Has HRNSW created a problem

The new structure of HRNSW could pose a problem in the future.
Whilst I cast no suggestion of wrong doing, it must be asked who keeps the Stewards in check for their actions.

This role is the domain of the Integity Dept....but now the Chairman of Stewards is the Manager of the Integrity Dept.

Given the actions taken at the MM meeting, should a challenge by someone against the procedures adopted by the stewards on the day be made, who will it be referred to.

At the moment it's the same person as I see it.

What do others think?

Which actions were of concern Bailey that you think someone may make a challenge against adopted procedures.

Greg, no actions as such. As I said SHOULD now or in the future someone object or claim a misuse of power, could this affect the Intregity Dept.

Given the actions taken at the MM meeting, [/QUOTE]

As this is a quote from you Bailey, what actions are you talking about.
Generally speaking it is not just a problem for HRNSW. When you have a system where the stewards assume the role of policeman and judge all the states and HRA are surely in the same boat IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

Given the actions taken at the MM meeting,

As this is a quote from you Bailey, what actions are you talking about.
Generally speaking it is not just a problem for HRNSW. When you have a system where the stewards assume the role of policeman and judge all the states and HRA are surely in the same boat IMO.[/QUOTE]

Teecee, you have already put me under a warning from a deleted thread and I was attempting to be general in my comments.
Read the article on Harnesslink http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=105339 and you may understand when I say "Given the actions taken at the MM meeting, should a challenge by someone against the procedures adopted by the stewards on the day be made, who will it be referred to."

Added to this the vision on In the Gig of the stewards room anger displayed( I assume you saw it in NZ) give rise to my comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by p plater

As this is a quote from you Bailey, what actions are you talking about.
Generally speaking it is not just a problem for HRNSW. When you have a system where the stewards assume the role of policeman and judge all the states and HRA are surely in the same boat IMO.

Teecee, you have already put me under a warning from a deleted thread and I was attempting to be general in my comments.
Read the article on Harnesslink http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=105339 and you may understand when I say "Given the actions taken at the MM meeting, should a challenge by someone against the procedures adopted by the stewards on the day be made, who will it be referred to."

Added to this the vision on In the Gig of the stewards room anger displayed( I assume you saw it in NZ) give rise to my comment.[/QUOTE]

Having read the article you posted from Harnesslink I can only conclude the following...
The security guard has carried out his job as required. IMO
The stewards have acted in an appropriate manner in regard to their responsibilities to police the rules. IMO
The apparent evidence suggests quite strongly a breach of the rules of harness racing by the trainer. This view is supported by the report that the trainer admitted syringing the horse on race morning with the defence of ignorance of the rule......No defence IMO.
This is a case with striking similarity to one in NZ a few years ago....
With no relevance to any subsequent events Mr Barry Lew was fined $1500 when a security guard reported to stewards the administration of an unknown substance to Karloo Mick on the morning of the NZ Cup in which he was to compete. The substance was recovered and tested prior to the Cup and on analysis found to not be a prohibited substance so the horse was permitted to start. Even so the trainer had breached the rules.
In that case AUS trainer breached NZ rules.
In this case AUS trainer breaches AUS rules...claims ignorance as a defence.

In the Gig plays in NZ Tuesday evening so I look forward to the hearing footage.

Bailey my reply is an opinion based on the info published in the article you have quoted.
You also are free to offer opinion based on a published article. Members are encouraged to base their views on a consideration of published or verified information. You should know that the warning you and your fellow poster received was based on your unfounded comment about the personal physical attributes of another person. Your comment was considered insulting to other members and thus drew the warning. Others have previously been banned for similar or less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

Given the actions taken at the MM meeting,

As this is a quote from you Bailey, what actions are you talking about.
Generally speaking it is not just a problem for HRNSW. When you have a system where the stewards assume the role of policeman and judge all the states and HRA are surely in the same boat IMO.[/QUOTE]

Teecee, do I take it you would not have a problem with Mike Godbar also being your Chairman of stewards

Quote:

Originally Posted by p plater

As this is a quote from you Bailey, what actions are you talking about.
Generally speaking it is not just a problem for HRNSW. When you have a system where the stewards assume the role of policeman and judge all the states and HRA are surely in the same boat IMO.

