Steve looks at the deterioration in the relationship between trainers and stewards in Victoria
This view has come to a head, in the last week, with the suspension of trainer John Sadler.
It was paraphrased, on Wednesday, by RSN presenter Michael Felgate who said: “Having spoken to the ATA (Australian Trainers‘ Association) there is a feeling from their constituents that the relationship between trainers and stewards is at an all–time low.”
The number of trainers who now declare that they have ‘lost respect’ for the stewards is disturbing.
In fairness, Racing Victoria’s CEO Giles Thompson, told Felgate: “I am not deaf to those concerns but the core is that these concerns arise through breaches of the rules of racing.”
And, of course, you could well argue it matters not what trainers think of stewards.
However, in perception at least, it’s a bigger issue than that and surely the concerns of industry participants into the overall performance of integrity services as a whole should not be dismissed out of hand.
The 2016 Bittar Review of the Integrity Structures of the Victorian Racing Industry report listed no fewer than 15 concerns raised in the “the key observations and points arising from stakeholder feedback” and I’d say those concerns are greater now.
Those concerns will not be allayed by the Victorian government, this year, adopting two key recommendations of the report.
They are: “Following extensive consultation with the industry, Mr Bittar has recommended the establishment of a new body, the Victorian Racing Integrity Unit (VRIU) to deliver integrity services for the three codes of racing.
“Mr Bittar also recommended that the appeals and disciplinary system be restructured to remove the appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) of decisions by Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Boards and to establish a single cross-code Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board (RADB).
“The Victorian government has accepted the two key recommendations in principle and will work in partnership with the key racing stakeholders to implement these recommendations over two years.”
As recently as Thursday, the Racing Minister Martin Pakula spoke of integrity as being one of the major challenges facing the industry although of course he did not deal with the detail.
Part of the detail is as follows: “The appeal to VCAT be replaced with entitling a disaffected party to appeal on a question of law to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court.”
While ‘question of law’ may be stretched to broaden the grounds of appeal the process will certainly become more onerous, complicated and costly. Participants beware.
The current unease demands a strident statement of reassurance or a commitment to a review of procedure and policy, rather than structure, from Thompson or newly appointed RVL Chairman Brian Kruger.
There is dismay at the Sadler decision.
There is disquiet at the handling of the Lloyd Williams owning-training situation. Trainer or not the trainer?
There is disbelief at the colossal expenditure on major prosecutions which have failed.
There is bewilderment that this week’s case of the bid to have racehorse Late Charge reinstated would get as far as the RAB board and demand RVL’s (presumably expensive) engagement of a barrister.
In Sadler’s case, his behaviour was appalling and deserving of sanction but it was seemingly out of character, borne of exasperation and came from a man who has suffered with depression.
He was suspended for inappropriate conduct. Not for illegal treatments. If there’s more to the case, we’re entitled to know.
There is concern that stewards’ leaks to the media serve as transparency. They do not.
There is concern that nobody is sitting either side or above the stewards to assess the economic opportunity cost of prosecutions.
Prosecutions, in any domain, will not always succeed but surely they must be undertaken judiciously.
There is a view that fines would be more appropriate than suspensions and that this would circumvent protracted and expensive challenges to decisions.
Rightly or wrongly, there is a pervading view among industry participants that they are all presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Mind you, there are some trainers who will grudgingly acknowledge that chief steward Terry Bailey’s ‘bull at a gate’ approach has produced a more level playing field.
And some would endorse Bailey as the right man for the job – perhaps with a greater level of accountability.
As in all matters, it ought to be about balance. Similarly, with all matters of import, perception can be as important as reality.
That’s why I would argue that RVL needs to deal with policy, procedure and perception.
By all means, RVL may vigorously endorse it’s chief steward and integrity team. If so, it should say so in no uncertain terms.
Reassure us that the integrity team’s vigilance has seen a dramatic fall in the number of ‘suspicious’ races and/or training activities. Assure us that the board has great faith in the integrity team and in the conduct of racing as a whole in this state.
Perhaps RVL could assure us that ongoing costs will be more assiduously monitored and precisely outline the role of newly appointed integrity chief Jamie Stier.
Goodness knows, the industry could do with some reassurance especially with charges from the Lovani inquiry apparently imminent. Goodness knows where we’ll be at if that comes to nought or any ensuing prosecutions fail.