You are correct Kevin, no Stewards wrap on the Vic page.
Printable View
You are correct Kevin, no Stewards wrap on the Vic page.
I would not be surprised if HRV are adopting a 'Don't air your dirty laundry' policy but if you do not put it in News you have to at least have it right below Stewards Reports under the Racing tab
Congratulations to the stewards for doing their utmost to guarantee a clean Inter.
If the charges are proven the offenders from Ellen Tormey's stable should receive the maximum penalty possible for blotting Inter night
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=38920
We are an understanding lot
The Inter is a further 2 runners short (actually 4 with the 2 lame ones)
Butt for breaching the rules we let the Butt stable off with a mere $1,000 fine
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=38934
Not as understanding as you may think Kev. The stewards are copping a fair hammering on twitter for scratching the horses, predominantly from punters. ( though I know that’s not what you meant)
It seems very few out there understand that Tim Butt would not have been denied permission to have blood tests done after his horses sub par runs but that he needed to get permission from stewards before extracting the blood, which then would have occurred as a minimum under the supervision of stewards and perhaps using a HRV vet.
Very poor form for a highly successful and experienced Trainer.
Also had the horses taken out of the series Kevin, but I agree still not a big enough penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Punters should be directing their anger at Butt not the stewards. Trainers are meant to know all the rules. With the short turn around between heats they will have to be very cautious about giving any treatments to horses.
LInteresting though that there has been no report on results of numerous blood tests taken from Boss Man on the night....Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Would that be because they didn’t find anything??
Why is that interesting Carol?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yabbie
Do you believe the stewards, analysis, has to find anything under the rule? Just asking.
I wonder how it was that Glenn Douglas was asked for evidence.
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/ste...l/?mc=MX011218
Just don’t believe Ellen is that stupid. She advised stewards that treatment was given to another horse not racing on first heats night. I understand the reason for scratching but if they found nothing in blood tests it leaves a pretty sour taste for all connections with results not being published.Quote:
Originally Posted by arlington
As I understand it Carol the matter is still under investigation. There is more to be investigated then just the blood test results taken on the night. A prohibited substance positive is not required to breach the rule. No slight on Ellen but wouldn’t you expect every trainer to say it was another horse that was treated, both the honest who would be telling the truth, and the dishonest who would be attempting to cover up their wrong doing? Rightly or wrongly I doubt anything further would be released until the whole investigation has been concluded, which may take several weeks.
Somebody told me to have a look at the start of Our Millionaire's track record win at YV today
Why did the starter let them go when both 1&2 were so far off the gate - to the detriment of 8 ($1.30 fav) & 9
Chris Alford was even more of a hinderance to the fav as he did not try to get 2 going
Consequently the Stewart stable got a very handy start on the winner
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...18#YGC14121807
The starter seemed to be very obliging in R7 at Kilmore on Thursday night too
As you will note in the Stewards report:
A false start was declared when Beach Babe Nikky refused to score up. At the restart Beach Babe Nikky again refused to score up. As a result Beach Babe Nikky will continue to remain outside the draw for future mobile start races. Beach Babe Nikky took no competitive part in the race and was subsequently stood down from racing until the completion of one satisfactory trial.
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/ste...l/?mc=KI100119
Why was a false start declared the first time (and the race shafted to Sky2) when the offending Stewart/Alford horse was ODM and drawn 7 of 7 and caused no interference?
Needs to be an inquiry into this , can't bend the rules for favorites or certain stables . Starter can't call a false start for no valid reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
FLORIST done in by PLANTS :eek:
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=39319
Not only the punters on twitter curious about the scratching of Perfect Major it would appear
https://www.harness.org.au/media-roo...?news_id=39400
With considerable backing for the emergency before it got a run you would expect questions to be asked if it was All In betting
Somebody that watched Shep R5 on TrotsVision emailed me that:
ODM (11) odds on fav for Emma Stewart with a junior driver was circling on the second row but as the horses were called forward for the score up it is facing the opposite direction and refuses to turn back to score up - in fact it starts to head the wrong way.
