Michael Siejka "warned off"

HRNSW have warned off Michael Siejka for failing to comply with requests to prioduce certain documents.........See link below.........similar to the Robbie Byrnes matter!
http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=17912

OR

The Harness Racing NSW Board has “warned off” Trainer Mr Michael Siejka for failing to comply with repeated directions to produce his telephone records, bank and financial statements in relation to the current HRNSW investigation into alleged corrupt and improper practices within the NSW harness industry.
Mr Siejka’s failure to comply with this direction has the capacity to interfere with or frustrate the ongoing investigation into allegations of corrupt conduct which strikes directly at the heart of the integrity of the Harness industry.
The warning off is effectively immediately.
Note: The Australian Harness Racing Rules relevant to this matter are:
Rule 187 (2): A person shall not refuse to answer questions or to produce a horse, document, substance or piece of equipment, or give false or misleading evidence for information at an enquiry or investigation;
Rule 187 (3): A person shall comply with an order or direction given by the stewards;
Rule 187 (7): A person who fails to comply with any provision of this rule is guilty of an offence.

Harness Racing NSW (HRNSW) is the controlling body for harness racing in New South Wales with responsibility for commercial and regulatory management of the industry including 31 racing clubs across the State. HRNSW is headed by an industry-appointed Board of Directors and is independent of Government.
To arrange an interview or for further information please contact:
Name: Reid Sanders
Position: Regulatory Manager
Phone: (02) 9722 6600
Email: rsanders@hrnsw.com.au

We were given a heads up last week by Reid that matters would be coming to light in the not too distant future and it would seem that we are now getting a steady stream of participants being dealt with by HRNSW. Patience is a virtue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncobrad

We were given a heads up last week by Reid that matters would be coming to light in the not too distant future and it would seem that we are now getting a steady stream of participants being dealt with by HRNSW. Patience is a virtue.

---

I can tell from the posts on the site, that we are now leaving the investigations to HRNSW, as they have now "taken the bit between their teeth" and are rolling along in front on a tight reign!

there is the difference-
If he were subpeoned he would have a notice to produce documents but as it a request by HRNSW he declines and suffers there consequences according to the rules of Harness Racing not the laws. the police should subpeona the docs via a court of law then the penalties are far greater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hillbillydeluxe

there is the difference-
If he were subpeoned he would have a notice to produce documents but as it a request by HRNSW he declines and suffers there consequences according to the rules of Harness Racing not the laws. the police should subpeona the docs via a court of law then the penalties are far greater.

---

Well what matters is HRNSW have drawn the line in the sand, if you are thought to be frustrating or delaying the ongoing investigation by refusing to cooperate, then you are for the chop.

Congratulations HRNSW board on a very strong message continuing to be sent.

Totall agree VOR
I want to enter back into this industry as an employer and want it to be squeky clean. I applaud HRNSW I just hope more funding is available for the longterm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hillbillydeluxe

Totall agree VOR
I want to enter back into this industry as an employer and want it to be squeky clean. I applaud HRNSW I just hope more funding is available for the longterm.

---

If the racing industry win the court case against the corporate bookies and betfair there will be, if not the Government will have to drop its take out to fund the integrity side of all codes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hillbillydeluxe

there is the difference-
If he were subpeoned he would have a notice to produce documents but as it a request by HRNSW he declines and suffers there consequences according to the rules of Harness Racing not the laws. the police should subpeona the docs via a court of law then the penalties are far greater.

---

If I were handing over my personal and private documents, I would want to know who exactly is going to be looking at them, and that a signed confidentiality agreement made as a minimum............there needs to be some parameters set as to what is reasonable to provide........I am sure that I would want solicitor's costs involved to be paid for by HRNSW...........but if someone refuses, I don't think they should be warned off completely..........that is they should only be not registered with HRNSW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Form Student

If I were handing over my personal and private documents, I would want to know who exactly is going to be looking at them, and that a signed confidentiality agreement made as a minimum............there needs to be some parameters set as to what is reasonable to provide........I am sure that I would want solicitor's costs involved to be paid for by HRNSW...........but if someone refuses, I don't think they should be warned off completely..........that is they should only be not registered with HRNSW.

