John Singleton may be charged with bringing racing into disrepute next week but he has done racing a favour by instigating the More Joyous scandal in the minutes before the All Aged Stakes last month.
Regardless of what sections of the media will have you believe, the More Joyous inquiry is important for one key issue, the conflict of interest – perceived, actual or otherwise – that exists at Gai Waterhouse’s Tulloch Lodge.
And it will continue to exist for as long as her husband and son, Robbie and Tom, field bets on races where Gai has runners.
If Racing NSW cares as much about the integrity of racing as they say, they must right a wrong that should never have been allowed to fester from the moment Gai was granted her training licence in January 1992.
The stewards must not allow family members of a trainer to take bets on races where the related trainer has runners engaged.
Racing NSW doesn’t want to take that step.
Instead they’d prefer the Waterhouses sign statutory declarations that Gai will not share sensitive information on horses she trains with her bookmaker husband and son.
But that’s a band-aid solution. And it treats the More Joyous inquiry with an air of triviality.
Racing NSW is kidding itself if it thinks punters believe this saga is the first of its kind and just a ‘Waterhouse issue’.
There doesn’t appear to be enough evidence at Racing NSW headquarters to find a case against Tom Waterhouse – everything points to a More Joyous victory in the All Aged Stakes being a good result for the bookmaker.
But even if the stewards found Tom stood to win a fortune if More Joyous lost, under the rules of Australian racing, what exactly could Tom Waterhouse be accused of doing wrong?
There’s currently no rule that states a bookmaker can’t oppose the champion mare trained by his mother.
And even if the trainer told her son the bookmaker who opposes the champion mare that the mare “had problems”, there’s still not much action the stewards can take against that bookmaker.
This has to change.
Gai Waterhouse’s failure to inform stewards of treatment applied to heat in the neck of More Joyous should result in heavy punishment for the great trainer.
Gai’s actions are aggravated because her husband and son fielded bets on the race in question, regardless of how much Tom or Robbie knew of MJ’s condition.
Furthermore, Gai’s actions are made worse again because More Joyous put in arguably the worst run of her career in the All Aged.
And the race crushed the great mare. For nine days after the All Aged, More Joyous wasn’t well enough to pick grass.
Two vets, Dr Leanne Begg from Waterhouse’s stable and Dr John Peatfield from Singleton’s Strawberry Hills farm, gave More Joyous the ‘all-clear’ to run.
But if Gai Waterhouse had informed stewards about the issues the mare faced in the lead-up to the race, there’s every chance More Joyous would’ve undergone numerous independent veterinary inspections before being passed fit to run.
And the public would’ve been informed of her health concerns.
If, after numerous inspections, More Joyous was passed fit by Racing NSW vets and still ran second last, this would be a non-issue. There’d be no inquiry and there’d be no talk of any conflicts of interest.
More Joyous is the real fall girl in this saga but she’s taken one for the sport.
Racing NSW must ensure there’s never another More Joyous situation.
Boonja
Guest
MJ given antibiotics before a race and the needle in the neck area......oldtimers wd never ever entertain the thought.........then they are Vets....... so they know best...?????????/..bet Percy Sykes wd not have entertained that treatment..................antibiotics interfere with blood counts...........neck area has many blood vessels........needle a hors in brisket not neck or rump.......anyone who knows horses must know that one surely........anyway 15k or 5k to the likes of them...............I don't bet in Sydney........too many irregularities........good on Singo he has the backing to take on that "Establshment"..........soo arrogant..........i my opinion
jules
Guest
How dare Singo bring facts to the table, lets fine him $15000, so it deters others from exposing the evil scams that are entrenched in horseracing. What a joke, Murrihy needs to show some strength, but as usual he sweeps the real issues under the carpet. He should fine himself for allowing the sport to be brought into disrepute, he should be sacked for not dealing with the real issues here.
Kento
Guest
The whole saga has certainly be illuminating into this somewhat mirky sport!
ScottWoodward.me
Roar Guru
Justin Interesting perspective but sadly not viable in the real world. The Waterhouses, and in fact any bookie, can do whatever they like via the net in China and our stewards have no way of tracking the transactions. It is possible to back or lay any horse for millions. More Joyous could have been layed at the odds of 3.60 in China. It is a blight on our local administrators that this is even possible but as RacingNSW have done their best to weaken the local bookie industry they have forced the big players off shore.
Justin Cinque
Expert
No doubt what I suggest above would be challenged legally but if Racing NSW failed at least they can say "we fought for the integrity of racing" rather than doing nothing or little.
sheek
Roar Guru
Allanthus, Ah yes, the anti-discriminatory laws. Funny how so often these laws hurt the victim more than the perpetrator.
sheek
Roar Guru
Yeah, a very rich dope. Of course, people become rich for all sorts of reasons & opportunities & not necessarily because they're intrinsically intelligent. But heck, I'm inclined to agree with you more than disagree.
