness and weight management.

The tribunal heard Brown, who resumed race riding in July after a fourth-month break, regularly accessed RV’s counselling service.

“Given the particular challenges… little utility, we would say to be gained by punishing (Brown) to any greater extent than two weeks’ serving of the suspension… similar to (Celine) Gaudray),” Stirling said.

Apprentice Gaudray was the first of five jockeys implicated in the Airbnb gathering to face the tribunal.

The rising star received an eight week ban for giving false and/or misleading evidence to stewards, of which six weeks would be suspended for two years.

Kah got the full eight weeks, on account of contesting the charge, while Zahra escaped with four of the eight weeks to be served, with the remainder suspended for two years.

Despite best intentions to wrap up proceedings on Wednesday the tribunal ultimately ran out of time.

Submissions will be finalised next week in writing, with a decision handed down “as quickly as possible” thereafter.

ENDS

Giddy Up :beer:

Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Oct-06, 07:24 PM
Big surprise that the usually super efficient VRT hasn't reached a decision on the appropriate penalty for Ben Melham and Ethan Brown both guilty of breaching AR 232 giving false and or misleading evidence to stewards over the Airbnb fiasco.

Giddy Up  :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Oct-08, 09:06 AM
Ben Melham, Racing Victoria Hearing, 22 September 2021 (DOCX 180.77 KB)

Ethan Brown, Racing Victoria Hearing, 22 September 2021 (DOCX 179.81 KB)

Melham gets another 3 months Brown another 8 weeks


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2021-Nov-17, 09:11 PM
Updating the link to the VRT site several more decisions published.

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/victorian-racing-tribunal/decisions-and-reasons

Giddy Up :no1:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2022-Feb-25, 01:51 PM
 VRT questions “poorly worded” rule
Carl Di Iorio
Carl Di Iorio
@CDi_Iorio
22 February, 2022
A
A
A
Francis Finnegan with No Frontiers
Francis Finnegan with No Frontiers

Racing Victoria's Rules of Racing is 'poorly worded' which may see trainer Francis Finnegan receive a lesser sanction, the Victorian Racing Tribunal (VRT) heard on Tuesday.

Finnegan is contesting two charges relating to providing false or misleading evidence and jumpout information which could be considered "dishonest, fraudulent, improper or dishonourable action or practice in connection with racing" ahead of No Frontiers winning at Bairnsdale on May 3, 2020.

The Cranbourne-based trainer pleaded guilty to two charges relating to misconduct and requesting multiple parties to delete mobile phone data.

It is alleged by Racing Victoria stewards that Finnegan knowingly allowed No Frontiers to have three jumpouts at Cranbourne in the autumn of 2020 – March 23, April 6 and April 20 – in the name of stablemates Avozhina and Getemhel prior to being heavily backed and making a winning debut at Bairnsdale.

Tuesday's hearing opened in an unexpected manner. VRT Judge John Bowman, alongside VRT member and former Racing Victoria chief steward Des Gleeson, voiced their inability to locate a specific rule which states a horse must be identified by their registered name in jumpouts.

The disparity with how jumpouts are treated against official trials in Victoria was highlighted by local rule 65 which extensively outlines the conditions of competing in official trials, explicitly stating that "horses must be nominated in their registered names" and "no horse may be substituted for one originally nominated".

"We couldn't find anything (pertaining to jumpouts) in contrast to official trials," Bowman said, whilst acknowledging the four worded charges against Finnegan weren't 'directly affected'.

"We might be wrong in our preliminary assumption that there's no obligation existing to name the horse, in this particular jumpout to obtain approval to race, and does that effect things at all.

"To us there's two options. It may induce reduced importance of all events or it could make it worse as the horse could be raced unnamed but the positive step was taken to give a false name."

Bowman allowed a 30-minute break in proceedings for Racing Victoria's barrister, Justin Hooper, to gain instruction from his client.

Hooper returned and told the VRT hearing that rule AR229(1)(a)(f) "sufficiently demonstrated that there is an expectation on trainers that they identify their horses accurately in jumpouts".

Rule AR229(1)(a)(f) states: "A person must not engage in any dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent, improper or dishonourable action or practice in connection with racing if the person is an owner, nominator, or trainer of a horse – enter or run the horse in any race, official trial, or jumpout under a fraudulently false description."

Hooper further explained: "A horse could certainly jumpout unnamed but it couldn't jumpout unidentified, the breeding would have to be provided and in circumstances where a horse was named, it would be odd if the trainer was to provide breeding information only."

"Punters do rely on that identifiable information and the stewards position is that rule does put an obligation on trainers to correctly identify their horse."

Bowman acknowledged with Hooper's observation but insisted, "It still doesn’t say about jumping out under a false description. It still doesn't seem to cover the situation of whether they've given a horse in a jumpout, with no description, no name."

Hooper replied: "Even if the tribunal believes there's a gap in the rules, the stewards position is that it is irrelevant because Mr Finnegan deliberately gave the horse a false name."

In response, Bowman said: "Less weight attaches to a jumpout situation then it does to a rule situation, in looking at penalties etcetera. It's not as clear."

Hooper verified the position of the prosecution, insisting that AR229(1)(a)(f) requires horses to be "accurately identified in jumpouts" but Bowman disagreed.

"No, it requires that they don't have a fraudulently false description in jumpouts which is a slightly different point," Bowman said.

Finnegan's lawyer Finlay Davis told the VRT hearing that AR229(1)(a)(f) was "poorly worded".

"This becomes the first prosecution under section 229(1)(a)(f) in respect of a jumpout," Davis said.

