Has HRNSW created a problem

[p plater]

The new structure of HRNSW could pose a problem in the future.
Whilst I cast no suggestion of wrong doing, it must be asked who keeps the Stewards in check for their actions.

This role is the domain of the Integity Dept....but now the Chairman of Stewards is the Manager of the Integrity Dept.

Given the actions taken at the MM meeting, should a challenge by someone against the procedures adopted by the stewards on the day be made, who will it be referred to.

At the moment it's the same person as I see it.

What do others think?

[Greg Hando]

Which actions were of concern Bailey that you think someone may make a challenge against adopted procedures.

[p plater]

Greg, no actions as such. As I said SHOULD now or in the future someone object or claim a misuse of power, could this affect the Intregity Dept.

[teecee]

Given the actions taken at the MM meeting, [/QUOTE]

As this is a quote from you Bailey, what actions are you talking about.
Generally speaking it is not just a problem for HRNSW. When you have a system where the stewards assume the role of policeman and judge all the states and HRA are surely in the same boat IMO.

[p plater]

Given the actions taken at the MM meeting,

As this is a quote from you Bailey, what actions are you talking about.
Generally speaking it is not just a problem for HRNSW. When you have a system where the stewards assume the role of policeman and judge all the states and HRA are surely in the same boat IMO.[/QUOTE]

Teecee, you have already put me under a warning from a deleted thread and I was attempting to be general in my comments.
Read the article on Harnesslink http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=105339 and you may understand when I say "Given the actions taken at the MM meeting, should a challenge by someone against the procedures adopted by the stewards on the day be made, who will it be referred to."

Added to this the vision on In the Gig of the stewards room anger displayed( I assume you saw it in NZ) give rise to my comment.

[teecee]

As this is a quote from you Bailey, what actions are you talking about.
Generally speaking it is not just a problem for HRNSW. When you have a system where the stewards assume the role of policeman and judge all the states and HRA are surely in the same boat IMO.

Teecee, you have already put me under a warning from a deleted thread and I was attempting to be general in my comments.
Read the article on Harnesslink http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=105339 and you may understand when I say "Given the actions taken at the MM meeting, should a challenge by someone against the procedures adopted by the stewards on the day be made, who will it be referred to."

Added to this the vision on In the Gig of the stewards room anger displayed( I assume you saw it in NZ) give rise to my comment.[/QUOTE]

Having read the article you posted from Harnesslink I can only conclude the following...
The security guard has carried out his job as required. IMO
The stewards have acted in an appropriate manner in regard to their responsibilities to police the rules. IMO
The apparent evidence suggests quite strongly a breach of the rules of harness racing by the trainer. This view is supported by the report that the trainer admitted syringing the horse on race morning with the defence of ignorance of the rule......No defence IMO.
This is a case with striking similarity to one in NZ a few years ago....
With no relevance to any subsequent events Mr Barry Lew was fined $1500 when a security guard reported to stewards the administration of an unknown substance to Karloo Mick on the morning of the NZ Cup in which he was to compete. The substance was recovered and tested prior to the Cup and on analysis found to not be a prohibited substance so the horse was permitted to start. Even so the trainer had breached the rules.
In that case AUS trainer breached NZ rules.
In this case AUS trainer breaches AUS rules...claims ignorance as a defence.

In the Gig plays in NZ Tuesday evening so I look forward to the hearing footage.

Bailey my reply is an opinion based on the info published in the article you have quoted.
You also are free to offer opinion based on a published article. Members are encouraged to base their views on a consideration of published or verified information. You should know that the warning you and your fellow poster received was based on your unfounded comment about the personal physical attributes of another person. Your comment was considered insulting to other members and thus drew the warning. Others have previously been banned for similar or less.

[p plater]

Given the actions taken at the MM meeting,

As this is a quote from you Bailey, what actions are you talking about.
Generally speaking it is not just a problem for HRNSW. When you have a system where the stewards assume the role of policeman and judge all the states and HRA are surely in the same boat IMO.[/QUOTE]

Teecee, do I take it you would not have a problem with Mike Godbar also being your Chairman of stewards

[teecee]

As this is a quote from you Bailey, what actions are you talking about.
Generally speaking it is not just a problem for HRNSW. When you have a system where the stewards assume the role of policeman and judge all the states and HRA are surely in the same boat IMO.

Teecee, do I take it you would not have a problem with Mike Godbar also being your Chairman of stewards[/QUOTE]

If Mike Godber was a trained steward at a senior level charged with policing the rules as per the current chief stipes (and C George prior) then I would be ok for him to be Chairman of Stewards. Currently he holds an administrative position only as CEO charged with the day to day administrative running of the RIU. Accordingly is not any part of the stewards panel so currently I would have a problem with your proposal.
There is no comparison between Mike Godber and Reid Sanders. The comparables are....

Mike Godber CEO for RIU. comparable to Sam Nati CEO HRNSW. They are CEO for relevant governing body.
McIntyre and Neal joint Chairman of stewards comparable to Reid Sanders Chairman of Stewards. They are comparable Roles in policing the rules.

[Diablo]

Teecee, what p plater is lending toward is if Paul O'Toole was Chairman of Stewards and therefore the Chairman of the Integrity Board, there could be a gross conflict of interest. If you don't see that as a possible problem then you keep on flailing along in Cuckoo Land. Because p plater has highlighted a possible hyperthetical scenario, you put him under threat of another innuendo or defamatory comment. You're becoming a whistle happy referee. I'm guessing I'm looking at another yellow card if not a red one

[teecee]

Okay.. If I read the starter to this thread correctly the question is whether stewards are a law unto themselves or who polices the stewards. Apologies Bailey if this is not so.
My guess is that if someone is unhappy with procedures or decisions taken by the stewards on raceday there are options open to them.
..Lodge an appeal with the appeal authority against the stewards decision if their procedures or decision is contrary to the rules they are tasked to police.
.. Lodge a grievance with the governing body against the actions of the stewards as being against the rules. (Stewards are after all employees of the governing body.)

I would expect that the Integrity unit is a unit within the business structure of the governing body. As such its responsibility is managing integrity issues and accordingly its manager is chairman of stewards. Under both titles he is responsible for the workings of the unit to the board of directors via the CEO. That is to say that he monitors the actions of his stewards and investigators whilst his actions are monitored by his superiors... Board via CEO.