Justin Cinque
Expert
That's a very fair comment Allanthus which further highlights why this should have been dealt with in 1992. I'd say a line needs to be drawn. And I'd draw it at the first cousin mark. Any bookmaker who is related by blood or law to a thoroughbred horse trainer as a first cousin, uncle, aunty, niece, nephew, brother, sister, mother, daughter, father, son, grandchild or grandparent; half or full, should be not allowed to field bets in races where the related trained has a runner engaged. It's not a simple condition, and its completely inconvenient and it looks silly but I think it's necessary if integrity really is paramount. At the moment, integrity is not paramount and that's why we're talking about this. But hey, if betting is involved nothing is simple.
Pollock
Guest
There is one common denominator in racing scandals and that's the Waterhouses. Singleton is just feed up with having to put up with the crap and pay for the priviledge.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Sheek, Justin, it's easy to come to the conclusion that something isn't right here and it needs to be fixed so that these types of instances can't happen. But I have some sympathy for Racing NSW, this isn't as simple as we might wish it to be. The obvious line is that a conflict exists if one family member is a trainer and another a bookmaker. But assuming that Gai and Tom don't have some weird-ass thing going on, this isn't a "pillow-talk" situation. He doesn't live at home, eat at home, so it's just the fact that he's her son that is the problem. But what if he was a step-son? Or a cousin? Or they were once boyfriend/girlfriend but aren't an item any more? Where do you draw the line? What about other trainers who are old best mates with other bookies - how do we treat them? I'd imagine there are anti-discrimination laws which would make it difficult for Racing NSW to prevent either Gai or Tom going about their respective lawful business, as they are licensed to do so, just on the basis that they are related. I'm not saying it's right, just pointing out that it's not so simple. The stockmarket has strict laws regarding insider trading, which are highly regulated and understood by everybody. What we're asking for here is some sort of utopia where we can transplant similar laws into racing. But I'd say that horse bolted around 150 years ago, "inside knowledge" has always been an accepted part of racing's folklore and racing has never been strongly enough regulated to tackle this. A case like this certainly highlights that there should be stronger regulations, but it isn't obvious how this can easily be achieved. And even if the rules are tightened, I'd imagine that policing it and bringing and proving a case would be very difficult.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
I've had to deal with him countless times, he's a dope.
sheek
Roar Guru
Justin, The 'conflict of interest' will probably remain unchallenged, for as you suggest, no-one in racing administration authority wants to take it on. They're all too busy counting their money from amenities pricing, wagering & breeding.....
sheek
Roar Guru
So Jiggles, You're a successful multi-millionaire businessman yourself? There's a difference between not agreeing with everything Singo says & calling him a dope. He's not my cup of tea, but he's certainly no dope either.
FWH
Guest
From the article - I believe the most important issue here is the Decisions made by the respective Veterinarians - You would hope, that if there was genuine concern for More Joyous, both parties would have prevented her from racing. I hope we never get to the stage that Independent Vet's need to be brought in to decide wether or not a horse will run. Surely Gai and Singo have got 'enough' out of their Champion mare MJ that they wouldn't even contemplate racing her if there was a chance, even in the slightest that it could be detrimental to her health. We should be putting the health, treatment and well being of our race horses as paramount. Everything else becomes a distant second.
Bondy
I agree Justin these scenarios have to be addressed I think the Chief Stipe's got some work to do. What I've found strange in all of this is she sounds as though she's suffered symptoms more similar to a temperature,i've heard swelling and soreness in the neck but no temperature,one of the first things that goes with a horse is its "temp". Remember guys Redoutes Choice was scratched on Slipper Day because of a temp,they can be fairly serious issues.
Mick Slattery
Guest
Up to the M/J saga 3 other Waterhouse nags put mug punters in the red???
Jiggles
Roar Guru
Rubbish. He's a dope.
Justin Cinque
Expert
I agree vitas. Questions need to be asked of Tom.
vitas
Guest
"everything points to a More Joyous victory in the All Aged Stakes being a good result for the bookmaker." Tom backed 3 horses in the race. This is on record. If either of 2 of those 3 horses in the race won then he still would have lost on the race. Either Tom is not as good as a bookmaker/punter as he professes, or the book was doctored to make a position on 1 horse look different. Who did Tom back More Joyous with? Has the Betting Steward corroborated with the counterparties Toms bets? Those last 2 questions have not been raised at the inquiry. Maybe a Steward or somebody in the media needs to ask these questions
Cameron Rose
Expert
Singo should be admired for having the front to speak his mind. So much of racings murkiness happens behind closed doors, so good on him for putting it in the public domain. As Justin says, regardless of where you stand on the issue, there is a chance for the sport to get better out of this.