Four-year ban for top trainer
The Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board has handed embattled trainer Darren Weir a four-year disqualification.
Weir fronted a hearing yesterday on four charges, including three of possessing ‘‘jiggers’’ and one of engaging in conduct prejudicial to the image, interests or welfare of racing.
Weir had earlier said he would not be contesting the charges.
Chaired by Judge John Bowman, the board heard arguments from Racing Victoria counsel Jeff Gleeson QC that the fact Weir possessed the jiggers, which could be used to stimulate racehorses’ performances, had tarnished the image of racing in a way that called for a weighty penalty of a four-years ban.
While there was no claim in the charges that Weir used the devices, the fact that they would be seen as ‘‘cruel’’ and were prohibited because their use could facilitate cheating would certainly constitute conduct prejudicial to the interests of racing.
Gleeson said the jiggers had been found in the master bedroom of Weir’s Ballarat property, suggesting a desire to conceal them from stewards.
‘‘They diminish the image of racing,’’ said Gleeson, as he pointed out that Weir’s status as a champion trainer who held sway over one of the biggest racing operations in the world ensured that there would be huge media and public interest in the case.
‘‘The act of possessing these devices, the circumstances in which they were located and the inevitable media firestorm that followed the discovery of these items, the arrest of Mr Weir all contribute to the establishment of the fact that this was conduct prejudicial to the image of racing.
‘‘He’s one of the most substantial and significant trainers in Australian thoroughbred history . . . he’s a champion trainer of one of the biggest stables in the world.
‘‘With reputation and privilege comes responsibility,’’ said Gleeson.
‘‘The devices were found in the master bedroom of his house, not in some shed or employee’s bag.
‘‘Locating these devices in a bedroom also suggests a desire to conceal these devices from the stewards.
‘‘It might be thought less likely they would access and inspect a bedroom. Thirdly and significantly there is no explanation for possession of the devices.
‘‘It is a significantly compounding factor that the sentence be appropriate . . . there is no proffered explanation.
‘‘There is no basis in which you can infer lack of knowledge of the items [or] . . . confusion of the rules . . . you can only reasonably infer that he was aware of the existence of these devices on the property, you can only reasonably infer he was aware of the existence of the rule, the gravity of the breach . . . and the consequences of the image for him and racing if he was caught and convicted.’’
He said that Weir’s decision to cooperate with stewards and the speed with which he agreed to have the matter expedited were factors that needed to be taken into account.
Weir said nothing while his lawyer, Patrick Wheelahan, said little, initially advising that Weir’s position – where he offered no contest to the charges – did not mean that he was in a position of agreement with Gleeson’s submission.
The fact that Weir had not contested the charges was, said Judge Bowman, reminiscent of the Aquanita case as he pointed out that ‘‘no contest’’ – which was used in that case – was not a plea recognised in this jurisdiction.
‘‘I think we would be more comfortable if we treat it as plea of not guilty,’’ said Judge Bowman.
Weir’s barrister Wheelahan said of the no contest position: ‘‘I have nothing to say,’’ stressing that on all charges ‘‘Mr Weir pleads no contest, and there will be no evidence . . . laid on his behalf’’.
Weir is also facing potential criminal charges.
Glasson said the four-year disqualification the stewards sought was appropriate.