In February, the Australian Racing Board (ARB) responded to last spring’s Damien Oliver betting scandal by drawing what it called “a line the sand”.
Once again the ARB needs to get drawing after Racing NSW fined Gai Waterhouse a miserly $5500 for her role in the More Joyous inquiry.
In the Oliver inquiry, Racing Victoria stewards initially handed down an eight-month disqualification as well as a further two-month suspension after Oliver pled guilty to placing a successful $10,000 wager on a rival horse in an October 2010 race.
Conveniently, the sentence allowed Oliver to recommence riding at this year’s Spring Carnival – the standout period in the Australian racing season.
The ARB said the penalty was inadequate and took a stance that aimed at cleaning up racing. It introduced a minimum two-year disqualification for any jockey that bets on a horse in the same race they ride in.
This is how Dayle Brown, head of Racing Victoria’s Integrity Services Department, described the changes in Febraury: “There is no place in racing for dishonesty and the introduction of minimum penalties for serious offences sends a clear message to all that it will not be tolerated in Victoria and throughout Australia.
“Increased periods of disqualification are indicative of the industry’s refusal to tolerate people who flout the Rules of Racing and thus damage the image and reputation of the sport.
“The new regime of minimum penalties represents a line in the sand and serves as a strong deterrent to those considering undermining the sport,” he said.
Brown’s comments (which could easily apply to the More Joyous inquiry) make Racing NSW look soft. Just like Oliver, Gai Waterhouse was found to be have undermined racing.
Yesterday, Gai was deemed to be guilty and fined a total of $5500 for failing to inform stewards, and have up-to-date treatment records, regarding heat found in More Joyous’ neck in the days before April 27’s All Aged Stakes.
So it’s perplexing to see Waterhouse’s light fines accompanied by Racing NSW chief steward Ray Murrihy claiming that there needs to be “elements of deterrence” in the penalty he handed down.
Sadly, there is no deterrence here – this is a slap on the wrist for actions that have had racing on the front page for a month. The light sentence is almost as big an indictment as the ones Waterhouse was found guilty of.
Racing NSW had an opportunity to turn a negative into a positive. In making a statement on sentence, they could have upheld the integrity of racing – the very fabric of the sport.
These soft penalties have shut the door on that idea. Racing NSW weren’t brave enough to affect change in the industry. Racing’s rot will continue.
And yet Racing NSW is made to look weaker by the numerous aggravating circumstances that permeate Waterhouse’s involvement in the More Joyous case.
It emerged at yesterday’s hearing that More Joyous was lame on the Tuesday before her disappointing fifth-place finish (as a drifting odds-on favourite) in the Queen of the Turf Stakes on Golden Slipper Day.
Again Waterhouse failed to inform stewards of the issue and fresh charges may be laid regarding that race, which was the mare’s final hit-out before the All Aged Stakes.
According to Waterhouse, More Joyous only ran well once in her three-race autumn preparation – when a first-up second to Pierro in the Canterbury Stakes. I’ve no doubt Gai is right.
But from the champion trainer’s point of view, it is purely coincidental that the mare’s best run – that second to Pierro – was the only time More Joyous went to the races fit and well. Waterhouse maintains Joyous had her chance to win both the Queen of the Turf and All Aged.
Waterhouse blamed the firmness of the Randwick track and a poor ride for the mare’s second last in the All Aged.
Unfortunately, Gai needs to realise that’s not the issue – it doesn’t come close to her dishonesty in failing to inform stewards of the heat in the mare’s neck.
And just for the record, I’ve got no idea how Gai can blame jockey Nash Rawiller.
Rawiller’s All Aged ride won full marks from me – More Joyous was given every chance by the hoop. Gai has thrown an unfair, cheap shot at her stable rider.
Waterhouse then went a step further – she tried to justify her actions by delcaring More Joyous just one of a number of her runners in recent months to have raced without stewards knowing about setbacks suffered in the immediate lead-up to a race.
Again by way of justification, Gai said some of those horses had won.
Waterhouse has shown clear disregard for the rules. She was dishonest and not the least bit remorseful. This is clearly not a once-off situation, as she herself has admitted.
Instead – and this is the most ironic bit of the whole saga – Gai is brushed with a $5500 fine which is thousands less than the stable pocketed in prize-money for More Joyous’ second-place finish in the Canterbury Stakes, and no doubt less lost by the many punters who would’ve fancied the great mare.
Unfortunately, stewards have been unable to cut-through the mire and make a bold decision. The question is now – can the ARB come to racing’s rescue again?
Andrew C (waikato)
Guest
Peeeko, just re-read the GAMBLING MAN book ............ and shake your head very slowly from side-to-side. When one gets high stakes and high gambling/gamblers, one gets lower morals expressing itself.
solly
Guest
I agree.
johnb747b
Guest
In another 70m MJ would have run last. She should never have started.
