Glenn Douglas

As many would know by now Glenn Douglas has been given a 6 month driving suspension and a $5000 fine for an incident at Mildura.

Now I'm not here to discuss the wrongs and rights of the incident or the length/cost of punishments. However, if others want to do this feel free to do so.

What I am here to discuss is the application of the rule and type of punishment by stewards.
Ok yes Douglas happened to be driving at the time, but the assault rule 231(1) is a general rule.
http://www.harness.org.au/rules/rules.htm You can see the difference between driving offences (sectional times, whip use etc) and general offences (assault, corruption etc).

So for driving offences you get driving suspensions. For general offences I'd have though you get general penatlies, eg abolishment from race tracks. Similar to Greg Bennett and Cameron Fitzpatrick, yes they were drivers but the rules they (are alleged to have?) broke weren't driving offences hence they were abolished from tracks. I am sure there have been other examples, even specific examples with rule 231(1) where punishment has been a general ban rather than a driving ban.
If I am at the traffic lights and lean out the window and punch the guy next to me do I get demerit points taken off me or do I get charged with assault?

Am I mad for suggesting this? Or do others agree with me.

231-(2) A person shall not misconduct himself in any way.
I think this part of the rule has been enforced as well

Breno,

I completely agree with you. G Douglas very lucky.

Mitch.

I would think this is very consistent with the penalties issued by Harness racing Victoria.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tangles

I would think this is very consistent with the penalties issued by Harness racing Victoria.

Not by any stretch of the imagination am I saying you are wrong...but can if this is consistent with other penalties can you please show me where a licenced person breaking rule 231 (1) or any other 'general rules' (as the heading goes on HRA Rules) has had a drivers licence suspended rather than other penalties.

It seems odd to me. If I'm wrong I'm happy to wear that and to have learned something, but it seems strange to me that they suspend a drivers licence for this kind of stuff. That he was in a sulky at the time should have no relevance, he could have been shovelling shit or anything and it wasn't a driving offence.

- Breno I have been done aswell ( but i got done for Inexceptable Whip Use ) .... & i mean i pleaded my case to the Stewards , and i was like " well Sir, what am i sopose to do let other Runner's run past me ..... ? & i mean this horse i was Driving didn't like going passed Horses.

When I first read your post saying he had been disqualified I thought that the penalty was in keeping with the charge and the circumstances of the incident as I had read it.
then I went to the website to read the media release of the hearing and note that it was only a suspension of his driving licence.

Now I see where you are coming from.
IMO the penalty is not in keeping with the charge or the circumstances of the incident.
I agree that the incident hardly qualifies as a race driving breach but rather one of general (as you say) or common assault. As such a tougher penalty is normally warranted.
A disqualification would I suspect be normal warrant for such activity....

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

When I first read your post saying he had been disqualified I thought that the penalty was in keeping with the charge and the circumstances of the incident as I had read it.
then I went to the website to read the media release of the hearing and note that it was only a suspension of his driving licence.

Now I see where you are coming from.
IMO the penalty is not in keeping with the charge or the circumstances of the incident.
I agree that the incident hardly qualifies as a race driving breach but rather one of general (as you say) or common assault. As such a tougher penalty is normally warranted.
A disqualification would I suspect be normal warrant for such activity....

Oops now edited that to driving suspension.

Glen is mainly the trainer, Daryl is the driver so this penalty is a joke. IMO the horses will go better without him in the cart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gutwagon

Glen is mainly the trainer, Daryl is the driver so this penalty is a joke. IMO the horses will go better without him in the cart.

Hrv obviously are aware of all issues.

I may well have the whole set up wrong but my understanding of the Integrity Set up in Victoria is that the RAD Board hear this type of serious case.

The stewards lay a charge and the RAD board decides on guilt and penalty so it is not a matter for the stewards as mentioned in the first post.

For the record my opinion is whilst this incident happened on the racetrack it is not a driving offence and should not have been penalised as one.

