Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by teecee
So what if its 3 years old......I'm with Kevin on this one.
The first line. Simply - penalties are nowhere near harsh enough
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
So what if its 3 years old......I'm with Kevin on this one.
I'm not and I'm sure Kev is not taking sides. That is clearly not what our posts are about.... Moving on.
I was agreeing that penalties are not harsh enough .
I can see that TC might think I am being a wee bit vindictive toward the Douglas stable but call my post an opinion post where I am taking the side of the industry as I am still in disbelief that a leading stable could return to the industry so quickly after pleading guilty to Charge 1 - an offense that can never be erased by them or the industry BUT I will move on.
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
I was just wondering if you had picked the right story or was there something more modern about the saga I had missed. As john wayne would say.."That is all".
Oh I get it now (you NZers). No, no update, other than that the stable seems to be on the rise.
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
Therefore Mr Simiana was disqualified for a total period of 16 years to commence from 28 July 2016
http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=32745
Last edited by trish; 03-01-2017 at 07:21 PM. Reason: added
No wonder he came to the stewards attention - he had a winning strike rate of 44% and a place strike rate of 69%
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
Trying to recover the costs of analytical testing when handing down a judgement is a good thing for the industry but I've often wondered about the costs of swabs/analytical testing once someone returns from a suspension/disqualification. It may only appear this way to me but the stewards in some states follow up with swabs etc. when they return. I imagine for a few reasons, but this cost is borne by the industry/controlling body. I know some people will say they've done their time...persecution...harassment but should the rest of participants keep paying for this?
Posting Permissions