Dave
Guest
Now she has proved herself to be "as good as the men", she can start acting like a human being again. Only problem is, there aren't many role models in her immediate vicinity.
Drew H
Guest
I get the impression that if I pay for legal representation then I have contacted the higher powers. Not once have I thought that they got my legals in order (of merit). It is a self-forming pecking order. I chop them from my arrangements now. Racing NSW has gained royalties in court from Betfair recently. How? Pecking order. How do you invest these days? Once you recognise 'time based growth' vs 'winners and losers', then I suppose we're with new market system. "Buy Administration Today"
Jack
Guest
Simple answer NO. That's why I was delighted that Peter Moody trained Black Caviar. Could you imagine if she was in the Waterhouse stable!!!
Drew H
Guest
Yes John V. The appointment or operation of the three that you mention might have been luring of respect, but their roles are now with plenty of story.
ausi
Guest
Top article Justin. I would go a lot further - the trainer was a cheat, a liar or incompetent. - take your pick. My impression is that she knew the horse was "offf" and was being treated- therefore she was cheating on the public (they are entitled to be informed), dishonest in that she did not abide by the rules of racing - 140 - which require treatments to be reported to the stewards and incompetent in that she stil says the mare MJ was fit to run. A fine is ridiculous - disqualification for 6 or even 12 months is appropriate - compare with the Karakatsanis penalty - where there was no wrong doing - just the raiding stewards belief there may have been a chance to be a pre race tubing. I think Gai has to realise she is not bigger than racing or most importantly the rules of racing. On her behaviour on this occasion (now going to appeal), one suspects she has no sense of reality. She is not only arrogant - she is stupid to feel she can fool the people. The fawning of the on air TV people has her believing she is smehow "special" - that idea has gone forever. As for the stewards - I suspect there is some intimidation of them in this case - dont be frightened of anyone - just do your job and put her out. Hef father was biigger than her yet he was disqualified. The argument that she is "good for racing" has now evaporated. A question to you all - would you give her a horse to train?
John Vizzone
Roar Rookie
The time has really come for tougher penalties across the board, with extra fines, weighting if it is a group race. The punishment dished out to Oliver, Con K and Waterhouse in the last year is truly laughable.
Drew H
Guest
Perhaps a good CV and high profile media coverage is more important than a clean slate. Tolerance and forgiveness is important. Misdemeanor is obviously the way Racing NSW views it. Hopefully they are consistent with other offenders. (remember that hypocrite is a banned word in politics) You can buy media coverage, and you can buy a good legal representative. It's a two speed economy for many reasons.
peeeko
Roar Guru
i thought it was on the grounds that her husband was banned for life from racing?
Pollock
Guest
Why any owner would give Waterhouse a horse to train is a mystery. Seemsike the only horses she will get in the future will be from owners who want to play dirty. No doubt she will accommodate them as its her nature to be less than honest and with a few extra dollats to be made it will be a match made in heaven, Crooked owners and a crooked trainer. Mug punter beware.
Haradasun
Guest
She was originally refused a trainers licence on the grounds of a conflict of interest being married to a bookmaker. But on appeal and in no small part due to public support she was granted one. Gai has always had a reputation for running horses into the ground. I cant fathom for the life of me why any owner would give her a horse.
joe blackswan
Guest
The issues are cheating and deceiving by the likes of the waterhouses and olivers in racing, which are not penalised adequately (oliver was allowed to continue racing in last year's spring carnival before serving his suspension), so it is true only mugs bet on horses.
Lamby
Roar Rookie
What? The 'rules' state that if you treat a horse for an injury you need to report it. The rule is to protect the punter. The punter needs to be informed so they can make an informed decision on whether to place money on that horse. This is a family who has swapped a horse before a race - they don't care about the punters. They don't care about the owners.
Lamby
Roar Rookie
But there would be no racing industry without gambling - you cannot separate them. How many horse races a year would there be if there was no gambling? Never trust a Waterhouse!
jack
Guest
I dont think anybody was in the wrong, the horse was not good enough plenty of favs get beaten jack
Simon
Guest
ShmaxShmillas - you are spot on with your comments. If anyone could be bothered do some research on a horse from Waterhouse's stable called "No Penalty". An apt name as no one but the apprentice jockey was penalised, but a disgraceful circumstances in a Group race on a carnival day in Sydney. Is was a Waterhouse horse, hot favourite which was beaten in a photo finish and the apprentice jockey had the handbrake on the whole way in a Group Race on a carnival day. Only the jockey was penalised. I have only ever put money on the Melbourne Cup since, & this is from someone who was a mad punter, who's family has owned lots of horses and has a cousin that still trains.
Cugel
Roar Rookie
t
Peter Care
Guest
All you have to do is look at the history of this family to understand why there is scant regard for the rules of racing. They treated the people that truly matter, the mug punters and owners with contemp.