Emma Stewart Stay Continues. Makes legal sense.

[Chief Stipe]

 

 

21 December 2023

DECISION

HARNESS RACING VICTORIA

and

EMMA STEWART

Date of hearing: 8 December 2023

 

Panel: Judge John Bowman (Chairperson).    

 

Appearances: Mr Adrian Anderson instructed by Mr Andrew Cusumano appeared on behalf of the Stewards.

 Mr Damien Sheales instructed by Mr Peter Morris represented Ms Emma Stewart.     

  

Charge: Australian Harness Racing Rule (“AHRR”) 196B(1) states:

 

(1) A person shall not without the permission of the Stewards within one (1) clear day of the commencement of a race administer, attempt to administer or cause to be administered an injection to a horse nominated for that race. 

 

Particulars: Charge 1 AHRR 196B (1) 

 

That as the licensed trainer of SHOW ME HEAVEN engaged in Race 3 at the Maryborough Harness Racing meeting on Sunday 17 September 2023, that on Saturday 16 September 2023, within one (1) clear day of the commencement of that race, you attempted to administer an injection to that horse, by way of an intravenous drip. 

 

Charge 2 AHRR 196 (B)(1) 

 

That as the licensed trainer of ACT NOW engaged in Race 7 at the Maryborough Harness Racing meeting on Sunday 17 September 2023, that on Saturday 16 September 2023, within one (1) clear day of the commencement of that race, you administered an injection to that horse, by way of an intravenous drip. 

 

Charge 3 AHRR 190 (B)(1) 

 

That as a licensed trainer between the calendar year of 2022 and 21 September 2023, you failed to thoroughly maintain a logbook, listing and recording all details of treatments administered to horses in your care.

 

 Plea: Guilty

 

 

 

DECISION – STAY APPLICATION 

In this matter, which came on at very short notice, Ms Emma Stewart is seeking a stay in relation to the operation of two concurrent periods of disqualification, each being of six months. They relate to the alleged breaches of AHRR 190B(1), which could be summarised as being administration offences.

 

The Charges arise from a Stewards’ inspection of Ms Stewart’s stables on 16 September 2023. When the Stewards arrived, two horses, Show Me Heaven and Act Now, were in the process of being administered a drip. Each was engaged to run at Maryborough the following day. For the purposes of the present application, there is no dispute concerning the administration being within 24 hours of the horses competing. 

 

The Stewards charged Ms Stewart with the offences pursuant to AHRR 190B(1). She has pleaded guilty to the offences. As stated, concurrent periods of six month disqualifications were imposed. These would become operative virtually immediately. At least at this stage, she is still pleading guilty, but is contesting the severity of the penalty. One result of the penalty is that some 150 horses would need to be moved from her stables, apart from other consequences. Thus, she is seeking a stay of the operation of the penalties. 

 

Mr Adrian Anderson of counsel appeared on behalf of the Stewards. Mr Damien Sheales of counsel appeared on behalf of Ms Stewart.  

 

I say now that I prefer the submission advanced by Mr Sheales. This is a matter which, even at this crowded time of the year, could hopefully have been dealt with promptly. However, the Stewards are today asserting that the drips or drench contained a substance, which, whilst not enhancing or detracting from performance, in this case is nevertheless something that should be taken into account. In my view, the introduction of this factor, over and above the other relevant considerations, leads to my conclusion. 

 

This factor obviously requires consideration and attention from counsel.

 

Further, the possible gravity of the Charges as such appears to be of a magnitude that could result in a penalty varying all the way from a fine to a disqualification.

 

The matter can be listed at comparatively short notice. However, apart from anything else, the assertion that the existence of an allegedly illegal and performance affecting substance is to be considered raises various considerations which may well require further investigation. 

 

Further, the impact of the immediate operation of the finding of disqualification seems to me to be of a magnitude that far outweighs the argument advanced on behalf of the Stewards.

 

This matter, now not simple but urgent, has its complications. Further reasons may or may not be added to this Ruling after I have had the opportunity of further consideration, but I can assure all concerned that the conclusion will remain the same.

 

A stay is granted. I shall hear counsel as to the wording to be adopted. 

 

ORDERS

 

1. The Stay Application is granted.

 

2. The appeal is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

 

3. Liberty to apply is reserved.

 

4. A directions hearing has been set down as follows:

 

DIRECTIONS HEARING

 

DATE: Monday, 29 January 2024

START TIME: 9.30 AM

VENUE: Audio link (Microsoft Teams)

VRT PANEL: Judge John Bowman (Chairperson)  

 

 

 

Mark Howard

Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

 

 

 

[Chief Stipe]

Looks likely in the absence of any performance enhancing drugs that the penalty will be reduced to a fine.

