Printable View
Reading list of drivers for the Australian Female Driving Championships I have noticed Amanda Turnbull is representing NSW. With all the latest dramas surrounding her including a positive swab, surely there are more than 2 female drivers in NSW to choose from.
It seems to be a case of who you know and decisions like this only further give Harness Racing followers another bad taste in there mouths. Surely, I'm not the only one that is bewildered by this selection of someone representing NSW.
Not the only one
+1 more. Anyone driving on a Suspension Stay should be ineligible
It defies belief that an organization like HRNSW which has Industry & Integrity as one of the tabs on their home page would not see this!
A decision like this reflects very badly on the CEO
On a similar issue why does HRV continue to use drivers/trainers in promotional material that have recently completed suspensions for prohibited substances. I know people deserve a second chance but I think you should have at least 5 years free of serious offenses before you are used in promotional material. I've noticed this a bit lately and it's not just one person.
Some sort of consistency would be well received, NSW "apparently" developed a new policy last year that meant anyone who has been disqualified was not eligible to participate in features. We had a couple of people who wanted to participate in our annual Indigenous Drivers Series rubbed out because of it. I say "Apparently" because I can't find it anywhere and here we have someone who, strictly speaking is not D/Q'd due to the appeal and stay, but is clearly having a few integrity questions raised in recent times and she is in........it's not a good look, bit like that 2YO race at Bathurst the other night, that wasn't a good look either....No wonder our "super nothing PM" Malcolm gets away with so much, the mystique of the name does strange things.Quote:
Originally Posted by gutwagon
Reference: Harness Racing Act 2009
HRNSW Board Meeting – 28 February 2017
AUSTRALIAN DRIVERS CHAMPIONSHIP REPRESENTATIVES
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 This policy was introduced as there was no formal policy concerning the selection of the NSW
representatives at the Australian Drivers Championship.
1.2 The Australian Drivers Championship is conducted annually and each State is represented by
two drivers.
1.3 In terms of NSW driver selection the precedent in recent years has been that the driver who
won the NSW Drivers Premiership was selected as the first representative. The second
representative was the driver of the opposite gender that finished highest on the NSW Drivers
Premiership.
2. SELECTION CRITERIA
2.1 The driver that won the NSW Drivers Premiership in the previous season will be selected as
the first representative.
2.2 The driver of the opposite gender who finished highest on the NSW Drivers Premiership in the
previous season will be selected as the second representative.
2.3 Any driver selected is subject to an assessment of their record as a participant by both the
HRNSW Board and the Stewards Panel.
2.4 Should the HRNSW Board decide that any driver selected fails in an assessment of their
record, they shall be replaced.
2.5 Should any driver selected be associated with an activity deemed to bring the sport into
disrepute or found guilty of an offence prior to the commencement of the Australian Drivers
Championship Series, they shall be replaced.
2.6 Any driver that has been found guilty of an offence resulting in a disqualification will be
ineligible to compete in any Drivers Invitation Series for a period of five (5) years from the time
of the re-allocation of their drivers licence.
2.7 All assessments and decisions made by the HRNSW Board under Clauses 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5
shall be final.
Strictly speaking , I think she would be ineligible until the appeal is finalised as she has been found guilty, 2.7 gives administrators enough wriggle room to do whatever they want whenever they want with regards to clauses 2.3,2.4 and 2.5, but makes no mention of the pertinent clause 2.6.