Teecee, do I take it you would not have a problem with Mike Godbar also being your Chairman of stewards[/QUOTE]

If Mike Godber was a trained steward at a senior level charged with policing the rules as per the current chief stipes (and C George prior) then I would be ok for him to be Chairman of Stewards. Currently he holds an administrative position only as CEO charged with the day to day administrative running of the RIU. Accordingly is not any part of the stewards panel so currently I would have a problem with your proposal.
There is no comparison between Mike Godber and Reid Sanders. The comparables are....

Mike Godber CEO for RIU. comparable to Sam Nati CEO HRNSW. They are CEO for relevant governing body.
McIntyre and Neal joint Chairman of stewards comparable to Reid Sanders Chairman of Stewards. They are comparable Roles in policing the rules.

Teecee, what p plater is lending toward is if Paul O'Toole was Chairman of Stewards and therefore the Chairman of the Integrity Board, there could be a gross conflict of interest. If you don't see that as a possible problem then you keep on flailing along in Cuckoo Land. Because p plater has highlighted a possible hyperthetical scenario, you put him under threat of another innuendo or defamatory comment. You're becoming a whistle happy referee. I'm guessing I'm looking at another yellow card if not a red one

I'll wait to hear from Bailey on what HE is trying to highlight. He has put forward some reading relevant to the issue which is about the Hearing of issues by the stewards in regard to trainer breaking the rules of racing along with reference to video footage of the raceday hearing. I totally fail to see any connection to this issue with that of a disgraced former steward.

From my perspective the chairman of stewards should be the chairman of Integrity board whether it be Reid Sanders or an honest and forthright Paul O'Toole or Joe Bloggs for that matter. Sounds like they both are empowered to do the same job. Be responsible and lead the integrity unit policing the rules made by HRNSW. (the governance body who formulate those rules.)

How you can put Sanders and O'Toole in a comparative table is difficult to fathom.
FYI Diablo, while your efforts lately do put you clearly in the domain of a RED card there is no such threat... (your term)...emanating from Bailey's contribution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

I'll wait to hear from Bailey on what HE is trying to highlight. He has put forward some reading relevant to the issue which is about the Hearing of issues by the stewards in regard to trainer breaking the rules of racing along with reference to video footage of the raceday hearing. I totally fail to see any connection to this issue with that of a disgraced former steward.

FYI Diablo, while your efforts lately do put you clearly in the domain of a RED card there is no such threat... (your term)...emanating from Bailey's contribution.

So, you're not as thin skinned as I thought. My bad.

I started this thread called "
Has HRNSW created a problem

My opening sentence was " The new structure of HRNSW could pose a problem in the future."

The rest was created by the question from Greg "Which actions were of concern"

The appointment of one person to head both departments is to me the Danger for HRNSW.

Okay.. If I read the starter to this thread correctly the question is whether stewards are a law unto themselves or who polices the stewards. Apologies Bailey if this is not so.
My guess is that if someone is unhappy with procedures or decisions taken by the stewards on raceday there are options open to them.
..Lodge an appeal with the appeal authority against the stewards decision if their procedures or decision is contrary to the rules they are tasked to police.
.. Lodge a grievance with the governing body against the actions of the stewards as being against the rules. (Stewards are after all employees of the governing body.)

I would expect that the Integrity unit is a unit within the business structure of the governing body. As such its responsibility is managing integrity issues and accordingly its manager is chairman of stewards. Under both titles he is responsible for the workings of the unit to the board of directors via the CEO. That is to say that he monitors the actions of his stewards and investigators whilst his actions are monitored by his superiors... Board via CEO.

I reckon some of you blokes should take a cold shower......the original question that started this thread has been lost entirely in a muddled mess.

From my personal perspective I think Bailey's original question has merit, "Chairman of Stewards" and "Integrity Manager" are IMO, two entirely different beasts, and I for one ( as a licenced participant in the relevant State) thought when the integrity position was announced that it was an excellent, overdue, move.

cheers,
Dan

Teecee, I cannot accept that a CEO or for that matter the Board can monitor the actions of the Intregrity or Stewards Dept other than in general terms.

As you pointed out earlier re Mike Godber, they are not trained for the job.

Surely an independent Intregrity Manager is desired for all concerned. I would hate to see in the future a power laden person with the attitude of " I make the rulings and if you don't like it, make an appointment to see ME later to lodge a complaint about ME or my team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by p plater

Teecee, I cannot accept that a CEO or for that matter the Board can monitor the actions of the Intregrity or Stewards Dept other than in general terms.

As you pointed out earlier re Mike Godber, they are not trained for the job.

