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

Racehorse TALK



Victorian Racing Tribunal - Vic Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Victorian Racing Tribunal  (Read 9040 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Jul-18, 07:31 PM Reply #50 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Jul-28, 12:23 PM Reply #51 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Aug-04, 07:10 PM Reply #52 »
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:
« Last Edit: 2020-Aug-04, 07:18 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Aug-16, 01:28 PM Reply #53 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Aug-26, 09:51 PM Reply #54 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Sep-21, 07:46 PM Reply #55 »
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:



Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Oct-08, 10:29 AM Reply #56 »
Melham cleared on Singapore bet RACENET Report
Melham cleared on Singapore bet


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

 

“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:



Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Oct-15, 07:11 PM Reply #57 »
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:


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Oct-20, 09:39 AM Reply #58 »
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:


   

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Oct-30, 12:01 PM Reply #59 »
repeat unnecessary  :shy:
« Last Edit: 2020-Oct-30, 12:05 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Oct-30, 01:41 PM Reply #60 »
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:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 17031
« 2020-Nov-15, 05:52 PM Reply #61 »

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:


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap