Who is the real trainer?

[little fish]

Luke McCarthy or Belinda?

Clayton Tonkin or Emma Stewart?

I did a google search of Clayton Tonkin just to find out a bit more info, and was surprised to find the 2nd top result was about him getting 12 months for juicing his horses.

I know Mark Purdon has his own history with blue magic. Luke has had his own issues over the past year or so. Smoken Up lost an inter!!!

What does the poor owner do coming into the industry who wants transparency and integrity it sure seems a difficult task to find a successful stable where everything is legit and above board.

Or am I just being a cynic here?

Some of these stables sure do get a LOT of young horses to go VERY fast.

Nobody seems to talk about this much - all I really hear about is how great they can train.

If everyone is above board and gifted then can I ask why all the murkiness and history??

Does anyone else share my cynicism?

[barney]

A lot of people sure have doubts i definetily do but like most people give them benefit of doubt.

I have been told Peter Tonkin Emma Stewarts partner and Claytons father is a qualified chemist not sure if true or not

[little fish]

A lot of people sure have doubts i definetily do but like most people give them benefit of doubt.

I have been told Peter Tonkin Emma Stewarts partner and Claytons father is a qualified chemist not sure if true or not
I don't know much about the history of all these people. I'm relatively new to this industry and I have made little effort to get 'networked' other than racing horses with my trainer and whoever he might introduce me to from time to time.

I think an easily accessible database of all industry participants - drivers trainers stablehands stewards and other paid employees such as who does the barrier draws, all the vets, owners, everyone's history re successes and penalties for cheating or whatever - would be a handy and informative tool for those wanting to learn more about who all these people really are.

Something like LinkedIn I guess - with everyone's employment background and record easily accessible.

I struggle to get my head around how easy it is to get done for something then just switch the horses over to the missus and it's business as usual like nothing ever happened. I may be ignorant and wrong but it looks like a scam to me.

[Toni]

I think you are probably a little off.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought they shut the loophole down where if one trainer got disqualified, then the horses couldnt just be transferred to a partners name?

What the poor owner does is makes themselves aware of who is actually training their horse and makes sure they are happy for that trainer to train their horse. If they arent, they pull the horse and find a new trainer or give it a go themselves? You cant enter into horse ownership blindly and hope for the best. It sure sounds like you have done your homework so I think everyone would be capable of doing the same or finding someone to help them out.

I personally beleive that most of the big stables would be above board and legit - they have so many horses competing, surely they cant be absolute geniuses to make sure nothing ever swabs - They would be spending all their time on scheming and no time on training (Am I wrong?).

Also, Luke McCarthy was never found guilty of anything - unfortunately for him it seems people still seem to think he has done something wrong?

[little fish]

Also, Luke McCarthy was never found guilty of anything - unfortunately for him it seems people still seem to think he has done something wrong?

See this is where I get confused because I have been told he wasn't found not guilty rather hrnsw decided to not contest his legal action for some reason. (Costs? Buggered up a sample?)
Therefore the charges etc got dropped?

Why is Belinda McCarthy listed as the trainer? What is the factual reason for it? Do you know where I'm coming from you put everything together and things seem a bit nqr so to speak.

[Toni]

If the charges were dropped, there was no way he could be found either guilty or not guilty - it didnt get to that point - they couldnt prove the charges because the sample was behaving in a way no sample has ever behaved at all, if I remember correctly, 4 experts on each side were employed and pretty much all they could agree to disagree on was that it was probably contaminated. (Again someone correct me if im wrong).

I have no idea why Belinda is the trainer, but I have heard someone say on here if you go to the races you will see her working her butt off - so its not just a front, she is actually working with the horses. And I also think where there are multiple runners in a race from the same trainer, they have to report something to the stewards, which would be her job. I doubt you could do that if the horses were merely in your name for some other reason, you would need a pretty good knowledge of your horses for that?

I also think this might allow Luke to pick which horses he drives and also take on outside drives (while I was looking through the fields I noticed he was driving some horses he doesnt train - not sure if this is a regular occurance anyway), which I think seems sensible. Why do you see a problem with it?

Thats just mainly what I have picked up in here, I dont have anything to back it up and im open to correction if im wrong...

[little fish]

From my experience in business if a company has shall we say a 'tainted' history and the directors listed are not the real people in charge there is a strong likelihood that it is a shonky ship.

No particular reason for bringing this up today and I'm not trying to taint the McCarthys. It is something I have wondered about for a long time now and thought I'd ask the forum what they thought.

[Toni]

Im just giving an outsiders opinion, so someone more involved might have more to say. I think having someone else train horses so you can concentrate on driving is a smart business decision, not a shonky one, but I always like to give the benefit of the doubt.

I would think it relates to a lot of partnerships and not just the McCarthys and im sure there would be many where there are two involved but only one listed as a trainer. If you were training with your wife or brother or friend what would you do?

[mightymo]

Its the same with Maree/John Caldow. If the driver is also the trainer, he cant drive outside horses in any race where he has a horse engaged. This way the driver can drive his best chance of success in a race

[little fish]

No offence but I find this a scoffable joke. I was at the APG yearling sales in Melbourne and Emilio Rosati was with Luke McCarthy every step of the way. If Emilio said jump Luke would've said how high. There is no way known Luke isn't the main man.

[little fish]

My point is that it was Luke who was by his side not his missus.

Look if it's legal and there is a legitimate logistical reason for putting the horses in her name then fine. But lets not live in fairyland and pretend that she is the real trainer who is in charge. The suggestion that Luke might want to drive for other stables is crazy - if I had a horse with them and he chose another stable's horse over mine I'd go apesh-t.

[Toni]

Well to me its a business choice they have made just like all the other duos mentioned. he can train in his name but chooses not to for whatever reasons and as far as I can tell thats legal, or im sure it would have been shut down by now.

As far as going to the sales - just because he isnt listed as a trainer doesnt mean he doesnt know how to pick a good horse - I really dont see how that has any bearing on who trains the horses. Im sure a lot of people wouldnt mind his opinion on the yearlings!!

Again, I ask what would you do if you were in this situation of being in a parntership where both can train and one can drive???

[aussiebreno]

Well to me its a business choice they have made just like all the other duos mentioned. he can train in his name but chooses not to for whatever reasons and as far as I can tell thats legal, or im sure it would have been shut down by now.

As far as going to the sales - just because he isnt listed as a trainer doesnt mean he doesnt know how to pick a good horse - I really dont see how that has any bearing on who trains the horses. Im sure a lot of people wouldnt mind his opinion on the yearlings!!

Again, I ask what would you do if you were in this situation of being in a parntership where both can train and one can drive???

Yes, it was a business decision. If he hadn't transferred when he did (with the positive swab saga) there was every chance the horses would have been taken of him and Belinda. Up until then Luke had not transferred any horses. That is the one and only reason the horses are now in Belinda's name. Watch them be transferred back to Luke should Belinda ever get a positive swab. Business as usual alright.

[aussiebreno]

It's been a busy day at HRNSW head office today with a number of trainers applications.

Alex Alchin
Mrs Thorn
Mrs Carroll

But I guess it is so their brother/wife can just concentrate on driving huh. Just like Kevin Pizzutto is now concentrating on washing the dishes and driving while K Crouch trains them. All about a business decision!

[Toni]

It's been a busy day at HRNSW head office today with a number of trainers applications.

Alex Alchin
Mrs Thorn
Mrs Carroll

But I guess it is so their brother/wife can just concentrate on driving huh. Just like Kevin Pizzutto is now concentrating on washing the dishes and driving while K Crouch trains them. All about a business decision!

You are blurring the line. Luke is legally allowed to train in his own name. Once people are disqualified, they are not allowed to legally train in their own name and therefore it becomes more of a necessity to transfer them into someone elses name. (Just like all the other combinations mentioned above as well, I dont feel comfortable discussing solely the McCarthys because they are certainly not the only ones out there doing this)

I also dont think it would be business as usual. What, would a brother just take on the training of his brothers horses for no monetary gain, just out of the goodness of his heart?? I dont know, I havent been in that situation and I dont train, but if my brother or partner couldnt train and asked me to take the reins, I would certainly be getting paid for having my name there, thats for sure.

And while we are on topic, just who do you transfer them to? If owners want their horses to continue training the way they have, you would transfer them to someone who knows how to train like that. Isnt it up to the owners who they want them transferred?

Anyway, I always thought it was up the owners who trained their horses. So if an owner feels uncomfortable about transferring them to someone who is related to their previous trainer, they always have the option of transferring them elsewhere.

[aussiebreno]

Belinda trained that horse all along, it wasnt in Lukes name and then transferred to Belinda.
http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=97792

"The harsh sentence handed down to Luke McCarthy is likely to affect many around him including owners and staff with officials denying Belinda McCarthy the opportunity to take over the reins at the Cobbity stable, although the Cobbity horseman has plans in place to ensure his owners and staff are as unaffected as possible. " Im consulting my lawyers as we speak and working towards a right of appeal, either way I will make sure the horses still race and my owners are looked after. I've spoken to most and they're all very supportive," said McCarthy."

Luke refers as 'my owners' not 'our' owners (you know how Emilio and Luke walked hand in hand according to above poster?). It is quite clear from that article why the horses were being transferred. To look after the owners in case the worst happened and Luke got time. Belinda took the reins due to all this. Not for any other reason.

[Toni]

If belinda has trained that horse all along, then its not such a stretch to beleive she is now a trainer.

Either way - Luke was never disqualified so I dont really see what the problem is?

And I dont even know why it comes down all to him. I also spotted that A Siejka is training in her name when I always thought it was P Russo (correct me if im wrong), but why isnt that considered shady after he was stood down?

[mightymo]

Its quite simple. Brenno doesnt like the McCarthys - he's not interested in what anyone else does or does not do.

[little fish]

Someone could just as easily say you race horses successfully with Luke so you will back him up blindly to the hilt.

I certainly have nothing against the McCarthy stable and I think pidgeonholing this as an anti-McCarthy crusade is completely missing the point.

This is about all of them that strike a bit of trouble and conveniently transfer everything over to the missus, or the stable foreman, or the old man, or whoever else they trust but who isn't really the head trainer. I think it smells fishy in every case where it happens because I think it is more or less a sneaky loophole type way of circumventing the penalties.

[mightymo]

"I certainly have nothing against the McCarthy stable and I think pidgeonholing this as an anti-McCarthy crusade is completely missing the point."

Exactly.

"Someone could just as easily say you race horses successfully with Luke so you will back him up blindly to the hilt."

Anybody who knows me, would know that is simply incorrect. I have had horses previously with trainers who were found to be cheating. They know longer train any horses for me.

The difference here with Luke and some of the others, is that Luke has never been disqualified and can train horses in his own name if he so desired.

[Toni]

Barry - who would you propose horses go to? Isnt it up to the owners? Or do you think the owners should be forced to transfer them to someone who has never spoken or dealt with the disqualified person? Where would you draw the line?

Harvey, just out of curiosity, do you have horses with only one trainer or a couple?

[little fish]

Mean nothing disrespectful to anyone harvey.

I know of a trainer who prefers the horses not be in his name only because he doesn't trust himself to be telling stewards to go forth and multiply if he ever gets grilled by them. Says he can't afford all the fines so it's better that the horses be in the other person's name - fair enough I guess.

[little fish]

Barry - who would you propose horses go to? Isnt it up to the owners? Or do you think the owners should be forced to transfer them to someone who has never spoken or dealt with the disqualified person? Where would you draw the line?

Harvey, just out of curiosity, do you have horses with only one trainer or a couple?
I've no idea where the horses should go. I don't see the relevence to be honest. If a trainer cheats and gets rubbed out I'm struggling to think of scenarios where the penalty should not be for the stable to virtually shut down completely. It's a circus where the horses can just get transferred to the missus and the horses don't miss a beat. I mean these penalties are not supposed to be a tiny blimp of the radar they are supposed to be tough and devestating, aren't they?

