Stewards News

[Danno]

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT



Newcastle 10th February 2018 – Race 8

Stewards conducted an inquiry into the performance of SACKHEIM in Race 8 at Newcastle on 10 February 2018 and the tactics adopted by driver J Harding. After taking evidence from J Harding and trainer G Harding Stewards adjourned the inquiry to allow them to obtain the betting information on the event.

https://www.harnessmediacentre.com.a...dsreports/2026

The Integrity Manager directed me to the above, found at the end of the stewards report 6 days later (where Sackheim won)

Whatever the betting shows, I would hope the stewards are assessing whether the drive was satisfactory or not

Just noticed at a subsequent enquiry at Maitland on 19th March James Harding received a 6 week suspension for an "unacceptable drive".

[arlington]

Stewards report from Menangle last Saturday. http://www.harness.org.au/racing/ste...l/?mc=PC170218 Informative.

[Messenger]

Plenty of interesting info Wayne but none more so than this:

On Friday 16 February 2018, HRNSW Stewards conducted stable inspections at registered stables in NSW for the purpose of inspecting horses competing on Saturday 17 February 2018. During an inspection, HRNSW Stewards questioned what appeared to be a needle mark and dried blood on the nearside neck of MOLLY KELLY trained by E Stewart. Today Ms Stewart and Stable representative Mr S Kettle were questioned further in relation to the nature of the mark and produced evidence in relation to all stable treatment and provided their stable treatment log book. On the balance of the evidence, Stewards were unable to conclude that any treatment was administered to MOLLY KELLY outside of the Rules which was supported by the treatment log book and evidence from Ms Stewart and Mr Kettle. As such, Stewards permitted MOLLY KELLY to take its place in the field.

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/ste...l/?mc=PC170218

[Messenger]

A reader posted me these thoughts:

"So if a trainers log book doesn't indicate they administered an injection ( it's a flawed honour system at best, and what trainer is dumb enough to record an injection administered outside of the rules ) and the trainer and stable representative obviously say they didn't administer an injection then despite the stewards observing an apparent post injection site then the trainer and stable hands evidence overrides the stewards observations? I note the stewards report doesn't offer any other explanation for the apparent needle mark"

The emboldened is my emphasis

[gutwagon]

Kevin, seems strange that a swab was not taken from Molly Kelly on the spot. They left it until before the race giving plenty of time for masking agents to be given. Of course I'm not suggesting anything like that took place but why give the opportunity.

[Messenger]

What with the mere 3 months given to Amanda Turnbull and the lack of satisfactory explanation/action of this Stewart incident, one would hate to think that 'who you are' is ever taken into consideration - the rules are the rules, the evidence is the evidence.

[Messenger]

What with the mere 3 months given to Amanda Turnbull and the lack of satisfactory explanation/action of this Stewart incident, one would hate to think that 'who you are' is ever taken into consideration - the rules are the rules, the evidence is the evidence.

I have been assured by someone that I respect that 'who you are' is never a consideration.
They explained the reason behind AT's 3mths as follows:

Triamcinolone acetonide being an accepted and legitimate therapeutic substance would fall under a Class 3. The Guidelines then stipulate that a starting point for a first offence, as in this instance, is a period of disqualification of twelve (12) months. The official Stewards Report quotes Turnbull as pleading guilty for which it has become usual to recognise with a 25% reduction in penalty (3 months). Similarly the Reports states this was Turnbull's first prohibited substance offence for which it would be usual to recognise with a further 25% reduction in penalty (3 months).

In addition the Report makes reference to (a) the " Circumstances of this matter" and (b) " Ms Turnbull’s offence record, training record and other personal subjective facts, including ambassadorial and charity roles." It would not be unusual to recognise favourable subjective aspects with a further moderation of (up to) 25% (3 months).

I had worked on 12mths - 25% for a guilty plea, but as outlined above there are many ways to get a reduction

[Showgrounds]

Bloody mossies!

[Messenger]

From the Vic Supplementary Stewards report

http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=36533

Josh Aiken and Kima Frenning may be forming an infamous dynamic duo

Josh got 5 weeks for handing up to Kima, unexplainably according to stewards on Dec 16

While Kima might have been very lucky to get only 3 weeks (ask Trista Dixon) for letting Josh out on Feb 14

It could also be said that Josh may have been lucky to come away with a fine from his RAD board hearing (when compared to Amanda Turnbull)

http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=36526

[Messenger]

From the Vic Supplementary Stewards report

http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=36533

Josh Aiken and Kima Frenning may be forming an infamous dynamic duo

Josh got 5 weeks for handing up to Kima, unexplainably according to stewards on Dec 16

While Kima might have been very lucky to get only 3 weeks (ask Trista Dixon) for letting Josh out on Feb 14

It could also be said that Josh may have been lucky to come away with a fine from his RAD board hearing (when compared to Amanda Turnbull)

http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=36526

Both appealed and if you thought Kima was lucky to get 3 weeks compared to Trista Dixon - Well now she has got ZIP

http://www.harness.org.au/NEWS/news2...(Decision).pdf