Victorian Racing Tribunal - Vic Gallops - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Victorian Racing Tribunal - Vic Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Victorian Racing Tribunal  (Read 3955 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16583
« 2020-Feb-06, 07:29 PM Reply #25 »
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:
« Last Edit: 2020-Feb-17, 08:01 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16583
« 2020-Feb-24, 07:38 PM Reply #26 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16583
« 2020-Feb-26, 07:25 PM Reply #27 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16583
« 2020-Mar-04, 08:01 PM Reply #28 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16583
« 2020-Mar-10, 09:02 AM Reply #29 »
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:







Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16583
« 2020-Mar-12, 07:42 PM Reply #30 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16583
« 2020-Mar-17, 05:28 PM Reply #31 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16583
« 2020-Mar-24, 04:07 PM Reply #32 »
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
:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16583
« 2020-Apr-07, 03:50 PM Reply #33 »
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:
« Last Edit: 2020-Apr-07, 04:15 PM by Arsenal »

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27005
« 2020-Apr-07, 09:15 PM Reply #34 »
I was wondering when Mr Craig Widdison, was going to get his punishment

Offline Villa

  • Maiden
  • User 2902
  • Posts: 9
« 2020-Apr-08, 05:29 PM Reply #35 »
Let’s hope the grub gets it sooner rather than later

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27005
« 14 hours ago Reply #36 »
Villa, he got 2 years


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap