HRV Integrity Lacking

[Showgrounds]

I draw your attention to the last item in the attached stewards which was sneakily placed on the harness racing website on a Saturday. Note the inquiry started six months ago during the first COVID lockdown and has only just been concluded. HRV is big on banging the drum about its integrity; you would think this inquiry was chaired by Daniel Andrews. It has more holes in it than a crumpet. It seems it is now ok to forget to inform the stewards that you actually train your horse sure you work, the Stewart / Tonkin stables at Cardigan, not at your residence in Delacombe. Honest mistake, fair enough perhaps. But now it is ok to use all their gear, silkies, harness and, presumably, feed.

The horse in question Jay Jay Shady had one once and been placed twice in 21 starts. Clearly, not a star. Look deeper and you see it's win came courtesy of the winner being disqualified! The horse was acquired by a trainer that I've never heard of named Gerard Jamieson. Then again, I'm sure he's never heard of me. I ask the question, how many people knew that this pacing cockroach was being stabled with Ride High and its mates and, almost certainly, being worked with them as the trainer admitted, and possibly fed, worked and possibly treated like them? Who was in the know? Certainly not the average punters.

Now, how bloody thick are the stewards? Yeah, the stable return was wrong. No penalty for that, unlike the fines that get dished out if your treatment log book isn't up to date. But then they say they could find no concerns with getting data! God help us! The horse started at $2.70 second favourite and rated a very tidy 1:55.8 in a restricted race after finishing ninth and seventh at its previous two starts! Chief steward Frank Drebin says, "move along, nothing to see here!" Even the driver works for the Stewart / Tonkin crew so it is fair to assume the broader stable cleaned up.

In its two previous starts Jay Jay Shady started at $17.50 beaten 51.7 metres and $7.50 beaten 16.5 metres. No questioning the improved performance because the trainer forgot to say where the horse was really being trained. I guess one of the stewards stood in a COVID deserted betting ring to surmise the horse had not been punters

I ask the following question, why would any seemingly sane person invest a further dollar in the Victorian trots industry when this level of "integrity" is deemed acceptable?

[URL="www.harness.org.au/media-room/news-article/?news_id=45114"]http://https://www.harness.org.au/me...?news_id=45114

[Messenger]

The link Trevor refers to in his post is

https://www.harness.org.au/media-roo...?news_id=45114

I have moved this into its own thread (from Stewards News 2) as it demands attention

The above Supplementary report says

there was no evidence that any of the relevant parties had attempted to falsify or conceal any information so as to intentionally mislead HRV Stewards or the wagering public.

The initial Stewards Report says

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/st...l/?mc=CH290320

Stewards identified that the current stable return for Jay Jay Shady reflected the mare to be trained at Delacombe whereas the Stewart/Tonkin training establishment is located at Cardigan and when questioned Mr Jamieson advised it was an oversight on his part by not correctly notifying officials of this change

It is a huge bloody 'oversight'
From now on the number one defense for any misdemeanor should be "it was an oversight"

As Trevor points out "What about the punter?"

Isn't it the stewards job to protect the punter and punish 'oversights'

[gutwagon]

This type of result just adds to the "not a level playing field" feeling that I and 99% of the industry people that I speak to have. Is it just my imagination that this stable gets a pretty good deal from the stewards ? Must be !

[Messenger]

At least this inquiry was detailed in a Supplementary Report
Unlike a couple of poor behaviour reports that were tacked onto the latest Shep Stewards Report
I can remember being told some years ago that this would not happen and that the result of adjourned inquiries would always be found in a Supplementary Report or as a separate self titled report - as it should be

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/st...l/?mc=SP300920

Attaching non related reports to another meeting gives the appearance of hiding

ps I can understand David Miles frustration at the farrier

[NearBill]

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/stewards-reports/stewards-reports-detail/?mc=SP300920 https://anabolicmuscles.com/

Attaching non related reports to another meeting gives the appearance of hiding

ps I can understand David Miles frustration at the farrier

thanks a lot for reports share. found them really interesting.
ps, i can understand it too.