"Every other matter, in this state and every other state and territory in this country, when the rule was enacted in September 2009, has opted to treated the matter between the steward and the trainer that is in breach of the rule and it doesn't come before us, or has turned a blind eye to it. Here we are today.

"The prosecuting steward Brett Wright said, 'it (No Frontiers) has had three jumpouts prior to the race on May 3, 2020 and nobody knew about except Finnegan. The name of the horse had not been notified to the Cranbourne race club'.

"That sizes it up perfectly, and concisely. If Finnegan had done what he should have done, and notified the club of the change, then he does no wrong.

"The very serious charge of AR229(1)(a) 'a licenced person must not engage in any dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent, improper or dishonourable action or practice in connection with racing' had jumpouts inserted into the rule from September 1, 2009 as I've already said. In my view, it is poorly worded.

"I have considered it to mean to intentionally deceive by deliberate act, or series of acts to unduly obtain an unfair or unlawful benefit. That's what has got to be proved."

Davis, in launching a spirited defence of Finnegan, cited examples of multiple trainers, including the presently disqualified Darren Weir who were fined for providing incorrect jumpout information in September 2018.

The barrister also took aim at Racing Victoria's decision in October 2018 in making an effort "to lift the profile of jumpouts" by demanding Victorian race clubs to provide publicly archived vision and fields.

Davis suggested the beneficiary of such measures weren't "average punters" but instead "professional punters, bookmakers and Racing.com".

After two days of hearing evidence and submissions from both parties, the VRT retired to consider the contested charges against Finnegan and will respond by delivering their verdict in a written statement.

A penalty submission hearing, in anticipation of the written statement being completed within the next two weeks, has been provisionally set for Monday, April 4.

 

Charge 1 – AR 232(i)False and/or misleading evidence
Plea:Not Guilty

The Stewards allege that Mr Finnegan gave false and/or misleading evidence to Stewards during the Inquiry on 3 May 2020 and/or 5 June 2020.

 

Charge 2 – AR 228(b)Misconduct and/or improper conduct detrimental to the interests of racing
Plea:Guilty

The Stewards allege that sometime between 3 and 11 May 2020, Mr Finnegan deleted from his mobile phone, messages and/or call records between himself and Mr Thompson and/or himself and an apprentice jockey that were or could have been relevant to the Inquiry.

 

Charge 3 – AR 227(b)Approaches, requests, conspires or is a party to another person breaching the Rules of Racing
Plea:Guilty

The Stewards allege that sometime between 3 and 11 May 2020 Mr Finnegan approached, requested and/or was a party to Mr Thompson deleting from his mobile phone sometime between 3 and 11 May 2020, messages and/or call records between himself and Mr Finnegan that were or could have been relevant to the Inquiry.

 

Charge 4 – AR 229(1)(a)Dishonest, fraudulent, improper and/or dishonourable action or practice in connection with racing
Plea:Not Guilty

The Stewards allege that Mr Finnegan knowingly jumped out No Frontiers (NZ) at the Cranbourne Jump Outs on 23 March 2020 under the name of stablemate Avozhina, and on 6 and 20 April 2020 under the name of stablemate Getemhel, to assess No Frontier’s capability to perform against other horses, to conceal No Frontiers’ (NZ) true capability from the broader betting market, in order to eventually race the horse and make a profit from betting on it through his and/or others’ accounts, which he did when No Frontiers ran on 3 May 2020.

ENDS

If pressed I think the stewards' interpretation is likely to be right  :whistle:

As a matter of relevance, Ben Thompson got 4 months for his involvement with this horse and trainer in July last year.


Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Peter Mair on 2022-Feb-25, 08:07 PM


Ho-Lee Gost ............ did 'someone' get one ready and smoke it in  ... unheard of, demanding severe sanctions!
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2022-Feb-28, 05:55 PM
https://djpr.vic.gov.au/victorian-racing-tribunal/decisions-and-reasons

Latest update from the VRT
 Bryce Stanaway in strife again there's an earlier thread going back too far to reproduce but his latest episode resulted in being DQ'd for 3 years the decision is in the February decisions & reasons........I think he failed to obtain a stay of proceedings but I can't find the news report that would confirm it.

Giddy Up :beer:
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: sobig on 2022-Feb-28, 06:08 PM
https://www.racing.com/news/2022-02-25/news-trainers-stanaway-fails-in-stay-bid

Bryce Stanaway has failed in his application for a stay of proceedings against his three-year disqualification on misconduct-related charges.

The Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on Friday rejected Stanaway’s application for the penalty to be stayed ahead of a VCAT review in his case, which is not expected to be held before the end of the season.

Stanaway, 62, had been disqualified for three years by the Victorian Racing Tribunal on seven misconduct-related charges arising from an incident concerning injured horse he trained at the Bendigo racecourse on October 17 of 2020.

After his mare Moorabool broke down during a race that day, Stanaway ran onto the track and abused RV officials as they were treating the horse as well as threaten a veterinarian and then later became abusive to other attendants to the horse.

As part of his application, Stanaway’s representative Daniel Cash told VCAT senior member Anna Dea that Stanaway is in "dire financial straits" as he was receiving no income from training fees or from prizemoney earned.

Senior member Dea said the decision to reject the application for a stay of proceedings was not taken lightly in view of Stanaway’s financial position but that none of the material in front of her could lead to a different judgement.

Stanaway’s last runners were at Sandown on February 2.

The case is listed for an administrative mention before VCAT on April 13.
Title: Victorian Racing Tribunal
Post by: Arsenal on 2022-Mar-16, 04:28 PM
Updated decisions of the VRT.

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/victorian-racing-tribunal/decisions-and-reasons


Giddy Up :beer: