Racing Queensland quickly suspend trainer. Comparisons made to NZ RIB.

[Wandering Eyes]

Leading trainer ‘immediately suspended' over alleged animal cruelty incident

www.racenet.com.au

 

Leading Rockhampton trainer Clinton Taylor has been suspended immediately as stewards investigate an alleged incident of animal cruelty towards one of his racehorses.

Queensland chief steward Josh Adams flew to Rockhampton on Wednesday to convene a stewards' inquiry into an incident after viewing CCTV footage.

The stewards' inquiry is ongoing and Taylor has not been charged by stewards.

However Adams said a licensing manager had made the decision to immediately suspend Taylor.

"Once stewards became aware of an alleged incident at Rockhampton, we commenced an immediate investigation," Adams told Racenet.

"After we obtained CCTV footage on Tuesday, I made the decision to fly to Rockhampton on Wednesday to convene an inquiry.

"Given the evidence which has come out, the licensing manager made a decision under the licensing standards to immediately suspend Taylor.

"As the matter is ongoing, I can't make any further comment."

It is understood stewards are working with owners and others in the racing industry to disperse Taylor's horses to other stables.

Taylor, who has trained notable horses such as Chinny Boom and Astapor, has been a dominant force in Rockhampton.

This season, he is in 10th spot on the Queensland trainers' premiership with 63 winners at a strike rate of 24.8 per cent.

[Wandering Eyes]

New Zealand Ex-Jockey Leigh Mckenzie questions why the New Zealand Racing Integrity Board can't act as quickly in New Zealand cases.  He draws a comparison with recent cases involving trainers Pertab and Cole when he comments  "The ongoing delays in matters such as the Cody Cole and Kurtis Purtab cases only undermine public confidence. If the circumstances justify it, interim suspensions during an investigation protect the integrity of racing and reassure participants that everyone is treated equally." He adds "Integrity cannot depend on who you know. It must be consistent, transparent, and applied equally to ALL industry participants."

 

[Trojan]

Uh?  How can you compare the cases?  Taylor was filmed on CCTV for alleged cruelty to horses in his care.  So rightly he should be suspended.

Cole didn't pitch up for drug test and has been suspended after a process.  Cole is charged with presenting a horse to race with an illegal drug in its system.  The horse has been disqualified but Cole is permitted to present evidence to explain how it happened.  There are numerous examples of where that same process happens in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.

A better comparison would be the Coxhead case of animal cruelty but then they didn't have CCTV did they?!

Edited July 16 by Trojan

[curious]

I agree that you can't directly compare cases. The point is still valid though imo, that more expeditious and transparent handling of all drug and animal welfare cases by the RIB would enhance both industry confidence and public perception. This case is a good example of that being done.

[hesi]

15 hours ago, Trojan said:

Uh?  How can you compare the cases?  Taylor was filmed on CCTV for alleged cruelty to horses in his care.  So rightly he should be suspended.

Cole didn't pitch up for drug test and has been suspended after a process.  Cole is charged with presenting a horse to race with an illegal drug in its system.  The horse has been disqualified but Cole is permitted to present evidence to explain how it happened.  There are numerous examples of where that same process happens in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.

A better comparison would be the Coxhead case of animal cruelty but then they didn't have CCTV did they?!

Well, he's not the brightest pebble on the beach, so hardly surprising he can't figure all that out

[Chief Stipe]

12 hours ago, curious said:

I agree that you can't directly compare cases. The point is still valid though imo, that more expeditious and transparent handling of all drug and animal welfare cases by the RIB would enhance both industry confidence and public perception. This case is a good example of that being done.

I knew you'd come back with a contrarian contradictory response like this.  On the one hand you say you can't directly compare cases yet use the reported case, which you agree is different, as a good example of expeditious and transparent handling.  The fact is the culprit was caught on CCTV which is fairly damning evidence.  Compare that to the Cobalt cases which have taken between 1 and 4 years to get a conclusion.  

You can't make the process more expeditious and transparent in NZ under the current process and penalty framework.  With regard to the latter as I've said numerous times when the codes can't agree on the same penalties for same offences e.g. Driver and Jockey drug positives how can you expect to "enhance both industry confidence and public perception".

Now a few onliner's will construe my views as "supporting druggies and cheats".  That isn't the case.  I'm arguing for a better process and penalty framework.  Now that may not make some complex cases proceed expeditiously but it should result in more cases not being contested in the first instance and then contested again with regard to the determination of penalty.  For example if a Harness Driver refuses to give a sample the penalty is clear - 6 months suspension for the first breach, 12 months for the second breach.  For a Jockey the penalty is a moving feast which can be contested.  What does that lead to?  A delay in the process and less transparency as both parties legal up.  Harness also have a policy that if you confess BEFORE testing then you are stood down for a period and fined.  

Thoroughbred Racing Trainers and Jockeys depending on their financial situation can lawyer up.  Some people believe the process then should be completely transparent but people lined up eating popcorn doesn't make the process fair.