---

I am sorry Steve with the greatest of respect the last part of your post is utter rubbish, if you can not have the right to warn them off, no one would comply.

Think about it ,if you have done something like be involved in corruption like Dean Atkinson he gets ten years disqualification.

You know the records you are asked to provide will convict you, so you don't comply and only get not registered in NSW ....surely you were only joking.

I do however agree that HRNSW should if asked, supply confidentiality confirmation and I am sure they would have.

I will ask this question however, what information if any has leaked from HRNSW during the current investigation ....none to my recollection

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

I am sorry Steve with the greatest of respect the last part of your post is utter rubbish, if you can not have the right to warn them off, no one would comply.

Think about it ,if you have done something like be involved in corruption like Dean Atkinson he gets ten years disqualification.

You know the records you are asked to provide will convict you, so you don't comply and only get not registered in NSW ....surely you were only joking.

I do however agree that HRNSW should if asked, supply confidentiality confirmation and I am sure they would have.

I will ask this question however, what information if any has leaked from HRNSW during the current investigation ....none to my recollection

---

If you haven't produced the documentation, which you may have your own justifiable reasons for not doing so, therefore you are saying they are guilty and should get warned off..........they should just not be allowed to be registered by HRNSW any longer in any shape or form........but do you have the right not to allow them entry to a racecourse?......I think the civil libertarians would be objecting strongly! It is the same as refusing someone on religious grounds etc, all you can do is deny them access to registration........they have not shown themselves to be a criminal or dangerous person, and you are accusing them of this........they can still go to a TAB anywhere, but you won't let them on a racecourse.........I think this is a dictatorship policy, and they would lose in court!

THere is greater requirement for registered or licenced persons under the rules to comply with the requirements of those rules.
Such agreement is a condition of licencing or registration.
As such failure to comply will / should lead to greater sanctions for these licenced persons who fail to comply with orders legitimately made under the rules.
It is the same in any area. Lawyers, teachers etc have a greater requirement to comply with the rules governing their profession than "Joe Public".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teecee

THere is greater requirement for registered or licenced persons under the rules to comply with the requirements of those rules.
Such agreement is a condition of licencing or registration.
As such failure to comply will / should lead to greater sanctions for these licenced persons who fail to comply with orders legitimately made under the rules.
It is the same in any area. Lawyers, teachers etc have a greater requirement to comply with the rules governing their profession than "Joe Public".

---

If you don't have the information to charge them in your own right, you don't expect them to supply it to you.........Really!....When someone becomes a 'registered person", I am sure they don't realise they could be expected to hand over their banking details or phone records at any time!.......If you have a specific allegation for a specific day and time and request verification........then so be it! Anyone can be warned off at any time if it takes the boards fancy!........The persons have not complied with a request to supply documents.........the document is not relevant to the day to day situation of being a registered person, and therefore unless a specific request is made, why would someone give over their full records.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Form Student

When someone becomes a 'registered person", I am sure they don't realise they could be expected to hand over their banking details or phone records at any time!.......If you have a specific allegation for a specific day and time and request verification........then so be it! Anyone can be warned off at any time if it takes the boards fancy!

---

That is probably the greatest post I have ever read on this forum. It is like going to a library or video store and they lose a book or movie and ask for your bank records cause you were there within a week of the crime?? Please.... does ANYONE on this forum want to hand over their personal records to any authority other than the police....now let's be honest for a minute....I wouldn't trust anyone with my personal details if I was innocent or guilty!!

The process is extremely simple. Abide by the rules under your license or take HRNSW to court or in fact HRA as these are national rules. Good luck with that Ardvark. If you don't want to work within the structure that exists find another occupation.

Ron Coote, I am not a licenced person so I dont have the misfortune of being subject to such draconian rules. If an allegation is levelled against you, you must answer it, other than that licenced persons should not have to be the bait in fishing expeditions by HRNSW or any other authority!

