RV Stewards

Welcome back VeryLTU

not sure im back 'enry ....... just had to blow some steam after watching MZ's latest slaughter at Ballarat. Surely the stewards couldn't miss that one ??????
ffs

i reckon smerdon must be gathering up all his nuts for winter atm .... the only explanation for why MZ ho...d that last one.

how has the lay been henry ??? accumulating.. lol ??

Monday was ugly and the wheel's been wobbly since then. Liabilities (lay) gone down a few levels----Pilot (me) errors galore  ----Cant wait to start a new week

Might post a recyclable to cheer me up

  ..... it'll cheeer me up a bit too.

i remember when RS left ballarat for caulfield many years ago, after his houdini act with the boxes of EPO, that all the pharmacy would now be at Crime...field. I didn't think it would take RV 15 years and a peep hole drilled into a swabbing stall .... to finally nail him.
ffs

............ i've missed those recyclables

Grand Dreamer........ more nuts for Bob ..... squirrel em away m8, cos if they find out what's in the paste they're all you'll have left.


My Tip:    Another Houdini Act

2007-Houdini

Charges

1. Robert Smerdon and Dan O’Sullivan have been charged with breaching
AR.80E(1) which reads as follows:
“Any person commits an offence if he has in his possession or on his premises,
any substance or preparation that has not been registered or labeled or
prescribed, dispensed or obtained in compliance with the relevant State or
Commonwealth legislation.”
2. The particulars of charge in each case are:
a) That Dan O’Sullivan and Robert Smerdon were at the relevant times
licensed trainers and licensed to train at the Dowling Forest Stables at
Ballarat.
b) That between 13 February 2006, and 19 May 2007, they did have on
premises occupied or controlled by them a substance, being five vials of
Eprex (EPO) which had not been labeled or prescribed in compliance with
the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act.


Stewards’ finding

The Stewards reject this submission.
19. Possession is clearly a concept that requires an intention on the part of the person charged to possess and therefore knowledge of presence. However, the alternative basis for a charge against a person under the rule is merely that the relevant substance be “on his premises”. This phrase imposes a standard of strict liability and reflects the intention of the rule that regardless of actual knowledge, it is a trainer’s responsibility to know exactly what substances are located on his or her stables at all times.
20. It is not suggested that Mr Smerdon or Mr O’Sullivan had any knowledge of the EPO whatsoever. They are only charged with having the substance on their stable premises.

must be just coincidence that my phones and laptops have been blocked from accessing racing.australia straight after my last posst. Because surely the stewards don't read this forum and, in conjunction with bf obviously, become self appointed freedom of speech censors. surely not.
wouldn't happpen in australia surely.
Heaven forbid a move back to the TAB for veryltu. Never thought that would happen.