With regard to the Cole case under Harness rules if he hadn't confessed pre-testing that he might have had a banned substance he may have tested positive to one.  The penalty would be 6 months may have been mitigated for a prior clean record.  If he did test positive he would have got 8 weeks.  If he did it a second time the penalties ramp up and a third time he would be history.

Yes Pertab has recent animal welfare history BUT no Trainer in their right mind would even consider the administration of a Class A drug to a horse prior to racing.  Yes the horse returned a positive and under the rules is instantly disqualified.  BUT even the worst criminal has a right to defend themselves and in this case Pertab needs to find an explanation for why his horse returned a positive.  Was the drug deliberately administered?  Who by?  Was it environmental contamination e.g. a drug user who was an employee or an associate of the stable inadvertantaly through casual contact with the horses face transferred a small amount of the substance?

Now what is achieved by playing the whole process out in public?  A defence and for that matter a prosecution case takes time and there is nothing untoward about that.  Sure the more money you have the more resources you can throw at your defence e.g. investigators, clinicians, scientists and lawyers and the longer the process takes.

Banging on about "favouritism", "who you know", Old Boys Clubs, etc etc is unfounded and perpetuates myths and fallacies that in reality don't exist.  

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, hesi said:

Well, he's not the brightest pebble on the beach, so hardly surprising he can't figure all that out

I see he has responded with yet another not very well thought out post.  Perhaps someone should give him a digger and he can speed the process up.

 

 

I'm not sure dear old Scooby is particularly up to speed with the Australian racing judicial process as if he was he wouldn't even consider comparing NZ with OZ.  I also would have thought @Pete Lane and @Freda would have had a better understanding.

As I mentioned above the Cobalt cases in Australia took 1 to 4 years to process through their system and there are numerous examples in recent times where the process has been as long or longer than NZ and arguably as transparent.

Take the Cobalt scandal.  It started in 2013 when a number trainers were charged over the next two years or more.  O'Brien and Kavannagh fought the charges bought against them in 2015 and spent a considerable amount of money getting to the point where an appeal to the Victorian Tribunal resulted in an overturning of the charges and penalties in 2017.  It cost them $1m in legal fees alone and investigation costs were a quantum greater than that.  In 2021 they sued RV and the head vet for $10m.  Their core defence was that there was no evidence that THEY had deliberately administered Cobalt to a level that returned the positive.

Peter Moody got tied up in that saga as well.  Initially getting a penalty of 12 months which he pleaded down to 6 months.  If I recall correctly he took a holiday rather than committing to spending hundreds of thousands on challenging it.

Arguably the process in Australia takes longer and often with mistakes by the judiciary so the assertion that they do it better than NZ is quite frankly rubbish.  It certainly isn't more transparent.  I'm sure @Gammalite can give some recent examples.

[curious]

Cripes. You seem to have completely missed the point again. I don't think anyone is arguing against the points you raise except in your imagination alongside all the recent conspiracy theories that you've come up with. I think Freda may be right, you've lost the plot.

Edited July 16 by curious

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Cripes. You seem to have completely missed the point again. I don't think anyone is arguing against the points you raise except in your imagination alongside all the recent conspiracy theories that you've come up with. I think Freda may be right, you've lost the plot.

Well there you go you really have joined the "ad hominem attack cult".  I find it very disappointing that someone such as yourself given your career and background would resort to making aspersions about someones mental status via an online forum.  I gather the cult indoctrination is complete.

BTW I didn't create any conspiracy theories I called out those that were being promoted by others by publishing the facts.  Didn't you suggest the photos had been "photoshopped"?  Seriously do you think that NZ's leading stable would stoop to that level to try and hoodwink prospective buyers on a public sale?  But Groupthink does require discipline to not fall into.

Now back to the point.  If I have missed your "point again".  What is it?  The fact is we both agree that the systems processes and penalties do need to be reviewed and improved.  However I gather that you believe that "expeditious processes and transparency" can be improved without doing that.  My argument is if you address the fundamental issues then justice will become more expeditious and transparent.

As for the opinion of Scooby that "Australia does it so much better than NZ" and therefore their system has more integrity is a nonsense for a simple fact that their system is flawed and is NOT more expeditious or transparent.  

[Chief Stipe]

The fact that Australia my suspend a license immediately it can only be on the presence of substantive evidence that will stand up in a judicial process.  The fact that they do in some cases and not all indicates not inconsistency but that some cases are not clear cut as one where there is CCTV evidence.

[hesi]

Diverging, but I guess it is the same speeding.  NZTA must have 'accepted in court' evidence, from a calibrated speed camera from an officer of the law.

Some of these traffic infringements on FB groups, caught on dash cams are not acceptable as evidence

[curious]

48 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

 Didn't you suggest the photos had been "photoshopped"?  

Why would I do that when I knew they hadn't? From memory and I can't be bothered looking I asked someone else if that's what they thought?

[curious]

51 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

BTW I didn't create any conspiracy theories I called out those that were being promoted by others by publishing the facts.  

Well it appears to me that you have and whenever those were quashed by the facts, you emerge with another one. You'd certainly be leading the table for the season  on that in my estimation.