You blokes are kidding HRNSW get 10 /10 for this from anyone who wants the sport cleaned up.

If licenced people just please themselves which rules they comply with and which ones they don't there will not be an industry in a week.

Its like the bloke who refuses a breath test, drunk or not the magistrate will penalise him as if he was, maybe even more, when a penalty is handed out it has to fit the crime but it is also expected to have a deterrent effect to stop others acting in a similar manner.

With the way HRNSW have handled Byrnes, Vallender and Siejka others will think twice before they refuse directions out of hand.

Most sporting bodies have these powers now, how do you think they have caught or proved footballers betting on games or cricketers fixing matches ect ect.

For the record Vallender's warning off was only lifted by the appeal judge when he agreed to hand over his records, so make no bones about it HRNSW have the power under the law remember their power to regulate the sport is not god given it is given by the government by act of parliament the same government who also make the laws of the state.

Mark and Steve if your not licensed or own a horse you have nothing to fear HRNSW will never worry you.... but the licensed people who do not breach the rules have nothing to fear from HRNSW either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

I am sorry Steve with the greatest of respect the last part of your post is utter rubbish, if you can not have the right to warn them off, no one would comply.

Think about it ,if you have done something like be involved in corruption like Dean Atkinson he gets ten years disqualification.

You know the records you are asked to provide will convict you, so you don't comply and only get not registered in NSW ....surely you were only joking.

I do however agree that HRNSW should if asked, supply confidentiality confirmation and I am sure they would have.

I will ask this question however, what information if any has leaked from HRNSW during the current investigation ....none to my recollection

---

Think you've gone a bit hard on Steve here.
If somebody, even a registered body, from anywhere asked me to send off any kind of private docos I'd be very wary.
That said I still agree with the warning off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

You blokes are kidding HRNSW get 10 /10 for this from anyone who wants the sport cleaned up.

If licenced people just please themselves which rules they comply with and which ones they don't there will not be an industry in a week.

Its like the bloke who refuses a breath test, drunk or not the magistrate will penalise him as if he was, maybe even more, when a penalty is handed out it has to fit the crime but it is also expected to have a deterrent effect to stop others acting in a similar manner.

With the way HRNSW have handled Byrnes, Vallender and Siejka others will think twice before they refuse directions out of hand.

Most sporting bodies have these powers now, how do you think they have caught or proved footballers betting on games or cricketers fixing matches ect ect.

For the record Vallender's warning off was only lifted by the appeal judge when he agreed to hand over his records, so make no bones about it HRNSW have the power under the law remember their power to regulate the sport is not god given it is given by the government by act of parliament the same government who also make the laws of the state.

Mark and Steve if your not licensed or own a horse you have nothing to fear HRNSW will never worry you.... but the licensed people who do not breach the rules have nothing to fear from HRNSW either.

---

Getting an RBT is a bit different to divulging ones finances....
That last sentence, believe it or not some people can see past just their own interests. If an innocent party was asked to hand over records they'd have to be wary.

So here is the chance for HRNSW to get rid of everybody they don't want in harness racing........Let's send out a letter requesting every registered person send in their banking statements and phone records for the past 6 months!..............so the one's that don't comply that we want to get rid of, we warn them off........the others who have sent them in........let's go through them and see what everybody is up to?.......There you go, most of these outstanding matters are now solved! I dare the HRNSW to ask registered person, for example, Mr Kevin Seymour (most probably registered in HRQLD) to produce his banking and telephone expenses for the past 6 months.......Mr Seymour seems like an outstanding person.......but he would most probably tell them to go and XXXX OFF! Most places when you go for employment and accreditation only request that you obtain a copy of your Police record showing matters in the past 10 years.......if it is clean........all is OK!......If you are running a Childcare centre, then there are other checks!...........fair enough! The moral of the story is that if you wish to persist with "criminal activity" in harness racing is that you get a 2nd phone and bank account! I think that requesting copies of their TAB accounts would possibly show some more interesting information! I would also expect that in the current investigation, that they have been unable to obtain the phone and banking records of the HRNSW staff at the centre of this enquiry, and therefore that would obviously reflect the information they are seeking from the individuals that have been/about to be warned off with non compliance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Form Student