The Junior driver raises his arm and turns to look towards the mobile, presumably calling out (cannot be sure as no sound on Trotsvision yet).
The camera goes back to the main body of field as they begin to score up, Chris Alford on the 3 (Wayne Potters) has jumped out of the cart and gone to his horses head (no clerk in sight) and started fiddling with the gear, stopping the start and causing a short delay.
The gear is suddenly right again on the 3 and Alford jumps back in the bike and the score up re-commences. It is not on camera but presumably this coincides with Stewart’s horse facing the right way again and moving toward the start as it catches the field
This is how one person saw it. We cannot see a replay.
They said it will be interesting to see what the Steward's report has to say
The Stewards saw no connection
RACE 5 – COUNTRY WEEK LEGEND CHRIS RYE PACE (3RD HEAT) (1690 MS)
Liftntorque was fractious in the score up, out of position when the start was affected and will continue to be drawn wide in future mobile starting events.
Four Lonely Nights began badly and will be placed out of the draw in future mobile starting events. Four Lonely Nights then trailed the field thereafter.
https://www.harness.org.au/racing/st...l/?mc=SP130219
That reads that the stewards saw nothing at the start at all Kev, or I should say more accurately records nothing about the actions of the starter or Chris Alford after the starter has called the horses forward off the circle. Of course none of us that have been in the red hots for years would think for a second that a wily old driver would engage in a little “gamesmanship” to the advantage of his principle source of income.
The starter may have called the start off, as is required when a horse is facing the wrong way, rather than C Alford "stopping the start".
If the mobile had only just started rolling I could see how the starter could recommence a start if the remaining horses maintained some sort of orderly formation. The possibility of that - the starter and chief steward, who is communicating with the starter, try to avoid the race being booted to Sky2.
Just an interpretation, only watched the race on Sky.
Would the red light have come on if he called the start off Wayne? The emailer said that there was no false start (why I edited my earlier post)
I understand what your saying Wayne, and presumably the race was on Sky 1 and we obviously don’t want to be bumped to Sky2 but shouldn’t the stewards report be an accurate record of events. There’s no indication of any interruption of any kind to the start because of the fractious nature of of one of the runners, just that it was fractious, nor any record of Chris Alford having exited the sulky after the runners commenced to move off from the prerace formation under the instructions of the starter to make a late gear adjustment.
Was mainly suggesting the start would more than likely have been interrupted or stopped by the horse facing the opposite way, not C Alford as conveyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
If the mobile had only just taken up it's position and horses just started to peel off, the start could be called off at that stage, paused, not abandoned. Not a false start.
Had the mobile started to roll? From the Sky vision it looked like the mobile was in it's normal staging position for the 1690m start.
There are times when second row horses are late turning to face the right way after the starter says "we're going up" (to the mobile). The front row horses have commenced to go up. The starter will convey what's going on to the drivers, adding something like "take it easy". If all wasn't righted on the second row I would imagine that start would be called off but it not be a false start, no red light.
I've been in a race where track attendants noticed a horse had one of it's legs out of a hobble loop as the horses started to peel. It was corrected, a false start wasn't warranted and I don't think it was commented on in the stewards report.
Isn't Booker Bay R2 No2 at Kilmore tomorrow supposed to be ODM
http://www.harness.org.au/form.cfm?m...rc=KIC25021907
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/ste...9&fromstate=sa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Would have gone back to the trials Kev.
Stewards Report for Bendigo last Thursday.
Race 7
Hayden Gray suspended for 6 months with a $5,000 fine.
Haydon Gray, driver of Rigondeaux, pleaded guilty to a charge under Rule 168(1)(g) which states:
A person shall not before, during or after a race drive in a manner which is in the opinion of the stewards likely to endanger person or horse.
