I see Dean Atkiinson i advertising agistment available
Printable View
I see Dean Atkiinson i advertising agistment available
Not a good start for HRNSW at the enquiry
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horserac...112-1pxj4.html
Agreed not a great start when it is labeled farcical by the media on day one. Just prey the police can get this sorted because it's not looking great for hrnsw.
Sheez! If they cannot link O'Toole to that phone number we most likely have a shambles
So we have Atkinson pleading guilty to bribing former steward M. Bentley who has not even been charged by NSW Police or faced any action from HRNSW other than tending his resignation back in August.
Then we have Greg and Ben Sarina making numerous calls to a phone number that they can only identify belongs to a person named Nathan Miles, with no evidence that Paul O'Toole owned or used that particular phone number.
5 months in the making and this is the best the HRNSW special investigation panel can do? Dear god.
Did you people not read the press coverage the evidence relied upon by HRNSW in relation to the user of the phone was supplied to HRNSW by the police task force... one would presume this is the same evidence the police intend to rely upon in there upcoming prosecution of Paul O'Toole.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rainmaker
Judge Haylan said at this stage he was not convinced by this evidence and an adjournment was given, if the judge in the court case is also not convinced it is not the HRNSW investigation under threat but the whole case appears to be crumbling.
Many have suggested that this should be left to the police to handle and it appears that is what the HRNSW investigative panel have done in relation to phone records. Amazing how in evidence despite making 70 calls to the number in question in 12 months Sarina did not know the owner of the number.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/...-1226243046107
Hi VOR
I would just like to know your thoughts about the use of a judge or retired judge in all major stewards inquires. I personally believe that the use of stewards acting as prosecution and then judging there own case serves harness racing well on race day when a result needs to be achieved by the start of the next race.
A person judging there own procicution IMO is always going to have some biased. I ask this question basically because hrnsw stewards have had a fairly ordinary record as far as appeals and think this may well be a reflection of stewards believing they have proved a case when in reality they haven't and it is subsequently lost on apeal.
I personally like the idea basicly because it forced the stewards to get it right the first time and not loose on appeal. I would love to hear your thoughts though. I imagine judges or retired judges don't come cheap but I think the cost would be worth if it saw less cases lost on apeal particularly the ones that shouldn't be lost.
Tiny
I can not add much to your post because in my view you have covered all of the relevant points.
There is no doubt that the cost structure increases greatly when you have to use legal people.
RacingNSW have a slightly different appeals process where there is a first level of appeal where although the person in charge of the appeal is a legally trained he is also very experienced in the racing industry.
This has a three fold effect at appeal level it gives both the stewards and the appellant a chance to put there case to someone with an understanding of the sport If you like a bit like the NRL tribunal.
If the appeal is dismissed it makes it a little harder for it then to be overturned at the next appeal level because two courts if you like have confirmed the finding of guilt. This also means lees gallops cases actually get to the racing appeals tribunal, all in all a better system.
You may well be interested to know the dogs stewards who also have the same system as Harness with no first appeal have a similar record as the trot stewards at the racing Appeals Tribunal.
I am not sure if you have ever taken the time to read some of the appeal findings in NSW under some of the previous judges but it will make you laugh.
Thanks VOR
I had never taken much interest in regards to regulatory matters in harness racing until the swab scandal.
The former chief steward did some very good work in regards to uncovering a shocking case of race fixing only to have the case lost on appeal. IMO it was a poor judgement by the stewards on there own evidence. I believe had someone independent to this case was appointed more attention to detail may well have been taken.
Also the two trainers that got disqualifications last year on prima facie swabs was not good law and had ever case been appealed they would have been lost a appeal.
Also the case yesterday had a finding of guilt been found at the initial stewards inquiry this case may well too have been lost on apeal. Something I am Glad didn't happin thanks to the judge precluding over the case.
I think if harness racing want to make some changes to the regulation of harness racing post swab scandal this will be a great place to start. Independent judges at major stewards inquires bring it on.
Stewards judging there own procicutions will always be biest and result in cases where convictions should stick being lost on appeal when they shouldn't.