[Chief Stipe]

56 minutes ago, curious said:

Why would I do that when I knew they hadn't? From memory and I can't be bothered looking I asked someone else if that's what they thought?

Then why ask if you knew different?  You were bothered then.  Then when you knew different you didn't confirm the fact probably because you wouldn't want to contradict the alpha dog.

[Chief Stipe]

54 minutes ago, curious said:

Well it appears to me that you have and whenever those were quashed by the facts, you emerge with another one.

What conspiracy did I create that was "quashed by the facts"?  I think you have become a little muddled with who was doing what.  Scooby and Nomates for that matter if they were serious about industry integrity would have asked NZB and the Vendor what were the state of the horses feet.  Hell if they were so concerned about the horses welfare they could have made a complaint to NZTR/RIB.  But no they didn't because they don't have any integrity and are more intent on bagging the industry rather than eliciting the truth and publishing it.

[Chief Stipe]

Now if you do a Google Search thanks to Scooby and Nomates this is what comes up with the truth when we know for a fact that it isn't the truth.  The question asked was "were Brazen Affairs hooves cracked".

[curious]

19 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Now if you do a Google Search thanks to Scooby and Nomates this is what comes up with the truth when we know for a fact that it isn't the truth.  The question asked was "were Brazen Affairs hooves cracked".

 

And you theorised that was due to some king of conspiracy? So it's your conspiracy theory. No-one else's.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, hesi said:

Diverging, but I guess it is the same speeding.  NZTA must have 'accepted in court' evidence, from a calibrated speed camera from an officer of the law.

Some of these traffic infringements on FB groups, caught on dash cams are not acceptable as evidence

Correct.  In the first case you mention if a Police Officer in a Police Car captures you speeding you will be issued with an instant infringement notice including a fine and demerit points.  If you are more than 50km/hr over the limit you will receive an immediate loss of license.

If you are caught by a Stationary Safety Camera then you will receive an infringement notice in the mail with a fine.

If you exceed 50km/h and are caught by a Stationary Safety Camera then the Police may file Criminal Charges in the Court and the Court process will decide the penalty.

In the second case a recording from a civilian dashboard camera of speeding or dangerous driving will not immediately result in a fine or infringement notice.  An investigation will have to ensue first.

So to draw a corollary with the animal welfare case that starts this thread - the CCTV evidence of the crime must have been clear and unequivocal and possibly a racecourse operated and maintained camera therefore the Judiciary could suspend the trainer immediately i.e. the evidence was substantive and would stand up if challenged.  

The Cole and Pertab cases are considerable different and I realise that that is hard for some to rationalise.  In the Pertab case he served his penalty for the historical animal welfare charges as per the rules of racing.  The current charge is completely different and Pertab has right to be treated fairly under the rules and the same as any other Trainer in the same position.  It is not a case for instant suspension even in Australia in drug positive cases they don't do that.

[curious]

2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

 It is not a case for instant suspension even in Australia in drug positive cases they don't do that.

Did anyone suggest it was?

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, curious said:

And you theorised that was due to some king of conspiracy? So it's your conspiracy theory. No-one else's.

I think you are becoming muddled with regard to which forum you are on.  I realise you can't direct that question to Leigh Mckenzie because he would close you down.  Just to make it clear I didn't create the false story that the horse was being presented for sale with severely damaged hoove(s).  Leigh Mckenzie did that and backtracked quicker than a snake caught in a wagon rut.

[Chief Stipe]

.

Ned I can unequivocally say that I do NOT "support cheats, scumbags and those that commit animal cruelty".  What I do support are clear and unequivocal rules and penalties and a fair and just enforcement of them.  I contend that the current NZ Thoroughbred Rules and Penalty Guidelines are too open to interpretation, are not aligned to societal standards and other codes.

[curious]

10 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

.

Ned I can unequivocally say that I do NOT "support cheats, scumbags and those that commit animal cruelty".  What I do support are clear and unequivocal rules and penalties and a fair and just enforcement of them.  I contend that the current NZ Thoroughbred Rules and Penalty Guidelines are too open to interpretation, are not aligned to societal standards and other codes.

OK. Sounds like everyone is on the same page with that then.

Edited July 17 by curious

[curious]

25 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

  I realise you can't direct that question to Leigh Mckenzie because he would close you down.  Just to make it clear I didn't create the false story that the horse was being presented for sale with severely damaged hoove(s).  Leigh Mckenzie did that and backtracked quicker than a snake caught in a wagon rut.

Of course I could ask him but it's not his conspiracy theory, it's yours as I've said. So why would I ask him?

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, curious said:

OK. Sounds like everyone is on the same page with that then.

Really you believe that?

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Of course I could ask him but it's not his conspiracy theory, it's yours as I've said. So why would I ask him?

OK you really are working hard to stay within the Three Stooges Cult.  Did I start the Topic about the BA hooves?  NO.  Did I suggest that subsequent photos were fake?  NO.   So who is running a conspiracy here?