For years we have been told that the Australian System of stewarding is unfair because they are investigator, judge and jury, it is findings like this that make you realise just how good the system is.

Blame who you will but do not blame the stewards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

I may well have the whole set up wrong but my understanding of the Integrity Set up in Victoria is that the RAD Board hear this type of serious case.

The stewards lay a charge and the RAD board decides on guilt and penalty so it is not a matter for the stewards as mentioned in the first post.

For the record my opinion is whilst this incident happened on the racetrack it is not a driving offence and should not have been penalised as one.

For years we have been told that the Australian System of stewarding is unfair because they are investigator, judge and jury, it is findings like this that make you realise just how good the system is.

Blame who you will but do not blame the stewards.

Well RAD board. The crux of my post wasn't to lay blame upon somebody rather just point out what I think is the wrong treatment - which you seem to agree with. I actually searched the RAD board website during the week but couldn't find any precedent, there was a 231(2) but only a fine was applied and was I guess you could say less serious.

Edit: And this must also confirm you are a steward Bill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Well RAD board. The crux of my post wasn't to lay blame upon somebody rather just point out what I think is the wrong treatment - which you seem to agree with. I actually searched the RAD board website during the week but couldn't find any precedent, there was a 231(2) but only a fine was applied and was I guess you could say less serious.

Edit: And this must also confirm you are a steward Bill.

No what it confirms is that I have made a study of integrity based issues across both codes for some years and believe the stewards are often blamed for other floors in the system, to be honest I do not think I would cop the crap for the wages on offer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

No what it confirms is that I have made a study of integrity based issues

Which is why I respect that you agree with the crux and reason of my post, the application of the punishment was wrong :)

I agree 100% the penalty is a joke, to be honest I am glad I am not a steward with HRV I would be pretty disillusioned.

I think Mitch, Gutwagon, Brenno and Bill are all on the money. The RAD (Racing and Disciplinary Board) have made a mockery of the stewards decision. Shane Wonson and Luke McCarthy should try to have their appeals heard by this mob across the border, they could appeal on the grounds of whatever fairytale they come up with and stand a very good chance of getting the original decision varied!!!

I don't think I am drawing too long a bow, but how about this scenario. Nick D'Arcy assaults Simon Cowley in a bar, not in a pool. The AOC take the action of terminating D'Arcy from the 2008 Australian Olympic Team, not on the grounds of the criminal proceedings, but on the grounds of the standards set by past and present Olympians and in the eyes of the Australian public, the obligation to protect that reputation...(see paragraph 18 of the attached link of the appeal by D'Arcy that failed). http://www.cnarb.com/2008wd/cas2008/...20internet.pdf

Now that was a decision about credibility. Putting the sport above the star. Brave stand indeed, that was confirmed by the tribunal.

What the RAD have done is given the sport of harness racing in Victoria one big black eye and Glenn a guilt edged 'Get out of jail free card'.

A disgraceful, hollow decision that in essence condones assault within the industry. The only thing the RAD stands for in this instance is the radical way it has applied the rules. Victoria are a long way behind NSW in the integrity stakes if these are the sort of decisions being handed down.

Bill, I would not want to be a steward either, sometimes its hard to believe they are watching the same race that I am, especially the bush boys, but I can say without fear or favour that I have a heck of a lot more confidence in them now (in NSW) than 6 months ago.

If the Douglas decision is puzzling how about this one>>>??
http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=18441

Isn't it the job of the stewards to determine the charge and the appeal judge to determine the value of their case.
If they meet the standard then a guilty verdict is delivered / appeal dismissed. If not, then a not guilty verdict is delivered / appeal upheld.
Surely it is inappropriate for the appeal judge to substitute a charge laid by the stewards to one he feels more appropriate or able to uphold.

In this particular case a charge of not keeping your horse straight in the final stretch,(misdemeanour standard) to me seems to me a pretty long bow to one of
not giving your horse the best chance in a race (Abridged fm not driving your horse on its merits) (a serious racing offence).