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

Racehorse TALK



Victorian Racing Tribunal - Vic Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Victorian Racing Tribunal  (Read 6476 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16737
« 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: 16737
« 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: 16737
« 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: 16737
« 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: 16737
« 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: 16737
« 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: 16737
« 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: 16737
« 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: 16737
« 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: 27389
« 2020-Apr-07, 09:15 PM Reply #34 »
I was wondering when Mr Craig Widdison, was going to get his punishment

Offline Villa

  • Class2
  • User 2902
  • Posts: 21
« 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: 27389
« 2020-Apr-09, 08:10 AM Reply #36 »
Villa, he got 2 years

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16737
« 2020-Apr-16, 06:30 PM Reply #37 »
•  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:

« Last Edit: 2020-Apr-16, 07:06 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16737
« 2020-Apr-27, 07:06 PM Reply #38 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16737
« 2020-May-19, 09:52 PM Reply #39 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16737
« 2020-Jun-03, 08:40 PM Reply #40 »
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:


Online PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 21834
« 2020-Jun-04, 12:26 AM Reply #41 »


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

Offline nemisis

  • Group 2
  • User 2461
  • Posts: 1134
« 2020-Jun-04, 08:57 AM Reply #42 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16737
« 2020-Jun-04, 07:51 PM Reply #43 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16737
« 2020-Jun-04, 07:59 PM Reply #44 »
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:

Online PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 21834
« 2020-Jun-05, 02:10 AM Reply #45 »
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.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16737
« 2020-Jun-17, 08:32 PM Reply #46 »
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:


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16737
« 2020-Jun-29, 06:28 PM Reply #47 »
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:



« Last Edit: 2020-Jul-03, 10:12 AM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16737
« 2020-Jul-03, 10:22 AM Reply #48 »





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:

« Last Edit: 2020-Jul-03, 11:12 AM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16737
« 2020-Jul-03, 07:53 PM Reply #49 »
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:


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap