If there was any question the once-rosy and all-conquering relationship between Gai Waterhouse and John Singleton was tattered beyond repair, it became abundantly clear at Monday’s inquiry into the poor performance of More Joyous in the Group 1 All Aged Stakes (1400m) at Randwick a week and a half ago.
Waterhousegate, the More Joyous affair, the Singo fiasco – whatever you want to call it, it has irreparably damaged the relationship between the champion trainer and one of Australia’s great larrikins, with the ashes of the great partnership on display for an excitable media corps at Racing NSW’s headquarters in Sydney.
It promised to be a soap opera, and the main characters delivered in spades in what was at times a heated and tense hearing.
Waterhouse told the inquiry John Singleton was “an absolute sham” who put “Chinese whispers from a trumped up, beat-up jockey, a brothel owner and a famous footballer” ahead of “a relationship that had been successful for over 15 years.”
She also suggested he was drunk before the race, which Singleton refuted.
“I had two or three drinks in the lead up to the race, and I had as many as you could get into me after the race,” Singleton said.
But Waterhouse countered that he had a “reputation” and that his word could not be believed.
She suggested he was “insanely jealous” when Pierro managed to defeat More Joyous in the Canterbury Stakes, and that his pre-race rant before the All Aged Stakes had distracted stable jockey Nash Rawiller and caused him to ride a poor race.
Waterhouse then put the boot in once more as the inquiry concluded for the evening, suggesting to Singleton the poor run could be attributed to the fact More Joyous “is a seven-year-old mare and she’s old – like you!”
Singleton had a number of barbs of his own, suggesting Gai’s bookmaker son Tom had “coached” key witness Andrew Johns – who failed to show for Monday’s inquiry – after Johns had used the word “embellish” to describe his subsequent conversations about More Joyous.
“I’ve known him since he was 14 or 15 and embellish is not part of his vocabulary,” Singleton said about Johns.
But Singleton looked as limp as his mare had been in the All Aged Stakes, failing to counter the strong attacks of the first lady of racing.
Barring the theatrics, there were a number of matters before the hearing, which concluded without a definite resolution on Monday evening. I’ve addressed many of the individual elements here separately:
Was More Joyous fit to start?
It seems that everyone who examined More Joyous felt there was no reason why the mare couldn’t start in the All Aged Stakes.
But what is so concerning is that Waterhouse didn’t inform the stewards there was anything wrong, nor did she advise that More Joyous had been administered with an antibiotic only 24 hours before the All Aged Stakes.
That is not against the rules of racing, but in my mind, it is ethically wrong. Surely someone with an understanding of betting knows that transparency is vital?
The chain of events started on Wednesday, when More Joyous didn’t eat all her feed. This is usually the first hint that all is not well.
On Thursday morning, More Joyous galloped on the dirt track at Randwick, coming home her last 200m in 11.3 seconds. It was exceptional work, as noted by Randwick clocker Craig Thomson.
However, as stable foreman Dave Meijer noted in his testimony, the mare had a swollen neck and she wouldn’t pick grass off the ground, the sign of a sore neck.
She was examined by Randwick Equine Centre vet Dr Leanne Begg, who said the problem was minor and administered cartrophen, an anti-inflammatory drug, to the mare.
As it was ANZAC Day, Begg delayed having a blood analysis taken on More Joyous until Friday. The analysis showed a slight elevation of the white blood cell count. An antibiotic was administered under the direction of Singleton’s veterinarian Dr John Peatfield, who was in Mudgee but had received advice of the oncology report on the phone.
Begg didn’t believe the inflammation was a sign of infection and was against administering an antibiotic.
On Saturday morning, Peatfield and Singleton’s racing manager Duncan Grimley inspected the horse, along with Waterhouse.
All three agreed she was fit to start, with Peatfield supposedly saying at the time, “I can’t guarantee she’ll win, because that’s not my job, but I can’t see a reason not to run her.”
Although there are slight variations in the accounts of the main players, all are fairly consistent. What is concerning is the processes involved.
Furthermore, it was not recorded in the stable’s treatment book – a list of all treatments administered to horses – that More Joyous had been administered with cartrophen on Thursday morning.
Waterhouse says it was an oversight by Dr Begg, and that More Joyous had received cartrophen weekly since she was a juvenile.
This is not disputed by Begg.
The stable treatment book is there for a purpose. At a time when scrutiny on racing, and sport in general, is at a higher level than any other time in regards to drugs, it is imperative racing remains on the front foot.
Set an example for other trainers – indicate that all medications applied to horses must be recorded. Failure to do so attracts a penalty. Simple.
As for Waterhouse’s failure to inform stewards, this is a more serious charge under the rules of racing. It depends on the nature of the condition, and given the testimony of veterinarians suggests they both thought she was fine to race, it may be argued that there was no need to inform the regulators.
While I personally believe Gai Waterhouse should have told stewards there was an issue with More Joyous, a charge may not stick.
Likely outcome: Waterhouse should receive a reprimand or a fine for not recording the administering of cartrophen. Whether she is also sanctioned for not informing stewards of the condition of More Joyous, time will tell.
Did Tom Waterhouse have more information that More Joyous was not right?
Short answer, no.
People may like to build conspiracy theories, but I think it is fairly clear that Waterhouse Jr has been the victim of a sad round of Chinese whispers.
Waterhouse told Andrew Johns – the “famous footballer” as Gai called him – that he “didn’t like It’s A Dundeel, All Too Hard or More Joyous”.
Johns mentioned it to “the brothel owner” Eddie Hayson. Hayson mentioned it to “the trumped up, beat-up jockey” Allan Robinson, who then rang Singleton.
It’s hearsay at its finest – or perhaps its lowest.
The ledgers don’t support the conclusion Waterhouse knew “More Joyous was off”, as he was alleged to have said.
Through his online bookmaking business, Tom Waterhouse stood All Too Hard to lose $250,000. More Joyous would have been a $135,000 winner for the joint, while Rain Affair – who he had backed heavily – was his best result.
His father Robbie also had a similar ratio for All Too Hard and More Joyous, although he was fielding in the ring and his book was much smaller.
What wasn’t really clarified was the bets Waterhouse Jr allegedly had on More Joyous. It was clear he had backed Rain Affair heavily, while it was also clear he had backed Epaulette.
The most humorous part of the day was when TomWaterhouse.com’s NRL Editor Nick Tedeschi appeared before the panel.
As the third member of a conversation between Waterhouse and Andrew Johns, he was able to attest to what was said between the pair.
However, it seemed the only purpose he served was to confirm for his employer that he backed More Joyous.
But while that satisfies the cynic in me, there is hardly a shred of evidence to suggest Waterhouse knew More Joyous was “off”. Any legal case against him would be thrown out immediately.
If it is a cover up, they’ve done a mighty fine job. I’m more inclined to believe he’s innocent – well, as innocent as he can be.
Likely outcome: Nothing. Surprisingly, Tom Waterhouse is probably the only person to leave the inquiry with his integrity and reputation almost intact. Others will take greater hits than him.
Did John Singleton bring racing into disrepute?
This is a tough one.
Should he have gone off like an idiot in the mounting yard, yelling profanities left, right and centre? No way.
Should he have gone on television, making allegations about the Waterhouse family? Absolutely not.
Does that constitute bringing racing into disrepute? In my mind, yes, but I’m not sure the stewards will see it that way.
The most interesting part for me is that he said pre-race he had no idea she had problems.
In fact, Duncan Grimley and Dr John Peatfield had informed him earlier in the day that More Joyous had issues with a swollen neck earlier in the week. The problems he’s referring to are more substantial and are based on the information passed to Singleton by Allan Robinson.
These were quite clearly false.
For his tirade towards Gai Waterhouse, he may face a sanction. But it’s unlikely he’ll get any more than a slap on the wrist.
Likely outcome: It’s a line ball call. Would suggest he probably won’t face charges, but he should.
What will happen to the three amigos – Andrew Johns, Allan Robinson and Eddie Hayson – if they don’t show at the reconvened inquiry?
They should get warned off. In a matter of importance like this, where their evidence is crucial, they should co-operate.
Don’t co-operate? Don’t be involved in racing.
Simple choice, but again, whether the stewards see it that way is another matter altogether.
Likely outcome: Who knows.
What happened between John Singleton and Robbie Waterhouse?
This section of the inquiry was held in camera, meaning media weren’t allowed access. It was over in less than five minutes. I doubt either party wants to take it further.
Likely outcome: Nothing.
Hiawatha
Guest
Perhaps they might like to ask Johns why he pulled out of the Knights v Storm game in 2006 when he played either side of that game when in the employ of Channel Nine....
Drew H
Guest
Yeah Razza, and Johns talks about the power of money via the media. The media may be the big, bad animal in all of this. With the semi-deregulated way media and horse racing are structured, I get pleasure in reading the matrix of comments here. These web sites do plenty of good for overall mentality and balance. The gap between the AJC and Racing NSW is where most complaints end up. Owners need to do more Singo spittings. The AJC is one of the hardest groups to define; scattered in responsibility.
Razza
Guest
I think Gai Waterhouse's comments about John Singleton were childish and had nothing to do with the enquiry and if she was the trainer and knew there was a problem with the horse and her being the trainer should not have ran it, also the owner should have been told post haste, losing $100,000 on a bet does not phase Singo, it is pocket money to him, but further damage to his pride race horse if it indeed had one from the beginning would be his main concern and that is why he is pissed off more so then finding out second hand from Robbo. There is also a conflict of interest between Gai Waterhouse the trainer and Tom Waterhouse the bookie I think. Tom Waterhouse should have not said anything to Johns for a start and what was John's reason for telling Robbo ???, the plot thickin's and I don't know what will come out of this enquiry and as far as I can see John Singleton is the only one with nothing to lose. "From the horses mouth'
Drew H
Guest
Fair enough ScottW. I wonder where Kerry Packer would be betting, if around. With one of the main four on-course? It's a pity that the SP is not around. Theirs was simple. Take a big bet, keep some of it and lay off the rest to a bigger SP. During the 80's when the Zebra Task Force stopped the localized money circles of the SP to allow for off-course fixed odds, the SP was laying off on the tote, and still holding their ground. What is it now? I suppose the big punters (if they really exist) are betting on the other side of their hedge fund. The tote will never let you down. The more people use it, the better racing will be as a whole. I still say that a bet as small as $40 000 to $4 000 is enough to make jockeys lick their lips, except on the main carnival days.
ScottWoodward.me
Roar Guru
Jack Joey discusses races with Eddie every week and has done for 10 years. Both guys are super intelligent and there is no chance of either party getting the facts incorrect when they speak to each other.
ScottWoodward.me
Roar Guru
Drew Mate it is 2013 and all big players have "runners" or other unnamed and "unknown" people who handle their money. This is standard and these people have no official links to the players. It is a waste of time checking local bookies and Betfair. At the maximum discount allowed in China More Joyous could have been backed (or layed) at $3.60. NSW TAB was 2.70. FYI All Too Hard was 3.50 into 2.70.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
Well despite having a horrible smirk, I don't really see what Tom has done and why the h@te. It's a bit of tall poppy syndrome if you ask me.
jules
Guest
The great mare was off her feed, had a sore neck, was treated for her ailments at least twice in the 48 hrs prior to the race. Singleton was told that 'today is not a betting day'. Waterhouse failed to tell stewards that there was a problem with More Joyous, therefore the punting public were not informed of a potential problem. Waterhouse failed to have the treatments recorded. How does this not reek of a Waterhouse 'sting'. As for Gai having a go at others for tarnishing her name, well that was done in 1984, with Fine Cotton, and who knows what else these guys have got up to over the years. This is a sad state of affairs, and I think Singo has done the right thing for bringing these sort of antics to the attention of the general public. Keep your head in the sand if you think the Waterhouses are not guilty of defrauding the punting public. Nothing will come of this, but it should. I think I will give the punt a miss now, and concentrate on other pursuits, as racing is as 'shonky' as it has always been. The antics of the last few weeks prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
eagleJack
Guest
You could be right Scott. Just like the US Govt could have been behind the 9/11 attacks. Or the Apollo moon landing could have taken place in a Hollywood studio. That's the beauty of conspiracy theories. They are always plausible and make for interesting reading. I prefer to believe my initial thoughts that Joey Johns is shocking after 2 beers and has runs on the board for trying to big note himself in front of others. Only to regret his actions the morning after. No doubt he and Tom chatted on ANZAC day but it seems clear that Joey then embellished this information the following night after a couple. That's Joey, he says things without thinking through the consequences. In fact the only supposed evidence to the contrary at this stage is that he used the term "embellish" when explaining this to Singleton.