So here is the chance for HRNSW to get rid of everybody they don't want in harness racing........Let's send out a letter requesting every registered person send in their banking statements and phone records for the past 6 months!..............so the one's that don't comply that we want to get rid of, we warn them off........the others who have sent them in........let's go through them and see what everybody is up to?.......There you go, most of these outstanding matters are now solved! I dare the HRNSW to ask registered person, for example, Mr Kevin Seymour (most probably registered in HRQLD) to produce his banking and telephone expenses for the past 6 months.......Mr Seymour seems like an outstanding person.......but he would most probably tell them to go and XXXX OFF! Most places when you go for employment and accreditation only request that you obtain a copy of your Police record showing matters in the past 10 years.......if it is clean........all is OK!......If you are running a Childcare centre, then there are other checks!...........fair enough! The moral of the story is that if you wish to persist with "criminal activity" in harness racing is that you get a 2nd phone and bank account! I think that requesting copies of their TAB accounts would possibly show some more interesting information! I would also expect that in the current investigation, that they have been unable to obtain the phone and banking records of the HRNSW staff at the centre of this enquiry, and therefore that would obviously reflect the information they are seeking from the individuals that have been/about to be warned off with non compliance!

---

Steve I enjoy reading most of what you write, however you have come up with the biggest load of rubbish I have read for a while. Once you become licensed or a member with any organization you are obliged to follow the rules of that organization, this applies not only to sport but also trades eg. builders plumbers etc.
As for TAB accounts, second phones and bank accounts don't you think that these are some of the records being requested by HRNSW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clumsy

Steve I enjoy reading most of what you write, however you have come up with the biggest load of rubbish I have read for a while. Once you become licensed or a member with any organization you are obliged to follow the rules of that organization, this applies not only to sport but also trades eg. builders plumbers etc.
As for TAB accounts, second phones and bank accounts don't you think that these are some of the records being requested by HRNSW.

---

OK, let us clearly delineate the issue that remains........firstly, I am quite happy with the HRNSW request for any information they want from it's registered persons, that is fine........however, if the registered person decides not to provide that information for whatever reason, (privacy, religion, previous experiences, conceal a relationship, criminal activity etc), HRNSW has then got the right to decide to terminate their registration.........if those are the rules in place to be allowed to do so! At this point we still have an "innocent" person, I hope you agree? To then be able to "warn them off" forever, is going too far! To warn them off, HRNSW should then lay a charge based on the information or suveillance it has at hand, if the person then chooses to defend the matter and it relates that the evidence required to defend the charge can be related directly to the bank statements and/or phone records and they refuse to provide them.........."warn them off" for 10 years! This is the point I am trying to make. To warn off completely is without foundation of a prima facie case............HRNSW should have advised these people, they are warned off until further notice, until the records are supplied or an acceptable reason is provided! Don't forget this matter has arisen from corrupt HRNSW staff being the the instigators of all the criminal activity.......and I don't condone the actions of the registered persons in being involved........"it is like putting a lolly in front of a baby, they will take it!" At the end of the day, they would be just "Joe Public" attending a race meeting! They probably wouldn't show their faces on course anyway!!

Steve

Clearly we will need to agree to disagree the Harness Rules are worded a little different from the Gallops which from memory I think uses the term "proper direction", in relation to having to comply that is it must be proper.

Having said that your example about sending the letter to all and then warning some off would not happen because they, that is HRNSW, would not have a prima facie case to ask for the documents in the first place. Therefore it is not proper and would be over at that point.

However, in this case it is a long running investigation to which these licensed persons because of other evidence like the phone records of the stewards involved, have become persons of interest they have been given weeks if not months to comply.

Two people had already been warned off for failure to comply, one was lifted when that person agreed to comply that being "Vallender". Byrnes took his chances at appeal which as I understand it, remains unresolved.