The particulars of the charge being that when pulling up at the completion of the race Mr Gray drove in a manner which in the opinion of the Stewards was likely to endanger person or horse by intentionally directing Rigondeaux outwards resulting in the gelding making contact with the outside fence and as a result of the contact the gelding suffered a laceration to the bottom lip and the sulky of Mr Gray becoming unbalanced resulting in him being momentarily unseated. In assessing penalty Stewards took into account the relevant considerations as outlined within the HRV StewardsMinimum Penalty Guidelines placing weight on Mr Gray’s guilty plea and the circumstances of this incident, specifically that injury occurred to Rigondeaux and the completely unnecessary nature of the incident. Stewards further were mindful that any penalty must demonstrate that safety and welfare of horse and driver is paramount and such conduct will not be condoned. Stewards accordingly imposed a 6 month suspension of Mr Gray’s licence to drive in races and a $5,000 fine. This suspension was ordered to commence immediately.
https://www.harness.org.au/racing/st...l/?mc=BN210219
It is Race 9. If there was ever a repeat offence it should invoke 6 years.
ps He is a part owner of the horse
Why are NSW so slow with their stewards reports?
Of course todays are not going to be posted yet but if you look at this link
https://www.hrnsw.com.au/racing/results
You will see that 10 of the last 13 meets reports have not been posted yet - they are about a half dozen behind what an efficient department should be capable of
I qualify the above post in that 6yrs should be if the incident involved maliceQuote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
I must say that I assumed the contact in this case was intentional based on the strong 6 month penalty
but have been informed by another owner that it was not so and that turning horses into the fence is a common practice
Maybe an appeal will be forthcoming
Hmmm then again maybe not - he got 6 months even with a concession for pleading guiltyQuote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Which as I understand it Kev is the minimum sentence permitted under the penalty guidelines for the charge issued on the night which would suggest the stewards did not see a high level of culpability in his actions.
There is conjecture elsewhere as to if the right charge for what occurred was leveled on the night, all of which may be subject to appeal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dot
For my education:
- Having any penalty reduced to the minimum by a guilty plea shouldn't be seen as the stewards deeming a low level of culpability?
- What could an alternative charge be Dot?
Don’t know if the penalty was reduced to the minimum by the guilty plea Wayne, as I understand it pleading guilty results in a entitlement to a discount to the sentence, not necessarily a discount to the minimum sentence. Without seeing the incident it’s difficult to know just what happened and and the degree of culpability. The talk of an alternative charge along with 6 months being the minimum on this charge was on twitter shortly after the incident and I can’t recall now just what alternative charge was suggested. There was also a reference to the disparity in penalty for this incident in comparison to a year or so ago when Lisa Bartley drove into another horse and driver after a race and received 6 weeks.
The stewards may have it entirely right Wayne or they may not, that’s what the appeal process is for.
Goes without saying, everyone has the right to appeal. I wasn't debating that Dot, sure, if Haydon believes he's been wronged he can access the appeal process.
If a participant had a good record in relation to rule breaches, you couldn't envisage, let's say, a 30% reduction on a guilty plea but that wouldn't mean the stewards didn't take a very dim view of your actions, still highly culpable? What would a comment such as the completely unnecessary nature of the incident mean in a stewards report? And yes, I presume the stewards viewed it.
Yep, there are a few subclauses to rule 168, and once again Haydon has the right to appeal but, would you compare the Lisa Bartley incident with this one, as reported by the stewards Dot?
What I wondered about was the idea of it being a common practice. I can completely understand if you've lost control of a horse the only alternative left might be to turn the horse into the fence. Is that where you were going with Which as I understand it Kev is the minimum sentence permitted under the penalty guidelines for the charge issued on the night which would suggest the stewards did not see a high level of culpability in his actions.
In that case the Lisa Bartley reference would be irrelevant.
Ok I’ve had a bit more of a look at Vics penalty guidelines, it’s is difficult to keep clear having previously raced in NSW, currently racing in WA and having horses race in Vic as there is a lack of uniformity. For anyone doubting that look at the drive that Sid Van de Brande was recently suspended 8 weeks for at Terang and one the night before from Mark Reed at GP that only resulted in a query driving tactics.