[HISGEN65]

Barry...yes it craps me off no end when a person gets disqualified & the horses get transferred to another trainer who is heavily associated with the disqualified person...could name several occurrances of late..
Toni I do agree with you BUT its about creating strong deterrents...In my opinion this is the crux of the whole problem..so many think its worth the gamble as they will be pulling the strings somehow anyway

[Toni]

We are talking about people's livlihoods here.

I personally think there are some people who get positive swabs who are cheating and some who had no intention of cheating. I know that a lot of people are going to argue with me on that one but I will try and explain the way I think.

Cheaters have an actual intent to give their horse something in the hope it will win / do better etc. They knowingly give a drug that wouldnt be used for any other purpose and solely to improve the performance of that horse for that race.

Then there are people who I view to be a victim of circumstance I guess you could say. They thought they were giving a substance within the allowed withholding period, or giving it to the horse for another legitimate purpose, only to find out the horse didnt metabolise the substance as quick as the average horse or any other reason and therefore they go over.

So in saying this, if you made a mistake (And I agree its the trainers job not to make mistakes, but hey, they happen to the best of everyone) and got a positive swab and you want the stable closed down, a lot of people will pay for that one mistake.

In what other working situation would anyone, and their team, lose their job for 6 months because someone made a mistake?

I will say that I agree wholeheartedly that if a horse has a banned substance in its system when it races, then it should by all means be disqualified as its not fair for it to be a starter in the first place.

Also, why shouldnt the horse continue on to race? Do you think the owner should be further penalised?

[teecee]

This thread relates to who is the real trainer of a horse.
There are many insinuations to be drawn from some of the comments within this thread. Some of these insinuations by their pre empted denial are not, or barely in accordance with the rules and conditions of this forum. These are so many that to edit them may severely fragment the discussion. Please keep unsubstantiated and person specific views which are neither factual nor based on fact out of it. Argue the general point rather than the specifics of what a particular person says or does.

In assisting the purpose of the thread I have included the following link to a media release from HRNSW.
http://www.hrnsw.com.au/assets/files/Policies/636.0%20-%20Disqualifications%20-%20Transfer%20of%20Horses.pdf

Of course this does not apply to those who have not been disqualified.
Owners have the sole right without interference from others to place their horses where they think fit and trainers have a right to apply for and be granted a licence to ply their trade within the conditions of that licence under the same circumstances.

To help clarify another point..
People are only disqualified if they are convicted of a breach of the rules.
A person is innocent until sufficient evidence is produced to prove on the basis of probability that they are guilty.
If you can't or don't produce the evidence, there is no case to answer, no finding to make, no conviction to enter and no penalty to impose.
You are INNOCENT of the claims.
This scenario is not one lending itself to confusion.
The court of public opinion does not have jurisdiction to determine otherwise To write or say otherwise in the public domain is actionable.

[mightymo]

I've no idea where the horses should go. I don't see the relevence to be honest. If a trainer cheats and gets rubbed out I'm struggling to think of scenarios where the penalty should not be for the stable to virtually shut down completely. It's a circus where the horses can just get transferred to the missus and the horses don't miss a beat. I mean these penalties are not supposed to be a tiny blimp of the radar they are supposed to be tough and devestating, aren't they?

What about the owners? You give a horse to a trainer with a clean record. Subsequently, the trainer gets a positive. Surely the owners should be able to transfer the horse to another trainer?

Our industry desperately needs more owners. We cant afford to lose existing ones by penalising them

[Danno]

Dear Toni,

yes we are talking about their livelyhoods, and when it comes to that, we all have rights AND responsiblities.



We are talking about people's livlihoods here.

Correct, but we are also talking about a larger group of people who feel they have been cheated.





I personally think there are some people who get positive swabs who are cheating and some who had no intention of cheating. I know that a lot of people are going to argue with me on that one but I will try and explain the way I think.

I dont think anyone wil argue with that, it's just the percentages that will be debated.



Cheaters have an actual intent to give their horse something in the hope it will win / do better etc. They knowingly give a drug that wouldnt be used for any other purpose and solely to improve the performance of that horse for that race.


