Michael Siejka "warned off"

[Triple V]

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

[The Form Student]

[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!

[Thevoiceofreason]

[QUOTE=The Form Student;19508]

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.

[doncht]

Looking for recent updates on Siejka, but couldn't find one. Still searching here though.

[Messenger]

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