The Horses won't need to be moved.  I imagine they would have grounds to have appealed stopping of the transfer from Stewart to Tomkin as well.

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Looks likely in the absence of any performance enhancing drugs that the penalty will be reduced to a fine.

The Horses won't need to be moved.  I imagine they would have grounds to have appealed stopping of the transfer from Stewart to Tomkin as well.

I can never understand that you think people knowingly break the raceday treatment rules,believeing they are not helping performance. That she has risked her livelihood and reputation,when believing she was gaining no advantage from such actions.

I mean,surely no one thinks anyone even exists that is that thick.

[the galah]

23 minutes ago, the galah said:

I can never understand that you think people knowingly break the raceday treatment rules,believeing they are not helping performance. That she has risked her livelihood and reputation,when believing she was gaining no advantage from such actions.

I mean,surely no one thinks anyone even exists that is that thick.

What i'm saying is the content of the drip is a red herring.

The focus should and is on the raceday treatment

People who take chances and get caught just have to deal with it. They have knowingly done something with possible consequences.I can understand her trying to get as light a sentence as possible. Makes sense to me if i was her.Same priciple as the raceday treatment. Doing something that helps her. Just one is legal and reasonable and the other isn't.

Edited December 22, 2023 by the galah

[Gammalite]

1 hour ago, the galah said:

What i'm saying is the content of the drip is a red herring.

The focus should and is on the raceday treatment

Well it is part of the equation. A drip is part of the hydration process used very commonly , to keep blood volume up and blood circulation at a premium level. used in a gazzilion medical /surgical procedures with people and pets everyday....So are you calling the horses breakfast and water trough a treatment too. ? maybe you should. there can be 'plenty' of stuff in the tucker. ask the Dunn's when they go to Nelson. 

I think the whole thing is so trivial it makes me laugh. Just Take blood samples and Urine samples . Now you have 'Therapeutic Evidence ' of whats in the horses . Anything above limits and banned substances ? then apply the full Penalty and stick to it. 

If stewards want to jump out of trees with binoculars (syringes and urine sample pots) and take the samples One Day out from a horses race that week , then so Be it .  Easier just to do it at the races like normal though. Cheats will get caught. as they should test at RANDOM any race participant , to keep them honest. (i.e Not just the race winners) 

[the galah]

3 hours ago, Gammalite said:

Well it is part of the equation. A drip is part of the hydration process used very commonly , to keep blood volume up and blood circulation at a premium level. used in a gazzilion medical /surgical procedures with people and pets everyday....So are you calling the horses breakfast and water trough a treatment too. ? maybe you should. there can be 'plenty' of stuff in the tucker. ask the Dunn's when they go to Nelson. 

I think the whole thing is so trivial it makes me laugh. Just Take blood samples and Urine samples . Now you have 'Therapeutic Evidence ' of whats in the horses . Anything above limits and banned substances ? then apply the full Penalty and stick to it. 

If stewards want to jump out of trees with binoculars (syringes and urine sample pots) and take the samples One Day out from a horses race that week , then so Be it .  Easier just to do it at the races like normal though. Cheats will get caught. as they should test at RANDOM any race participant , to keep them honest. (i.e Not just the race winners) 

So you seem to have just said your advocating no rules for raceday treatment.  

Does that mean your happy for anyone to turn up to the races with their pre mix of hartmans solution and a bucket and tube.  Or do you think they should do that in the float or at the stables before they come?Wouldn't want to create the wrong impression.

Nothing illegal in my milkshake,just take a blood or urine sample and i'll prove it.

Thats funny as,but seriously i think your advocating something that would kill the sport off quicker than happens in a knife fight in a phone booth.

Also you seem to have just said that if someone is using performance enhancers then you have every confidence that anything illegal will get picked up in testing.I know the chief says that,but surely your not being serious when you say that. 

Why can't people just play by the rules of fair play. Is that too much to ask?

Edited December 23, 2023 by the galah

[Gammalite]

21 minutes ago, the galah said:

So you seem to have just said your advocating no rules for raceday treatment.  

Does that mean your happy for anyone to turn up to the races with their pre mix of hartmans solution and a bucket and tube.  Or do you think they should do that in the float or at the stables before they come?Wouldn't want to create the wrong impression.

Nothing illegal in my milkshake,just take a blood or urine sample and i'll prove it.

Thats funny as,but seriously i think your advocating something that would kill the sport off quicker than happens in a knife fight in a phone booth.

Also you seem to have just said that if someone is using performance enhancers then you have every confidence that anything illegal will get picked up in testing.I know the chief says that,but surely your not being serious when you say that. 

Why can't people just play by the rules of fair play. Is that too much to ask?

No the sport won't be killed off by testing.

You used to give Milkshakes iddeally one hour before post time at one stage. 

Sure. Why wouldn't/ shouldn't we rely on testing to catch the horses exceeding the limits ? Thats what they're there for and they know what to look for . (unless it's Alford 😂)

Sure. people have been giving things on race day since racing ever began mate. On horse floats , In the wash bay when they arrive , but usually at home before they go, all sorts of places.

It just seems you are being Very Pedantic about the 'Time of administration ' down to the nearest minute ? I couldn't be bothered with that if I was a steward. especially the day before 😁

Just Swab em and Bust em that way, is my preferred . This sneaking around stable Spying and that,  is a 'Bit Much' 🙄 I reckon. Seems invasion of privacy IMO. people on their own properties should have privacy same as everyone else that doesn't have horses. (IMO) 

30 minutes ago, the galah said:

Why can't people just play by the rules of fair play. Is that too much to ask?

It Sure Is ..every day people are tested and caught drink driving for example. they're Not playing by the rules , nor trying to Win Stakemoney for a living either. It's amazing what some do when a quid is involved in racing 😆💰😋..

[the galah]

55 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

No the sport won't be killed off by testing.

You used to give Milkshakes iddeally one hour before post time at one stage. 

Sure. Why wouldn't/ shouldn't we rely on testing to catch the horses exceeding the limits ? Thats what they're there for and they know what to look for . (unless it's Alford 😂)

Sure. people have been giving things on race day since racing ever began mate. On horse floats , In the wash bay when they arrive , but usually at home before they go, all sorts of places.

It just seems you are being Very Pedantic about the 'Time of administration ' down to the nearest minute ? I couldn't be bothered with that if I was a steward. especially the day before 😁

Just Swab em and Bust em that way, is my preferred . This sneaking around stable Spying and that,  is a 'Bit Much' 🙄 I reckon. Seems invasion of privacy IMO. people on their own properties should have privacy same as everyone else that doesn't have horses. (IMO) 

It Sure Is ..every day people are tested and caught drink driving for example. they're Not playing by the rules , nor trying to Win Stakemoney for a living either. It's amazing what some do when a quid is involved in racing 😆💰😋..

A recent example of why your suggestion of relying solely on testing is a failed approach are the New york/usa cases that i have posted multiple times about.

All those people(29) either pleaded guilty or were found gulity and jailed for years and stripped of their assets. 

yet none were picked up in testing.

The chief would say,well they were all just mugs who thought they were buying performance enhancers,but because they didn't return positives they were unkowingly being sold snake oil.

testing is a tool,but as those that investigated the new york cases said,its the boots on the ground that is the best tool to catch people who act dishonestly.

thats just reality.

Edited December 23, 2023 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

7 hours ago, the galah said:

I can never understand that you think people knowingly break the raceday treatment rules,believeing they are not helping performance. That she has risked her livelihood and reputation,when believing she was gaining no advantage from such actions.

I mean,surely no one thinks anyone even exists that is that thick.

She was rehydrating the horse.  

[Chief Stipe]

7 hours ago, the galah said:

People who take chances and get caught just have to deal with it. They have knowingly done something with possible consequences.I can understand her trying to get as light a sentence as possible.

That's the point.  She has accepted she did wrong by pleading guilty.  She is appealing the sentence.  The decision from the Tribunal infers that a fine would be appropriate rather than a 6 month suspension.  

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, the galah said:

So you seem to have just said your advocating no rules for raceday treatment.  

Under NZ rules you could apply to the Stipes and get veterinary approval to administer the solution that Stewart did.  In the best interests of the the horse.

All the top trainers are doing the same thing.  Stewart's timing was out just as Mark Walkers was in a recent case.  In the latter it was only found out some time after the horse had run.   Walker got a fine.  So should Stewart.

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, the galah said:

Also you seem to have just said that if someone is using performance enhancers then you have every confidence that anything illegal will get picked up in testing.I know the chief says that,but surely your not being serious when you say that. 

