G'day Punter!

Sign In Register

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 37 Non Members

How long will this inquiry be adjourned for?

West Australian Racing

Comments

  • darkshinesdarkshines    2,837 posts
    Fastmoney said:

    Precedent set now.

    If trainer is unaware or didn`t authorize their staff`s illegal actions, they have no case to answer.

    Unreal. Don't know much about this case, but this finding clearly opens the stable door for trainers to weasel out of things without anything other than an employee willing to cop the rap

    That cant be good.

    +1 -1
  • FastmoneyFastmoney    4,912 posts
    That`s the defense for the next positive swab.

    The foreman did it.
    +1 -1
  • thefalconthefalcon    20,485 posts
    Eastern State stewards must be just shaking their heads.....
    +1 -1
  • AquanitaAquanita    566 posts
    The same stewards that gave D. Oliver 10 months Falcon?
    +1 -1
  • thefalconthefalcon    20,485 posts
    at least he got 10 months..albeit after the carnival. not the best decision I grant you.
    +1 -1
  • tonytony    2,436 posts
    edited September 2014
    I could well be wrong but I thought the inquiry into the trainer had been adjourned until the matter with the foreman had been finalised.

    Has there been a change to this or is the trainer still to be looked at?
    +1 -1
  • FastmoneyFastmoney    4,912 posts
    http://www.rwwa.com.au/home/gottabeyou-trainer-mr-g-williams-19900.html

    You may be right Tony, this was the last mention of Grant Williams in the inquiry.

    Based on the recent greyhound inquiry, that had a running commentary about the other individuals yet to have their hearings you would have thought the status of the Grant Williams case would have got a mention.
    +1 -1
  • mattmatt    72 posts

    +1 -1
  • RadmanRadman    1,992 posts
    matt said:


    Finally some common sense.

    Thoroly_Bread likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • mattmatt    72 posts
    Gilbride Disq to Feb 2015 today
    +1 -1
  • SuperSnoopSuperSnoop    164 posts
    two group 3s and a listed in the last two weeks. another listed and a group 2 coming up on the weeknd.
    +1 -1
  • thefalconthefalcon    20,485 posts
    i'd say it is dead and buried, ss
    this is where we suffer having no journalists with the guts to ask questions...maybe that's a bit cruel..the poor buggers are on a tight leash.
    imagine this happening over east!!
    +1 -1
  • spinkingspinking    4,001 posts
    you would not need to imagine this happening over east falc it just would not happen over there

    RIO likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • theketaminekidtheketaminekid    479 posts
    it is a curse!!
    +1 -1
  • thefalconthefalcon    20,485 posts
    I don't want anything particular to happen to the trainer.
    just want some sort of acknowledgement from the stewards, even if its along the lines of investigation completed..no charge..or something like that.

    RIO likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    Monday, 10 November, 2014

    MEDIA RELEASE

    Thoroughbred – Stewards Inquiry – GOTTABEYOU (Trainer Mr G Williams)

    RWWA Stewards today resumed the adjourned inquiry involving trainer Mr Grant Williams into the presentation and subsequent withdrawal of GOTTABEYOU from Ascot on 5 March 2014 following a report by the on course veterinarian that an inspection of the mare found it to have a swelling to its near side jugular with traces of blood.

    Stable foreman for Mr Williams, Mr Owen Gilbride had previously been disqualified for nine (9) months for a breach of AR178E relating to the administration of a medication by way of injection to the horse GOTTABEYOU on race day prior to Race 8 at Ascot on Wednesday 5 March 2014, a race in which it was entered to run. Mr Gilbride was also disqualified for six (6) months after pleading guilty to a breach of AR175(g) for giving misleading evidence in relation to this matter.
    All samples taken from the mare on that day have been analysed with no prohibited substances detected.
    After considering all of the evidence, including the additional evidence heard today, the Stewards noted that: The Rules of Racing, and specifically AR178E which states:
    AR.178E.

    (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of AR.178C(2), no person without the permission of the Stewards may administer or cause to be administered any medication to a horse on race day prior to such horse running in a race.
    (2) The Stewards may order the withdrawal from a race engagement any horse that has received medication in contravention of subrule (1) of this rule.

    do not contain any rules of strict and absolute liability directed towards a trainer in relation to a matter involving raceday treatment of a horse. Accordingly the Stewards cannot adopt a ‘strict liability’ or ‘vicarious liability’ approach in the absence of specific rules in this regard. There was an absence of evidence that Mr Williams had either instructed, had knowledge of, or had given his consent to Mr Gilbride in relation to the administration of medication on raceday to the mare. In the absence of the detection of a prohibited substance, which would have attracted the strict and absolute liability provisions of AR178 in relation to the presentation of a racehorse for racing, there was no rule of strict and absolute liability that applied. On the evidence, Mr Williams was not within Western Australia at the relevant times leading up to the race in question, and had taken all reasonable measures with regard to the presentation of his horses in his absence. Accordingly on the evidence, Mr Gilbride had acted independently in his actions on the day in question. That Mr Williams had engaged an authorised senior person, namely a licensed Stable Foreman to attend to his horses during his absence

    Accordingly the Stewards determined to take no further action in relation to Mr Williams, however did reserve the right to revisit the matter should new evidence come to light in future.