[QUOTE]
Then there are people who I view to be a victim of circumstance I guess you could say. They thought they were giving a substance within the allowed withholding period, or giving it to the horse for another legitimate purpose, only to find out the horse didnt metabolise the substance as quick as the average horse or any other reason and therefore they go over.

And then there are the people who claim legitimacy, because all their lives they have learned how to "play the victim".....and then,very innocent and often chronically gullible people believe them and go forth and decry their innocence!!!!!



So in saying this, if you made a mistake (And I agree its the trainers job not to make mistakes, but hey, they happen to the best of everyone) and got a positive swab and you want the stable closed down, a lot of people will pay for that one mistake.

What happens if it wasn't a MISTAKE???????????



In what other working situation would anyone, and their team, lose their job for 6 months because someone made a mistake?

We are talking about fraud and dishonestly here, please don't try to to turn this debate into consideration for playground mistakes.


I will say that I agree wholeheartedly that if a horse has a banned substance in its system when it races, then it should by all means be disqualified as its not fair for it to be a starter in the first place.

At least we agree on that one!!

Cheers, Dan

[little fish]

What about the owners? You give a horse to a trainer with a clean record. Subsequently, the trainer gets a positive. Surely the owners should be able to transfer the horse to another trainer?

Our industry desperately needs more owners. We cant afford to lose existing ones by penalising them

Agreed I'd definitely want to be able to transfer my horse to a different stable. But it has to be a different stable not the same stable with a different name on the invoice.

[Lenem]

I find it very difficult to imagine that ....... has use of the track for "..." horses from 6:30 to 7:30 and then vacates the premises so that ...... .. ... .... can move in and train "..." team from 7:30 to 8:30.They might give some thought to putting some of the team into the care of their newborn! The same can be said for .............. and all the rest.
I think that they all should be compelled to train under the banner "Team ........", "Team ......" etc etc and the STABLE take responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens to horses under the care.
The current situation where a horse can change trainers and the only change that occurs is in the racebook,is clearly a joke.

[teecee]

As I understand it each and all of these persons is licenced to operate a training establishment according to the rules each and every licenceholder operates under in each of the states and Australia wide. The day to day running of these establishments is the business of those under whose name and identity they are identified. They are the one who take the responsibility for when things go right and go wrong. As posted earlier the policy in NSW has been amended for horses trained by disqualified licenceholders. Again and for the last of many reminders by a number of posters, NO licenceholders in the ....... family are disqualified.
Those who cant understand a very simple concept as this will often struggle with their imagination and what is or is not a joke.
Those who have a problem with how trainers run their programs should front up at the front gate and ask the questions directly rather than continue to malign by stealth or insinuation here. That is clearly NOT a joke.

[Lenem]

No doubt everyone is operating within the rules,my criticism is aimed at the regulators who allow this farce to continue.
There is absolutely no insinuation of wrongdoing it is merely a problem of transparency.Justice must also be SEEN to be done...

[Brumby]

I have come to the decision to remove myself from this forum. Seems as criticism and opinions over comments I have made have overflowed to other areas. I can take a personal attack on this forum and will defend any comments I have made on here, but won't tolerate criticism or verbal attacks to members of my immediate family publicly or on other forms of social networking. I have never meant to discredit any person or persons on this forum both in the user context and participants involved in this industry. If I have, please accept this as my personal apology. In the meantime, many winners and good luck to all.

[barney]

Lenem couldn't agree more

[Greg Hando]

It has got nothing to do with anyone other than the owners who is training their horse or who is down as the trainer. In a big stable do you really think the named trainer is actually doing all the work on any said horse.
We had a horse race who won 11 races and the only time the trainer drove it doing fast work was when he drove it in a race.So who was the trainer ? I didn't care who was doing the hard work we got the result's.

[clumsy]

It has got nothing to do with anyone other than the owners who is training their horse or who is down as the trainer. In a big stable do you really think the named trainer is actually doing all the work on any said horse.
We had a horse race who won 11 races and the only time the trainer drove it doing fast work was when he drove it in a race.So who was the trainer ? I didn't care who was doing the hard work we got the result's.