Why wouldn't it be found in testing?  @Gammalite probably agrees.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, the galah said:

A recent example of why your suggestion of relying solely on testing is a failed approach are the New york/usa cases that i have posted multiple times about.

All those people(29) either pleaded guilty or were found gulity and jailed for years and stripped of their assets. 

yet none were picked up in testing.

The chief would say,well they were all just mugs who thought they were buying performance enhancers,but because they didn't return positives they were unkowingly being sold snake oil.

testing is a tool,but as those that investigated the new york cases said,its the boots on the ground that is the best tool to catch people who act dishonestly.

thats just reality.

We've gone over and over this.  Your interpretation of the USA cases is completely and utterly wrong.  FFS they had samples to test against and found NOTHING!  Why?  Because there WAS nothing other than everyday treatments that were mislabelled and fraudulently sold as something else.  The Trainers that got done were done on the basis that they were breaking the rules of recording what was being given to their horses NOT because they were using some mysterious hereto unknown PED!!!!

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

We've gone over and over this.  Your interpretation of the USA cases is completely and utterly wrong.  FFS they had samples to test against and found NOTHING!  Why?  Because there WAS nothing other than everyday treatments that were mislabelled and fraudulently sold as something else.  The Trainers that got done were done on the basis that they were breaking the rules of recording what was being given to their horses NOT because they were using some mysterious hereto unknown PED!!!!

You stick to that chief,i will stick to every one of them admitting they gave performance enahncers.

I have continually referred you to their admissions,the evidence and the press statements issued by the prosecuting attorney's.

I don;t know how you ignore that. I guess you do because it doesn't fit what you are saying,,  so you just ignore the statements of facts presented in each case in court.

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Under NZ rules you could apply to the Stipes and get veterinary approval to administer the solution that Stewart did.  In the best interests of the the horse.

All the top trainers are doing the same thing.  Stewart's timing was out just as Mark Walkers was in a recent case.  In the latter it was only found out some time after the horse had run.   Walker got a fine.  So should Stewart.

Again a misrepresentation of like with like.

Read the walker case. His breach was because he thought the 24 hour timeframes for treatment in nz  were the same as singapore where he previously trained. They are not.

 

[the galah]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

That's the point.  She has accepted she did wrong by pleading guilty.  She is appealing the sentence.  The decision from the Tribunal infers that a fine would be appropriate rather than a 6 month suspension.  

I have read the decision you posted.. It does not say that.

It says the possibility of the appeal may result in a variation all the way from a fine tom disqualification.

The judge does say he felt the consequences of the disqualification being that 150 horses possibly would have to be moved to a different trainer and that he thought that outweighed the actual facts.

In the judges own words,it sounds like he believes scale of operation is reason to treat a big trainer like stewart different from the average trainer.

Stinks of one rule for one a big trainer and another  for a small trainer.I would imagine that would be how nearly all other trainers would view the judges comments. 

[Chief Stipe]

11 hours ago, the galah said:

I have read the decision you posted.. It does not say that.

It says the possibility of the appeal may result in a variation all the way from a fine tom disqualification.

The judge does say he felt the consequences of the disqualification being that 150 horses possibly would have to be moved to a different trainer and that he thought that outweighed the actual facts.

In the judges own words,it sounds like he believes scale of operation is reason to treat a big trainer like stewart different from the average trainer.

Stinks of one rule for one a big trainer and another  for a small trainer.I would imagine that would be how nearly all other trainers would view the judges comments. 

No it doesn't.  Judges make decisions all the time on the relative impact of a penalty versus the severity of the crime.

For example a small trainer might have two horses and can't afford to pay a large fine. There could possibly be lifelong ramifications. Six months on the sideline would be a deterrent but wouldn't have severe unintended consequences.

Whereas a large fine vs shifting 150 horses may have a similar impact as the small trainer penalty but again without unintended consequences.

The penalty should match the severity of the fine.  No performance enhancing substances were found nor was anything that was used outside of the one clear day illegal.

As I said earlier there have been similar cases in NZ that have resulted in fines rather than disqualifications.

You could compare it to the difference in sentencing for someone caught with Cannabis vs someone caught with Methamphetamine.

[Chief Stipe]

11 hours ago, the galah said:

You stick to that chief,i will stick to every one of them admitting they gave performance enahncers.

They DIDNT admit that.  Why do you keep twisting the facts on those cases?

 

11 hours ago, the galah said:

I don;t know how you ignore that. I guess you do because it doesn't fit what you are saying,,  so you just ignore the statements of facts presented in each case in court.