    Media Contact: Denis Borovica – General Manager Racing Integrity Ph: 9445 5427 denis.borovica@rwwa.com.au
    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    pathetic...and owners keep horses with him when he allows staff to do whatever to their horses whenever they feel like it???


    +1 -1
  • darkshinesdarkshines    2,837 posts
    Amazing precedent set. Fair dinks.
    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    darkshines said:

    Amazing precedent set. Fair dinks.

    If i was a stable foreman i'd never go to the track with the horses again....trainer only has to say he wasnt aware of anything untoward, and whoever has been with the horse is a goner....

    Anyway, all that aside it has been dealt with...at least that is a positive

    Ridersonthestorm33 likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • thefalconthefalcon    20,485 posts
    well, well well, what a surprise.
    eastern states stewards must be abhord....
    +1 -1
  • thefalconthefalcon    20,485 posts
    (sic)
    +1 -1
  • ArloArlo    122 posts
    Stewards seem quite happy to apply different standards. I know of one low profile trainer who had horses running at two different tracks so another trainer was appointed to saddle up one horse. In doing so this trainer infringed the rules and a $200 fine was imposed, not on the trainer who caused the infringement, but on the trainer who asked him to saddle the horse.
    When asked why this was the case the answer from Stewards was quite clear ie. The hosre is trained under your name, therefore the penalty is yours!
    Compare this to the treatment of G Williams. On two occassions serious penalties are handed out to people handling horses trained under his name and the penalty does not apply to him! Why? Because he wasn't there at the time? Neither was the trainer who was given the $200 fine!
    All trainers should be subject to the same administration of the rules.
    One wonders why someone who apparently has no idea as to what his staff are doing to his horses should be allowed to retain his trainers licence.
    I and many others I know will feel badly let down by the outcome of this inquiry, but not surprised.

    Ridersonthestorm33, RIO, Amyquil, spinking, Tucool, Darkhorse, Chelsea, Carlosa likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • FastmoneyFastmoney    4,912 posts
    Disgrace but no surprise.

    Wonder if the Linda Britton inquiry will go the same way?

    RIO likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • FastmoneyFastmoney    4,912 posts
    Should Williams receive a penalty for repeatedly employing stable foreman who don`t follow the rules of racing?

    Gilgamesh, spinking likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • RIORIO    14,902 posts
    Fastmoney said:

    Should Williams receive a penalty for repeatedly employing stable foreman who don`t follow the rules of racing?

    haha, that would be my angle for taking his license off him..poor management that is bringing the industry in to disrepute.....but we don't work that way here..

    +1 -1
  • thefalconthefalcon    20,485 posts
    indeed we don't rio......I wonder why?
    friends in high places...if that is the case, it's travesty and a bloody disgrace....
    +1 -1
  • thefalconthefalcon    20,485 posts
    I also wonder how dyson and gilbride feel?
    can I guess where they are working, probably at above award wages?

    Amyquil, Carlosa likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • SuperSnoopSuperSnoop    164 posts
    Can someone find the dyson inquiry? Wasn't williams warned then he was responsible for his staff?
    This result is a kick in the teeth for all those playing by the rules.
    The horse was obviously treated so unless someone could fess up to what it was, max penalties should have applied.
    Like to see what happens to the next bloke who uses this defense.
    +1 -1
  • VoodooVoodoo    1,371 posts
    the falcon said:

    I also wonder how dyson and gilbride feel?
    can I guess where they are working, probably at above award wages?

    One would expect so.......


    cheers
    +1 -1
  • FastmoneyFastmoney    4,912 posts
    Super Snoop said:

    Can someone find the dyson inquiry? Wasn't williams warned then he was responsible for his staff?
    This result is a kick in the teeth for all those playing by the rules.
    The horse was obviously treated so unless someone could fess up to what it was, max penalties should have applied.
    Like to see what happens to the next bloke who uses this defense.

    http://www.rwwa.com.au/home/carlton-draught-railway-stakes-withdrawal-of-ranger-18420.html
    +1 -1
Sign In or Register to comment.