Syd
Guest
I am sure that this won't be printed, but while the Waterhouses's are known to have several lawsuits against those in the industry, they also have many against themselves. In particular, Gai is known for selling horses that she doesn't own, and she has had to settle many suits out of court for selling horses that were not hees to sell. She is woman who was done many favours and quickly thought that she was above the industry,
Syd
Guest
I’,m juts glad that Gai’s real thoughts about those involved in the racing industry have come to light. She has shown nothing but utter contempt for owners and jockeys alike. Imagine how she feels about the punter who is the very lifeblood of the industry. She has nothing but disdain for the rest of the industry. Jockeys and punters are below her. This, from a woman who is married to a convicted race fixer. Perhaps now some of you mugs willknow how the first Lady of racing really thinks about the very gambling public that funds the racing industry
Drew H
Guest
Probably right Scott, check the ledgers is the best avenue. (or be super strict on pathology reports) But let's hope it's not like 20 years ago, when on-course bookies would know their regular big clients and give them a $5 ticket and entry onto the ledger that carried an invisible $5000 bet off the books. It saved the bookie many thousand dollars in turnover tax, stamp duty etc. I cannot see why a ledger would be accurate for an online bookie. Once cash is deposited into the running account then all records are in-house to that bookie. I don't think that there's an audit that would ever check the overall betting ledger against the overall bank deposits and withdraws. If anyone invents a 'rock solid' resolution to horse racing procedures and practices then they will be rubbished by every official. It's lucky that each race has an end, and the next race is the next story. It makes the share market a genius game. ie no start and no finishing post.
peeeko
Roar Guru
you seem very supportive of the waterhouses?
Damien
Roar Guru
Sheek, The 'footballer' comment can be condescending and Gai Waterhouse may sound elitist but thats got nothing to do with the issue at hand which is that TW knew that MJ was crook and passed that info onto Johns. Gai got personal with Robbo, Joey and Hayson but I can hardly blame her, the chinese whispers that they started have caused so much trouble. If that allegation is proven true then TW & GW are in deep you know what. I see TW as a big winner here because there has been no evidence that he did pass on any info. The anti gambling pundits will still hate his guts but at least you can't accuse him of being a crook, well plenty people do but no one seems to have any hard evidence that he actually is doing anything illegal. Immoral probably, illegal, no. On Siingo, he looks like he's backtracking abit here, and I actually find it nice that he's now said that he will apologise to the Watehouses if they're cleared which is highly likely. Singo's said that Johns needs to man up and apologise to everyone if the Waterhouses are cleared as well. How funny was Singo saying that Gai called him a drunk, a sham, a disgrace and three times old like the horse and then he goes to say that he can't forgive her for the 'old' comment. LOL.
ScottWoodward.me
Roar Guru
Andrew For a guy who works in the industry your comments are very naive. #1. Forget about Tom and Robbies ledgers. If More Joyous "was off" as Andrew initially stated, then the key players could have got over $3m laying her to lose in China. Horse are backed and layed every day in China for millions and as it is an illegal site it is unregulated so the Stewards cannot ever find out. I am not suggesting this is what happened but it does make a mockery of checking ledgers and local bookies transactions as you simply cannot get set here. #2. Ask yourself who had justification to lie? Do you really think Andrew would tell a close mate a lie over a drink while watching a footy game? And what justification did that mate have to tell his mate a lie? And then again at the end of the tree, Robbo has zero reason to call a long time mate and lie to him. Ask yourself did the Tom and Andrew have justification to change their stories? It's not rocket science. Now the big trick will be to see if our Chairman of Stewards is clever enough to get the right story and prove it.
West
Roar Pro
I think Murphy will be the winner as he starts invoicing Singo, Johns and the Brothel owners for legal services rendered in defence of one's honour. There may even be a class action from everyone who bet on More Joyous that day. :) Conflict of interest, insider trading and damage to professional standing for starters.
Bondy
Sheek, Its blown up deluxe, this is like one of those movies ' The Jig ", Murphy's gone in all guns blazing attacking the Waterhouses. Who needs the acceptors for Saturday when you've got this.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
I think Tom will settle for an apology. I have a few friends have dealt with Tom, and despite having a punchable face I have heard nothing but good things about him. Personally though I'd go after him.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
What exactly do they need to pull their heads in about?
Justin Cinque
Expert
Bbbanderas - I look forward to it. Hopefully the stewards are brave enough to make a statement if this comes to more than what it seems.