I'm not ignoring any of it.  I'm just not reading the facts through blinkers wearing Murphy Blinds!

WHERE ARE THE POSITIVES?  WHAT WAS THE SUPER PED THAT THEY WERE ALL USING?

The Feds had samples of the products for a long time before charges were laid.  It turns out the drugs were common everyday manufactured drugs that were fraudently mislabelled.

[Chief Stipe]

11 hours ago, the galah said:

Again a misrepresentation of like with like.

Read the walker case. His breach was because he thought the 24 hour timeframes for treatment in nz  were the same as singapore where he previously trained. They are not.

 

The facts are both Stewart and the Walker case are the same.  The one clear day rule was breached.  No positives were returned. 

Walker got a fine and his horse was disqualified and the stakes returned.

Stewart's horse didn't even get to the races.

Walkers excuse based on his Singapore experience was completely ignored in sentencing as was the plea bargaining regarding the size of the stable.  Ignorance is no defence in these cases.

In the absence of any illegal PED having been found Stewart should also get a fine.

[Gammalite]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Judges make decisions all the time on the relative impact of a penalty versus the severity of the crime.

For example a small trainer might have two horses and can't afford to pay a large fine. There could possibly be lifelong ramifications. Six months on the sideline would be a deterrent but wouldn't have severe unintended consequences.

Absolutely Chief . That's the way it is . and they can reduce fines on appeal (whether the trainer is Small-time or Big -time like Dunns and Emma Stewart. Grimson got off his Disqualification and was just fined on Appeal.... for his 'fighting in the clubhouse 😅' up here in Winter .😂

John and Robert saved a few 1000 appealing the fines for the Nelson thing.  Very fortunate IMO.

was a very serious offence . (unlike this trifling Stewart one lol ) 

here's a snippet >>>>>>

Harness racing trainer Robert Dunn and his son John have successfully appealed their $14,000 fine given to them for presenting horses to race with a prohibited substance in their system.

On the 4th July 2017 the New Zealand Racing Laboratory issued Analytical Reports indicating the presence of caffeine in four swabs taken from horses racing at Nelson on the 9th and 11th of June 2017.

This started a lengthy investigation into why and how this stimulant (caffeine) came to be in the system of the winning horses and ended with a $7000 fine for both Robert and John handed down by the JCA in March 2018.

 

 

 

The appeal which was held last Friday resulted in reducing the fine from $7,000 each down to $3,900 for both Robert and John Dunn.

[Chief Stipe]

44 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

ohn and Robert saved a few 1000 appealing the fines for the Nelson thing.  Very fortunate IMO.

was a very serious offence . (unlike this trifling Stewart one lol ) 

Don't open that can of worms again.  There was always a suspicion that someone nobbled those horses.  Would only have taken a double espresso poured into the feed bin.

[the galah]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

The facts are both Stewart and the Walker case are the same.  The one clear day rule was breached.  No positives were returned. 

Walker got a fine and his horse was disqualified and the stakes returned.

Stewart's horse didn't even get to the races.

Walkers excuse based on his Singapore experience was completely ignored in sentencing as was the plea bargaining regarding the size of the stable.  Ignorance is no defence in these cases.

In the absence of any illegal PED having been found Stewart should also get a fine.

Have you read the M walker decision. If you had you wouldn't say the facts are the same because they aren't.

M walker had his stable foreman treat 2 horses the DAY BEFORE the races for respiratory infections and the stable foreman did so on the assumption that they would be scratched from the races next day.He was surprised to be told to start one of those horses the day of the races ,but said nothing as he was following m walkers instructions.

M walkers explanation was he believed the one clear day rule in nz was the same as singapore. He believed he could have the horses treated the morning of the day before because that was what the 24 hour rule in singapore was.The one day rule started at midday,not midnight.

As to you thinking e stewart should gain preferential treatment because she trains so many horses.

Heres a quote from the adjudicators,jw gendall and b mainwaring(i wonder if pronounced mannering) in the walker case.

"no special treatment should be given to owners,syndicators(large and small) whose license trainer requires to be disqualified. There will always be an impact,whether the trainer has a few or many owners.... but it is because of the licencee's breach of the rules....

..the adjudicative committe repeats that all in the industry understand that syndicators,large or small,prominent or otherwise with one or several trainers can not be expected to be treated diffeent from others."

So there you have the high profile NZ adjudicators saying everyone should be treated the same.

Just seems common sense to me.There are victims of stewarts actions. They are all the other trainers who abide by the rules,unlike stewart.