Surely an independent Intregrity Manager is desired for all concerned. I would hate to see in the future a power laden person with the attitude of " I make the rulings and if you don't like it, make an appointment to see ME later to lodge a complaint about ME or my team.

Isn't that the job of the CEO.
It's levels of management and to have another level.... is that really necessary if those that are there already are doing their job. It may just be in the title that the integrity manager is purely an admin person.
I guess after watching the disgraceful performance in the Menangle stewards room on Sunday via a bit of sensationalistic journalism... ( I don't know why they showed it other than perhaps to highlight another pitiful aspect of the industry)..I guess the chairman of stewards has enough on his plate already.

What do you see as the role of Chairman of Stewards?
What do you see as the role of Integrity Manager?
How do they differ in your opinion?
Where does each fit in the line of command with the governing body?

Ok here goes, I'm am not a driver or trainer nor have I ever been. So from my looking in at the sport point of view I would expect something like:

Chairman of stewards: Stewards Top man on race days who controls the meeting
HRNSW Chairman of stewards: Top man at Head Office with control and placement of all stewards statewide. Active at race meetings.

HRNSW Intregrity Manager: Oversees the correct operation of the stewards role and performance. Plans and controls swabbing procedures and all areas deemed to adversely affect the Industry, including evidence gathering etc as required. He would at the direction of the CEO investigate any complaint about the stewards conduct or performance. Once compiled, this would allow the CEO to refer it to the Intregrity Auditor (Lawyer)

CEO has overall control and directs all departments. Each Manager to report to CEO
The Intregrity Manager would advise and direct the Chairman of stewards on the procedures needed re swabbing and stable visits in line with any intel that may have been gathered in his departments activities.

Imagine if the dual roles had been in force at the time of the current ongoing scandal being uncovered.

Bailey, I would say that the model you have demonstrated would be in line with expectation......One thing I will add is I do believe that the current Integrity Manager (Mr Sanders) operates with integrity as his foremost priority and in no way did I take that you inferred anything other when you posed the original question. Not all outcomes will please all parties, either side of the coin, but our sport needs integrity and I think in the main is making inroads....

Fred, I believe Mr Sanders handling of the troubled times was 1st class and applauded by most as a good communicator of HRNSW's position. To burden him with another position which for as long as I have had an interest in the sport, has been a full time, great pressure position as Chairman of Stewards is not a wise move.

You are correct in saying " I think in the main is making inroads...." that's spot on.........but don't burn the bloke out.

Maybe the talent available for the Chairman of Stewards position is at a low at the moment.

Just my thoughts......thanks for yours.

Bailey, you have made perfectly good sense to me throughout this thread. I didn't see any comments (removed or not) that were putting any question marks over the credibility of Reid Sanders to carry out his role and his ability to do so were never in question.

There is no doubt that the two positions should be completely separate. Your comment #18 encapsulates to a T just why the roles should be separate.

Wonder if this was just an exercise in cost cutting at the expense of the Integrity Unit? This sport could well do without that.

Teecee to answer your comment at #16 re the showing of the stewards room action on In the Gig, I think you will find that it was mentioned prior to it being shown that the Chairman of Stewards approved it to be aired.

It gave the general public an insight into the pressure a steward endures when a trainer/driver passionately disagrees with a ruling. Be it right or wrong I am sure we have all been in a similar frustrating position in our lives, all be it in different fields.

Just for further discussion, can anyone tell me why an appointed HRNSW security guard when told by the trainer what he was about to do, make a call to his boss or some other appointed official to advise them. Given the time of day this could have allowed the emergency to get a run if it was an automatic scratching offence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by p plater

Teecee to answer your comment at #16 re the showing of the stewards room action on In the Gig, I think you will find that it was mentioned prior to it being shown that the Chairman of Stewards approved it to be aired.

It gave the general public an insight into the pressure a steward endures when a trainer/driver passionately disagrees with a ruling. Be it right or wrong I am sure we have all been in a similar frustrating position in our lives, all be it in different fields.

Just for further discussion, can anyone tell me why an appointed HRNSW security guard when told by the trainer what he was about to do, make a call to his boss or some other appointed official to advise them. Given the time of day this could have allowed the emergency to get a run if it was an automatic scratching offence.

Not sure how cluey the security guards are though, probably wouldn't haven't known? There job seems to be just keep an eye on things and write it all down.

As for your original intentions in posting, I'm inclined to agree that it 'could' be a problem. If HRNSW were look at risk controls that would be an area you'd have to look at.