Under Vics guidelines stewards will apply a discount for an early guilty plea but the amount of the discount is not specified. In NSW which I’m more familiar with a standard 25% applied for an early guilty plea regardless of offence or record which Micheal Beatty explained when he introduced it was in keeping with the courts. Charges under other rules in Vics guidelines permit the stewards to consider degree of carelessness or culpability and reduce or increase the penalty from the starting point but not under the rule applied in this case. Consequently the starting point was 9 months and along with the guilty plea Hayden must have met the other criteria in the guidelines that permit a discount ( interestingly driver experience is considered under the guidelines for determing penalty but it is not specified whether this can increase the penalty or only reduce it as the other criteria do) and the stewards applied a 33.3% discount to reduce the starting penalty to the minimum. Whether this is consistent with other penalty discounts applied by stewards Wayne I’m not familiar with enough other instances in Vic to know. But as under this rule the stewards can not amend the starting point either way for degree of carelessness or culpability it isn’t possible to assess from the information available whether they viewed Hayden actions with a high or low level of culpability.
I not actually familiar with the Lisa Bartley case, I bought it up here, as I wrote, it had been discussed elsewhere in comparison to this one. And I say again I did not see what actually occurred with Hayden Gray. It may indeed have no relevance.
“What would a comment such as the completely unnecessary nature of the incident mean in a stewards report?” It may mean exactly that Wayne. It certainly means in the stewards opinion the incident was of a completely unnecessary nature. You say Wayne that you can “completely understand if you've lost control of a horse the only alternative left might be to turn the horse into the fence.” I can completely understand that in order to prevent the loss of control of a horse and possibly serious risk of injury to horse or driver from being out of control someone might steer into the fence before that loss of control occurred. I can also say, not in or after a race, but in the context of training on a fenced racetrack for 20 odd years I have on a few occasions steered into the fence to prevent a loss of control and possibly significantly worse outcomes then I’ve adjudged contacting the fence might cause. And I’ve no doubt on one or two of those occasions an observer might have adjudged it to be a completely unnecessary. I have also had horses take charge and run into the fence of their own volition on a few occasions as well. Though I am not saying that any of these things occurred in Hayden Grays case.
Race day hearings are by necessity brief, and consequently not all relevant evidence maybe presented or recorded in the stewards report. The twitter conversation was equally divided between those who felt only 6 years would have been enough of a penalty for Hayden as a horse was injured in the incident to those who felt 6 months was too harsh a penalty for an incident completely out of character for the young driver and that the harm to the horse may have been inadvertent. Can only hope there is an appeal Wayne and all the cards are laid on the table.
Mildura Capers during and after R5 on Sept 6 last year
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=39739
Wayne Cook and David Vozlic
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=39738
Shane Furze (part owner of Geronimo Dan)
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=39737
Nathan Weightman
You just have to watch this race
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...18#MLC06091802
You cannot drive like that and not expect to front the stewards
What a run by the fav
I also noticed that John Justice's 12mths disqualification was affirmed
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=39708
From the comfort of my couch, an incompetent drive.
In earlier times it would probably been deemed acceptable for the trainer to have thrown a couple of haymakers at the driver, especially for that drive. Now deemed non-PC.
Amazing it has taken all of 6 months to come to light.
I received an email as to whether Tin Roof Raider was given a fair start in R2 at Melton on Saturday
He had made a mistake himself but being one off the fence on the second line was he ever going to be able to get in position with the 2 horse being way off the gate?
Maybe the starter should have considered a false start to ensure complete clarity
Maybe the stable didn't have much on the fav or they would have protested or maybe they thought it was fair enough?
What do you think?
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...s/?mc=MX020319
With 9 and 10 scratched doesn’t the 11 score up beside the 8 Kev? Tin Roof Raiders driver wasn’t fined for scoring up in the wrong barrier position but the 2s driver was fined for being out of position. If he scored up in the right place it didn’t look to me that the 11 got a fair start.