Edited December 24, 2023 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, the galah said:

Have you read the M walker decision. If you had you wouldn't say the facts are the same because they aren't.

Yes I've read it and discussed it online.  The facts are the same namely:

A therapeutic substance was administered to a horse inside one clear day of it racing.

1 hour ago, the galah said:

M walker had his stable foreman treat 2 horses the DAY BEFORE the races for respiratory infections and the stable foreman did so on the assumption that they would be scratched from the races next day.He was surprised to be told to start one of those horses the day of the races ,but said nothing as he was following m walkers instructions.

Yes I've read that.  What's your point?  The foreman was only following the instructions of the Trainer.  The Trainer was fully responsible.

1 hour ago, the galah said:

M walkers explanation was he believed the one clear day rule in nz was the same as singapore. He believed he could have the horses treated the morning of the day before because that was what the 24 hour rule in singapore was.The one day rule started at midday,not midnight.

Your point?  As I said ignorance is not a defence.

However one can argue that the one clear day rule is ambiguous but that's a different matter.  

1 hour ago, the galah said:

.the adjudicative committe repeats that all in the industry understand that syndicators,large or small,prominent or otherwise with one or several trainers can not be expected to be treated diffeent from others."

So there you have the high profile NZ adjudicators saying everyone should be treated the same.

I haven't argued they should be treated differently however the rules allow for varying penalties.  I've argued that the penalty and the consequences should match the crime.

Walker got a fine - why shouldn't Stewart be treated in a similar fashion?

1 hour ago, the galah said:

Just seems common sense to me.There are victims of stewarts actions. They are all the other trainers who abide by the rules,unlike stewart.

What you are suggesting is far from common sense.  How are the other trainers "victims"?  

[the galah]

27 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

I haven't argued they should be treated differently however the rules allow for varying penalties.  I've argued that the penalty and the consequences should match the crime.

Walker got a fine - why shouldn't Stewart be treated in a similar fashion?

What you are suggesting is far from common sense.  How are the other trainers "victims"?  

Therefore i guess you think why did s wigg or cameron jones should have got fines as well?

Where was the support for cameron jones? Well there was none because he was a small time trainer.

Of course other trainers are disadvantaged by comparison with stewart. Haven't you and gammalite been arguing that the treatment stewart gave her horses. was just to keep them in good health. So given other trainers can't do the same because they are honest and play by the rules,they are being disadvantaged.Its the same in any sport. Rules are rules,whether someone agrees with them or not,they have signed a form saying they will abide by them. 

You know,you and gammalite suggesting its a silly rule is something even stewart hasn't argued publically. And of course the reason for that is she realises the backlash she would get for suggesting she is somehow special compared with the average joe bloggs.She just using her lawyer to do that.

mind you ,thats life,double standards and preferential treatment in many things,not just harness racing. Doesn't make it right though.

Edited December 24, 2023 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, the galah said:

Therefore i guess you think why did s wigg or cameron jones should have got fines as well?

I gather you are willing to find excuses for Walker but not Stewart?

In the Wigg case possibly a fine however there were some differences between her case and the Stewart and Walker cases.  She was caught administering on race day.  No one clear day ambiguity there.  

2 hours ago, the galah said:

Of course other trainers are disadvantaged by comparison with stewart. Haven't you and gammalite been arguing that the treatment stewart gave her horses. was just to keep them in good health. So given other trainers can't do the same because they are honest and play by the rules,they are being disadvantaged.Its the same in any sport.

But most trainers don't do anything and some fly under the radar.  Stewart was out by a few hours.  Arguably, using your logic, the other trainers don't keep their horses healthy.  But at least by inference you now agree that illegal PED's weren't being administered.

2 hours ago, the galah said:

You know,you and gammalite suggesting its a silly rule is something even stewart hasn't argued publically. And of course the reason for that is she realises the backlash she would get for suggesting she is somehow special compared with the average joe bloggs.She just using her lawyer to do that.

So you're saying someone shouldn't have legal representation and just roll over?  The law doesn't work like that.  It needs to be challenged.  Unfortunately in racing those that challenge are up against a bottomless pit of funding and it has broken some.  I don't see you arguing against the millions of industry money spent by the RIB.

 

2 hours ago, the galah said:

mind you ,thats life,double standards and preferential treatment in many things,not just harness racing. Doesn't make it right though.

In some of these case yes.  But the penalties are couched in terms of "a fine up to x amount and or a disqualification up to x amount".