Clearly if it was as you think so unfair the judge would have said to Vallender " mate your sweet do not worry welcome back do not comply" that did not happen or the same to Byrnes.

Michael Siejka is not a green kid, he has many many run ins with officials over the years, he knew the probability of what would happen from looking at those who chose a similar path before him, so at the end of the day he chose his own penalty, do not comply and be warned off or comply and see where the facts left him, I will not speculate as to why he chose the first avenue, I will leave that to others.

[QUOTE=Thevoiceofreason;19465]Having said that your example about sending the letter to all and then warning some off would not happen because they, that is HRNSW, would not have a prima facie case to ask for the documents in the first place. Therefore it is not proper and would be over at that point.-QUOTE

VOR, your comments are noted, but from the quote above you say that HRNSW would not ask every registered person to supply the information, it just wouldn't happen, as they don't have a prima face case to ask for them!..........if that is the case, where is the prima face case stated against these warned off registered persons??? So if a prima facie case hasn't been established or detailed........it goes without saying that any registered person at any time could be asked to provide any information HRNSW requests......and if they don't they are warned off,. I hope that HRNSW deals with all that are involved to the maximum extent, but you can't have your cake and eat it too! The answer to HRNSW is "Put Up OR Shut Up!.........charge the persons with something! These people are now considered "lepers" however, innocent or guilty they may be! If the police charge you with an offence, they must provide evidence in support of the charge........if not the charge is thrown out! HRNSW now needs to have the resolve to put their cards on the table!

[QUOTE=The Form Student;19466]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Having said that your example about sending the letter to all and then warning some off would not happen because they, that is HRNSW, would not have a prima facie case to ask for the documents in the first place. Therefore it is not proper and would be over at that point.-QUOTE

VOR, your comments are noted, but from the quote above you say that HRNSW would not ask every registered person to supply the information, it just wouldn't happen, as they don't have a prima face case to ask for them!..........if that is the case, where is the prima face case stated against these warned off registered persons??? So if a prima facie case hasn't been established or detailed........it goes without saying that any registered person at any time could be asked to provide any information HRNSW requests......and if they don't they are warned off,. I hope that HRNSW deals with all that are involved to the maximum extent, but you can't have your cake and eat it too! The answer to HRNSW is "Put Up OR Shut Up!.........charge the persons with something! These people are now considered "lepers" however, innocent or guilty they may be! If the police charge you with an offence, they must provide evidence in support of the charge........if not the charge is thrown out! HRNSW now needs to have the resolve to put their cards on the table!

---

Steve

It is a matter of what comes first the chicken or the egg clearly NRNSW do not have sufficient evidence to lay a charge that is why they want the documents to continue the investigation, I am sorry but in my view it would be inappropriate of HRNSW to lay a charge on anyone without the required proof.

Anyway as I said earlier we will just have to agree to disagree Siejka like Byrnes before him has his right of appeal with an independent judge, we will see where that leaves him, shoveling concrete is my tip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Form Student

If I were handing over my personal and private documents, I would want to know who exactly is going to be looking at them, and that a signed confidentiality agreement made as a minimum...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Form Student

When someone becomes a 'registered person", I am sure they don't realise they could be expected to hand over their banking details or phone records at any time!.

---

I agree about the confidentiality agreement I would ask for that too. But regarding registered people handing over phone records.....fair enough if there is no logical industry-related reason......can't just do random checks as if you are everyone's big brother......but if it's as part of an ongoing investigation related to maintaining the integrity of the sport I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for phone records and hit em with a hammer if they don't comply.

I don't think an excuse such as concealing a relationship is enough to warrant not handing over your records.

Although maybe Gillard's Fair Work Australia might have something to say to the contrary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardvark

Ron Coote, I am not a licenced person so I dont have the misfortune of being subject to such draconian rules. If an allegation is levelled against you, you must answer it, other than that licenced persons should not have to be the bait in fishing expeditions by HRNSW or any other authority!

