Smarty pants, very funny.
Printable View
Smarty pants, very funny.
How things have changed, in my day 1st offence was 12 mths.
Christ , I could say so much but I think it could get me into big trouble. Hahaha.
6 gummies a day
I can't see any reason for her to appeal , she pleaded guilty to all 3 charges and got a very light sentence !
Maybe they are inspired by the old Douglas/Tormey case that appealed and appealed until it was all dropped
If Emma is DQ from Trainers State Premiership guess who wins it? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Julie Douglas (I must look for her at the trots one day)
Why do I follow the harness - it is bloody corrupt
The Showgrounds has a lot to answer for - all us impressionable kids that it seduced
ps Hey Trish, I think Brendan is on the gummies too
Good thing you used "The" as a prefix Kev!
It is a strange world we live in, isn't it?
Those gummies look good. No not for me.
For those who have never seen Julie Douglas
https://www.google.com/search?q=juli...ocAuWZh6A,st:0
Our leading trainer works full time at a flatbread factory but I am sure she is the trainer not Glenn
I heard my good mate Steve Cleve has had to shut down the Stewart suspension discussion on the Harness Racing Industry facebook page as it was boiling
I would appreciate any follower of the page, keeping us posted as the sensitive one banned me LOL
PP is making it sound like Emma may have some hope for her appeal over penalty as the finding does not state what she injected. She is claiming it was only saline (Hartmann's drips actually contain more than just saline) and has already been successful in getting a Stay. PP is saying that she cannot face an amended charge on appeal so the stewards have slipped up
I don’t think there was a post at all. Not that I can see anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
There were many comments on the National TrotGuide page
I’m not sure that has any bearing. The rule clearly states any injection and does not have to specify what it is. I guess it depends on evidence given At the hearingQuote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
He likely deleted the whole threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Yabbie
It could have a bearing on penalty as HRV cannot introduce new charge/evidence to say that it contained more than just salineQuote:
Originally Posted by Yabbie
I was sent this and I am thinking it was AHRIQuote:
Originally Posted by Yabbie
The comments on the AHRI site regarding one particular decision were disgusting, repulsive and abhorrent. These participants are doing the Industry more harm than good. Scrolling through the comments , I came across a post directed at me. Apparently , we are to blame for some people’s lack of success because we breed good horses and they can’t compete ! Some are breeders/ trainers who race in the $4,500 / $6,000 races and rarely win. I say to them ‘ enjoy what you do, my horses are my passion ‘ .However , horses trained by Emma Stewart never compete in their space and she cannot be held responsible for their results. It’s the Tall Poppy Syndrome where it’s easy pickings to blame others for your own shortcomings.
Emma Stewart pleaded guilty to administering an injection into a horse within 1 clear day of racing. Not once but twice and has now been found guilty. I believe the stay is only so she can appeal severity rather than guilt but happy to be corrected if wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie
1-10 How much do you value clean, fair, level racing? 1 who gives a toss, 10 want 100% clean, fair, level racing.
Will you be changing trainers given this breach to clean, fair, level racing?
If not, why not? Where is the line? Or is there no line?
This isn't taking anything away from your breeding, I have mentioned in this very thread Stewart has the best bred horses, and your breeding operation is a large part of that. But I think the above questions are fair to ask.
?????????????
Has Emma dropped her appeal?
I don't really think so
BUT
if you do a licensee search on Harnessweb
There is no such licensee
Ladies In Red now trained by C R Tonkin.
Anne can choose to reply or not reply, she may choose to pm Brendan
But I have reinstated Brendan's post 103 as I may have been a little heavy-handed in deleting it
Fair enough Kev.
Going back to Emma's statement, she basically admits to not knowing or forgetting the rules ! I'm just an owner breeder and I know that rule and if I'm unsure I check. To me this indicates that this could have been a regular practice at the stable. Only a fool would believe this only happened that one day that the stewards turned up. Just my opinion. Do others think this way. I'm also very surprised that C Tonkin can still train horses. Integrity is not the main aim of the board IMO.
I'm now considering my future in the industry...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gutwagon
It's alarming to witness a single stable consistently dominating the horseracing scene for an extended period. It raises questions about whether fair practices are being followed. Moreover, it's essential to keep an eye on the future performance of C Tonkin-trained horses and observe if their success continues. It's in the best interest of the sport to ensure a level playing field and maintain integrity. interesting to see if they can maintain their success or if other stables will start to catch up.
Clayton has been training the odd one of theirs for years RickQuote:
Originally Posted by gutwagon
eg Ride High - Emma had him as a 3yo but when he came back from injury he was in Clayton's name
I would think that more people than not, think that the Maryborough eve offence is unlikely a one off as "she did not know the rules"
If Clayton had not bothered to get his license back and left it all to Emma, it could have been awkward for him applying for it now IF it is true that he refused stewards entry to their property on Breeders Crown day. I believe that getting your license back after disqualification requires an application and is not necessarily automatic
Kevin, they call themselves "Tonkin Stewart racing" , we all know they were co trainers but the board didn't make them declare that. People were asking why ? The media always referred to them as co trainers. If she is disqualified most people in my opinion would expect him to also be disqualified . This is the exact reason people wanted them classed as co trainers all along . It just stinks and at a time our industry can't afford this bad look.
Rick, I do not think anyone has banged on about training 'partnerships' than me!
HRV has stopped 21 of the Stewart trained horses being transferred to C Tonkin. I was certain they had changed the rules to stop disqualified trainers just transferring horses to their partner, I'm surprised they even tried but as we are now learning they have very little knowledge of the rules !
https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/art...able-transfer/
Harness Racing Victoria has rejected Emma Stewart’s transfer of horses to partner Clayton Tonkin.
I can envisage the Stewart stable working around the disqualification once the penalty is finalized. I cannot see how they can stop Clayton from putting all their new season 2yo's in his name (they would not be transfers as they are unlikely to have been registered in Emma's name as yearlings), the older ones could be shared out to their regular drivers - Mark/Lisa Pitt, Andy/Kate Gath, Kerryn Manning, James/Ashleigh Herbertson, even Luke/Belinda McCarthy
Not only has Emma won a race at Ballarat tonightQuote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
But so has Clayton
with a horse that was previously trained by Emma
Champagne Delight had not started since Nov 25, 2022
Maybe they were able to show that she was transferred to Clayton BEFORE the disqualification
https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fi...s/?mc=BA040124
The above Champagne Delight's dam is Champagne Dreams - a half sister to Lazarus
Stewart and Tonkin had 3 in at Ballarat for 3 winners = $1.50, $1.35, $1.07
The $1.07 winning on debut is The Lost Storm's half sister
I half wonder whether the Stewart stable has been told to keep a low profile and it will blow over
This afternoon PP has posted a summary of what has been happening in regards to the Stewart Disqualification
Edit: I have just noticed that it is basically what HRV have posted here
https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/art...ess-transfers/
I am wondering whether Stewart's legal team aren't disputing the decision to not allow her to transfer horse to Clayton, on the basis 'as to why can't she?' as she is not currently disqualified but on a stay
HRV have got themselves into this trouble because they didn't force a training team to be registered as one. Both trainers should be disqualified !
The stable is certainly keeping a low profile with what seems far fewer starters than usual
If what PP is suggesting about analysis of the saline drips turns out to be true then the breeding industry will have been corrupted immensely as 100's if not 1,000's of wins will be tainted
Just when I was beginning to wonder why they didn't just serve the 6mth suspension (as they have been racing so infrequently) we hear they have had some sensational 2yo's trialing