Danny Hill wins the Ladies series and that’s great to see
I have been told that Amanda's appeal was successful in having suspension reduced to time already served
Period of disqualification reduced to 16 days, the equivalent of time already served, probably some sort of world record for presenting a horse not clean, which she plead guilty to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
http://nationaltrotguide.com.au/disq...ced-on-appeal/
cheers,
Dan
Has there been arsenic cases where they are DQ from the race but trainer doesnt get penalty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
In any case they may as well give her 0 days and let her sue for 16 days lost income :mad:
It is a long transcript but when you read these 3 points I am not sure I follow why Amanda gets less than Chris - because it is tougher for a pro to do the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
34. That raises the issue of parity. What of parity in New South Wales. The
case of Frisby is, to some extent, on all fours with this matter. It was, of
course, nearly two years ago but the principles essentially, subject to what
is a third category of matter to which the Tribunal need return, is current
Page 8
today. It is perhaps more apt to look at the differences rather than
summarise the similarities in respect of Frisby. Frisby, on the presentation of
the same type of drug, after a 35-day withholding period rather than 8 to 10,
received a three month disqualification.
35. The differences essentially are that he was a hobby trainer, whereas this
appellant is very much a professional trainer and driver. The other
difference, of course, is that Frisby did not have the benefit of the decision in
his case, whereas this appellant had available to her, by way of selfeducation,
the capacity to have taken cognisance of Tribunal decisions in
respect of matters such as she now finds herself in trouble for and what
likely consequences might follow and what can be done to avoid it.
36. The substantial differences, however, with Frisby are that here this
appellant notified the stewards. That has been referred to as a factual
matter. Here also, the Tribunal notes, as it has referred to in some detail,
that post Frisby no warnings have been given to the industry. Frisby, it might
be noted, had a slightly longer association with the industry. Other than that,
essentially the facts are the same. That is, the key ones: the horse was
taken by the subject trainer to a reputable veterinarian who provided proper
diagnosis, treatment and advice. And that advice was followed by Frisby on
a withdrawal period of 35 days and here, 15 days. Each of them followed
professional and, within harness racing, what to a veterinarian might have
been an appropriate piece of advice.
https://www.harnessmediacentre.com.a...n%20120318.pdf
This is really starting to wreak like carcass in the sun. When one of her owners has the top of the tree position with HRNSW it really makes you wonder how the Integrity clauses are truly implemented. Have they set a precedent? What further damage has it caused this sport or does this follow many weak kneed penalties that have been dished out in the Thoroughbred industry? Once again we hear about a decision that just makes you roll your eyes and question if there is any justice.
It's unfortunate that she had already served 16 days.
Otherwise, she might have had accommodation and return airfares to the Gold Coast added to her seemingly-harsh disqualification!
Turnbull's must be a protected species they pretty much get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again, while other drivers and trainers get the rule book thrown at them for doing the same thing . Nathan got 2 and half years for drugging a horse then he gets it cut back to 3 months what a joke he's probably still laughing about it. Have a look at what Mitch Turnbull did to Mckayler Barnes it the last race at Bathurst 28th February he got 7 days had it been the other way around Mckayler would have a got 4 weeks if she was lucky
Then you have the precious Amanda, need I say any more she is a Turnbull so that's enough said . As the saying goes if you do the crime you do the time
well that doesn't apply if your last name is Turnbull
I can see Amanda Turnbull coming to race meetings in a palanquin. (A palanquin is a covered litter, usually for one passenger. It is carried by an even number of bearers (between two and eight, but most commonly four) on their shoulders, by means of a pole projecting fore and aft.) Fear of being suspended, I won't suggest who the carriers would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showgrounds
Maybe you and Judy could be the bearers Greg :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Diablo
This professional trainer who had doubts about the treatment the horse was receiving, whether it would swab or not. Im sure you would leave the horse more days to reduce the risk. Considering the evidence used, the Frisby case I believe they are closely related. (family) warn your relative.
The professional and hobby difference has once again been tested. Both types of trainers abide by the rules of Harness racing, I thought thus all are subject to the same rules!!!!!
I still believe that Harness racing is attempting to remove the hobby aspect out of the industry.
Oh forgive me what does presenting tax returns have any relevance to whether you have treated a horse or not. Any one help me ?
short note : the professional trainers horse who won at young tonight was not swabbed. I believe that was the first runner back after suspension.