---

No participant has to supply any information if they don't wish to. They are free to hand in their licences if they don't like the rules of the game. They knew the rules when they took out their licence. That applies to everyone, not just Michael Siejka.

Totally agree william

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE&ob=av2n

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE&ob=av2n

---

I'm beginning to be concerned for you VOR...that sort of thing is more in tune with the forum's most frequent/potent?/superfulous? contributor.

C'mon your VOR not JVVV!

gotta laugh!

Cheers,
Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

I'm beginning to be concerned for you VOR...that sort of thing is more in tune with the forum's most frequent/potent?/superfulous? contributor.

C'mon your VOR not JVVV!

gotta laugh!

Cheers,
Dan

---

Jamie has been trying with little success to educate me since I joined the forum ... I wanted to let him think he had at least been able to teach me something .... having said that I bet the words were the sentiment at HRNSW after the board made the decision.

You'll get booked on a 4/12 for knocking off my material.

[QUOTE=little fish;19471]I don't think an excuse such as concealing a relationship is enough to warrant not handing over your records. QUOTE]

It all depends on whether, when you get home your wife or partner is waiting there with a rolling pin in their hand! This was mean't to give some reasons why a person may want to resist handing over their details.......it's personal circumstances for each person!

My only issue is that if the person has not been charged with, or found guilty of an offence, why are they warned off! Yes, de-register them from HRNSW completely, but how do you have the right to refuse them entrance to the course.......and I don't mean allow them access to the birdcage area!

From what I am seeing, given that those involved have not had their cases heard yet.............it seems a fairgone conclusion they will all be either disqualified, banned for life, or warned off!

[QUOTE=The Form Student;19508]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by little fish

I don't think an excuse such as concealing a relationship is enough to warrant not handing over your records. QUOTE]

It all depends on whether, when you get home your wife or partner is waiting there with a rolling pin in their hand! This was mean't to give some reasons why a person may want to resist handing over their details.......it's personal circumstances for each person!

My only issue is that if the person has not been charged with, or found guilty of an offence, why are they warned off! Yes, de-register them from HRNSW completely, but how do you have the right to refuse them entrance to the course.......and I don't mean allow them access to the birdcage area!

From what I am seeing, given that those involved have not had their cases heard yet.............it seems a fairgone conclusion they will all be either disqualified, banned for life, or warned off!

---

Steve

They have been charged with and offence that is the point, the offence being failing to comply here is the rule every licensed person knows it and agrees to abide by it when licensed.

Offences

187. (1) A person who is directed to do so by the Stewards shall attend an inquiry or investigation convened or conducted by them.

(2) A person shall not refuse to answer questions or to produce a horse, document, substance or piece of equipment, or give false or misleading evidence or information at an inquiry or investigation.

(3) A person shall comply with an order or direction given by the Stewards.

(4) A person shall undergo any inspection, examination or test required by the Stewards.

(5) A person shall not abuse, intimidate or be deliberately obstructive of the Stewards.

(6) A person shall not frustrate or endeavour to frustrate an inquiry or investigation.

(7) A person who fails to comply with any provision of this rule is guilty of an offence.

The penalty has nothing to do with the initial investigation.... it is a separate offence and as I and many others have said, if Racing Governing bodies do not use this type of penalty for this type of offence NONE, and I mean NONE of the people involved in any investigation would comply, they would just not comply and go about doing whatever they wanted except train or drive a trotter, I am sorry but your stance on this does not make any sense to me at all.

Given the time frame since they were asked to comply it seems crystal clear to me that these people made an informed decision to not comply, as you said it may be because of unknown personal circumstance...... but it may also be because the documents might just make it look like they were acting corruptly.

How does the saying go "better to shut your mouth and be be thought a fool, then to open it and remove all doubt" perhaps providing the documents will remove all doubt.

Looking for recent updates on Siejka, but couldn't find one. Still searching here though. https://imagicon.info/cat/10-3/smile4.png

Don, I think you have started your search too late - you should have gone back earlier than 2012