The trainer of any large stable is there to be mainly a supervisor, he has stable hands to follow his training instructions. He may drive the horse in fast work to sort out any problems or to know when the horse is ready to win.Of course his role changes if he is a trainer only, but the basic principle of him being a supervisor remains the same.

[mishka0972]

A lot of people sure have doubts i definetily do but like most people give them benefit of doubt.

I have been told Peter Tonkin Emma Stewarts partner and Claytons father is a qualified chemist not sure if true or not

Definately NOT TRUE!

[mishka0972]

Luke McCarthy or Belinda?

Clayton Tonkin or Emma Stewart?

I did a google search of Clayton Tonkin just to find out a bit more info, and was surprised to find the 2nd top result was about him getting 12 months for juicing his horses.

I know Mark Purdon has his own history with blue magic. Luke has had his own issues over the past year or so. Smoken Up lost an inter!!!

What does the poor owner do coming into the industry who wants transparency and integrity it sure seems a difficult task to find a successful stable where everything is legit and above board.

Or am I just being a cynic here?

Some of these stables sure do get a LOT of young horses to go VERY fast.

Nobody seems to talk about this much - all I really hear about is how great they can train.

If everyone is above board and gifted then can I ask why all the murkiness and history??

Does anyone else share my cynicism?

Clayton and Emma & Luke and Belinda train as a team- there is no "murkiness" to it. They all dedicate their lives to the horses and are skilled trainers thats why they have results. Before you insinuate maybe you should spend a few days at some of these stables and then you would see how tirelessly these trainers work. There is a reason "all I really hear about is how great they can train", and that is because they work from daylight to dusk 7 days a week to get great results!!

[aussiebreno]

Clayton and Emma & Luke and Belinda train as a team- there is no "murkiness" to it. They all dedicate their lives to the horses and are skilled trainers thats why they have results. Before you insinuate maybe you should spend a few days at some of these stables and then you would see how tirelessly these trainers work. There is a reason "all I really hear about is how great they can train", and that is because they work from daylight to dusk 7 days a week to get great results!!
If Clayton and Emma and Luke & Belinda train as a team why aren't both names in the racebook? Murkiness continues...

Anyway my reason for posters..."Who is the real owner?"

Up until Bernie Kelly's first misdeamour (Greg Kelly) all his horses were in his or his and wifes name. Now they all appear in wifes name. No prizes for guessing why.
Bernie is now DQed again (this time horses in Dianne name and were allowed to be transferred to other trainers).
Surely under these circumstances Dianne Kelly should not be given an award for NSW Owners Association owner of the month. But no, the rewards are continual. (Another example of rewards far outweighing risks for those looking to bend rules in harness racing)
The HRNSW released article http://www.harness.org.au/news-article.cfm?news_id=20479 even makes mention of the 'Kelly family'. May as well have said Bernie instead of Kelly family. Maybe it applies to all Kelly's that they can do bad deeds yet get congratulated, eg Ned Kelly!!

My point is an owner so closely linked with shouldn't be being rewarded like this. She is in running for a prize for trip for two to Vegas. Wonder who she will take if she wins?
"Hey Bernie, positive swab, take a small holiday...oh we'll even give you tickets to Vegas!"

Thoughts?

[aussiebreno]

YES A TEAM, Choosing one person out of the team to be listed trainer is a personal choice, It doesn't impede on the horses performance does it? Didn't realise (in Vic) you could list 2 trainers for 1 horse!! People who have no idea how a stable runs and what hard work these trainers do are usually the ones that want to sit on the fence, criticise and pass judgement. You obviously don't know these trainers at all and are not qualified to make judgement on them. They work hard and deserve a lot of credit for the skill and time they dedicate to the industry.
Lets make up fictional names to not offend anyone. Peter and Marie. Peter and Marie train as a 'team'. Peter is official trainer with authorities. Peter gets DQed. Horses transfered to Marie. See a problem?

[mishka0972]

NOT the case for the trainers mentioned ! There will always be negative people who are jealous of the success these skilled family run stables have. I say "Keep up the good work Luke and Belinda & Emma and Clayton- your horsemanship is to be admired".




Lets make up fictional names to not offend anyone. Peter and Marie. Peter and Marie train as a 'team'. Peter is official trainer with authorities. Peter gets DQed. Horses transfered to Marie. See a problem?

[aussiebreno]

Mishka,
This isn't about jealousy or how well people train. It's about integrity.
If Peter and Marie are training as a team but only Pete's name with authorities then if Pete gets a positive swab Marie is free for the horses to be transfered to.
Two problems. Pete got in trouble...but according to you Pete and Marie were working as a team, therefore Marie would have been party to positive swab.
Next problem, Pete is now DQed and Marie is training. Are they still working as a team?

Out of sammystew's post he/she raised issue of stablehands or other workers. Sammystew said it himself...these workers are merely working FOR the trainer, they aren't training. Employees don't have the responsibilities as the trainer. No need for listing.

Point of my posts today isn't about saying some people are dodgy bastards, but about a hard area to police that needs fixing imho.

[Sammystew]

Who is down as trainer? Why do u question it? Peter mannings wife helps at the stable. Do u want her name as trainer too? What u are saying is ridiculous. U could make the same judgement on every professional stable. Galloping or harness. There is no I in team and that's what makes these stables the best cause they are a team

[aussiebreno]

Who is down as trainer? Why do u question it? Peter mannings wife helps at the stable. Do u want her name as trainer too? What u are saying is ridiculous. U could make the same judgement on every professional stable. Galloping or harness. There is no I in team and that's what makes these stables the best cause they are a teamWho's just helping and who's calling the shots?

I don't that it can occur where a helper goes to shot maker purely because the shot maker is DQed or because its insurance. Or do you support a DQed trainer being able to get a teammate to take the reins?

Note: Not aimed at anybody, just saying it can happen.

[mishka0972]

The start of this thread questioned the integrity of these trainers, even followed by untrue comments that one had a father who was a chemist. Which is wrong considering the skill these people have- thus the success. Belinda or Emma aren't just wives or partners who take the trainer title for "murky" reasons they are active trainers and work hard in the family businesses they share with there husbands/ fiancée Luke and Clayton. Both these couples run a business and just choose one or the other to be the listed trainer. In Victoria you can not list 2 trainers.




Mishka,
This isn't about jealousy or how well people train. It's about integrity.
If Peter and Marie are training as a team but only Pete's name with authorities then if Pete gets a positive swab Marie is free for the horses to be transfered to.
Two problems. Pete got in trouble...but according to you Pete and Marie were working as a team, therefore Marie would have been party to positive swab.
Next problem, Pete is now DQed and Marie is training. Are they still working as a team?

Out of sammystew's post he/she raised issue of stablehands or other workers. Sammystew said it himself...these workers are merely working FOR the trainer, they aren't training. Employees don't have the responsibilities as the trainer. No need for listing.

Point of my posts today isn't about saying some people are dodgy bastards, but about a hard area to police that needs fixing imho.

[Sammystew]

Well said mishka.

[Greg Hando]

Brenno the horses cant be transferred to Maries name or be trained by her in NSW dont know about other states.It is no-one else's business whose name is down as trainer. If the owner is happy that's all that count's.I don't know why you are so up in the air about it.

[teecee]

Brenno's concerns are exactly those that drew HRNSW to amend their rules on transferring horses following a trainer being disqualified.
To date only NSW seems to have acted on a concern of many. IMO It is an issue I would have thought need looking into by all governing bodies.
The McCarthy issue predated this change in NSW and earlier posts many predated the action of HRNSW.
Brenno is arguing a general issue. An issue dealt with in NSW but not elsewhere. He is not arguing a McCarthy / Stewart issue.

[Toohard]

Tracy and Sam I am in no way having a go at any stable let alone the ones you mention, both of which my son and I are very big fans.

I'm speaking generally too.

Do we need a rule like the one applied to Damien Oliver? He wasn't guilty of giving a horse anything or pulling it up. He was guilty of betting on a horse (not his) in a race he was riding in. Gave his every chance to win.

He was found guilty. He's not allowed to associate with anyone connected to racing industry. Can't speak to anyone, can't call anyone, can't anything if other person related to racing industry.

OUT means OUT

We need something similar?

[Sammystew]

Tracy and Sam I am in no way having a go at any stable let alone the ones you mention, both of which my son and I are very big fans.

I'm speaking generally too.

Do we need a rule like the one applied to Damien Oliver? He wasn't guilty of giving a horse anything or pulling it up. He was guilty of betting on a horse (not his) in a race he was riding in. Gave his every chance to win.

He was found guilty. He's not allowed to associate with anyone connected to racing industry. Can't speak to anyone, can't call anyone, can't anything if other person related to racing industry.

OUT means OUT

We need something similar?

We do. If someone is found guilty of similar things the same rules apply

[Danno]

YES A TEAM, Choosing one person out of the team to be listed trainer is a personal choice, It doesn't impede on the horses performance does it? Didn't realise (in Vic) you could list 2 trainers for 1 horse!! People who have no idea how a stable runs and what hard work these trainers do are usually the ones that want to sit on the fence, criticise and pass judgement. You obviously don't know these trainers at all and are not qualified to make judgement on them. They work hard and deserve a lot of credit for the skill and time they dedicate to the industry.

This reminds me of an old Everly Brothers song..............dream,dream, dream, just my opinion Tracey but in the real world there is one person who makes the critical decisions, not a bunch of people, and there is one person who is calling the shots on a bunch of day to day issues as well as the longer term strategies.

[Triple V]

The 'selective outrage' in this thread amuses me no end.
For many years now there've been numerous examples of the wives/partners/girlfriends/daughters etc. of various horsemen being listed as Trainer. I wonder, did it ever occur to anyone in the anti brigade that a great many horsemen decide to hand over training duties specifically so as to allow acceptance of drives for horses trained outside of their own/family stables ? Nah, of course not. Then there would be no angle with which to infer some level of nefarious intent.

[Danno]

Someone could just as easily say you race horses successfully with Luke so you will back him up blindly to the hilt.

I certainly have nothing against the McCarthy stable and I think pidgeonholing this as an anti-McCarthy crusade is completely missing the point.

This is about all of them that strike a bit of trouble and conveniently transfer everything over to the missus, or the stable foreman, or the old man, or whoever else they trust but who isn't really the head trainer. I think it smells fishy in every case where it happens because I think it is more or less a sneaky loophole type way of circumventing the penalties.

I think Barry hit the nail on the head with this, way back on post #19 on this thread, for me there is nothing "selective" about this issue and I believe HRNSW did not change it's policy on this matter to selectively make it more difficult for anyone in particular.

The issue of horses being "transfered" to another trainer has been going on since the "Colgate Kid" and his siblings made an art form of it many years ago..."taking turns" at who held the licence, and participants, they being the other licenced people get sick to death of cheats not being actually put on the sidelines for a while.

[barney]

The start of this thread questioned the integrity of these trainers, even followed by untrue comments that one had a father who was a chemist. Which is wrong considering the skill these people have- thus the success. Belinda or Emma aren't just wives or partners who take the trainer title for "murky" reasons they are active trainers and work hard in the family businesses they share with there husbands/ fiancée Luke and Clayton. Both these couples run a business and just choose one or the other to be the listed trainer. In Victoria you can not list 2 trainers.

Please if you are going to quote what i say at least be accurate i didnt say Peter Tonkin was a chemist i said i was told he was but didnt know if it was true or not a lot different to saying he was as you have stated.

[mishka0972]

Well what was the purpose of you putting out it there if you were unsure of it truth.




Please if you are going to quote what i say at least be accurate i didnt say Peter Tonkin was a chemist i said i was told he was but didnt know if it was true or not a lot different to saying he was as you have stated.

[barney]

Well what was the purpose of you putting out it there if you were unsure of it truth.

I thought this was a forum where you discuss things without defaming people which i took great care not to.

[mishka0972]

Does this statement look familiar, i see you stated it again in November last year. But of course there is not intent of defamation- just my opinion of course

"Peter Tonkin i think and believe he was a chemist in past life maybe wrong but that is what i have been told."


I thought this was a forum where you discuss things without defaming people which i took great care not to.