THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER CLARIFIES THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE NEW PENALTY STANDARDS PROPOSAL

By Graham Potter | Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Ross Barnett, the Racing Queensland Integrity Commissioner, got straight to it when it was his turn to address the Australian Trainers’ Association (Queensland) meeting at Eagle Farm on Monday. There was only one thing that trainers wanted to discuss with Barnett and they met him head on the subject of QRIC’s proposed draft penalty standards document, which has been controversial topic over the past week. These are relevant exerts from that discussion.

On outlining and underlining the current status of the penalty standards proposal.

BARNETT: It is important to understand that as far as the penalty standards proposal goes ... we are dealing with a draft copy. It has draft written on it in very big letters. They are not the Ten Commandments. It is not written in stone. We are a long way to getting to a final point of what it will look like. So, at the moment, it is a draft sentencing guideline.

On the process of formulating the draft sentencing guideline:

BARNETT: As I’ve said on many occasions, I am not a racing man. That is a fact. I have no racing background so I rely on the advice of people like the stewards and the vets and people in the integrity unit ... people like that. So the process we came up with was an internal consultation process to come up with a draft proposal which we would put out to the industry and then get feedback. Where it ends up ... well there will be a lot of talking between now and then.

On having the power to create such penalty standards.

BARNETT: It has been suggested to me that I have no power to make a rule of racing. Let’s be clear. I am not making any rules of racing. There are 215 rules of racing. All this document references is eight particular rules and says that this is a penalty framework schedule that I think should apply. I am not judge, jury and executioner.

Whatever standard I may set (in terms of penalties), it is not necessarily where any ruling will ultimately end up because, after any guilty verdict by the stewards, there is not only the internal review process that can be followed, but also the independent process review at QCAT which can override anything that has gone before. It is up to QCAT to determine what the standard actually is. If I said X and the person who committed the offence takes the matter up with QCAT and they cut the sentence in half or a third, that effectively becomes the new standard.

On the concern for lack of consistency in these matters from state to state.

BARNETT: It has also been suggested to me that I should be going to the national body to try and get consistency and agreement on this matter across all three codes in every state. I will certainly attempt that. I personally don’t believe that will be possible but we will go on that journey and see where we end up.

On the question of why not simply treat each case on its merits, as in taking into account the offender’s intent and non-intent.

BARNETT: The offence is the same. A number of cases that come up, and I’m not casting any aspersions on anyone, where there is no explanation as to why the horse tested positive to a substance. How do you think the public would feel if there was swab after swab after swab and there is no guilty plea, there is no explanation, it is just an act of God ... and no penalty?

I’m not being flippant. Very rarely does someone say, you’ve caught me cold, I was trying to cheat the system ... you’ve got me fair and square. So we have the procedure where the stewards lay a charge, evidence is heard and a decision is made.

It should also be noted that in the standard there is already provision that the stewards can, in any given case, suspend the penalty. If the stewards felt it appropriate, for whatever reason as circumstances dictate, then the person who has committed the offence can have their penalty suspended.

On the initial response received on the proposed penalty standards, has any of that altered his original view?

BARNETT: Can I say that when people talk about ‘outrage’ ... and I can understand the interests of people around this table (the trainers), but the proposal has had plenty of positive support from elsewhere. That won’t sway me either way when it comes to making a decision and I’m not going to make any promises I can’t keep ... either way. I will give very careful consideration to all submissions. There are a lot of people who have a legitimate interest in what is in that document . The final decision won’t be rushed. It will take as long as it takes.

On how he sees his role as Integrity Commissioner.

BARNETT: I want racing in Queensland to succeed ... to be commercially viable. It gives enjoyment and employment to tens of thousands of people. I want to be the greatest ally that Queensland racing has ... and I think I can do that by increasing, appropriately, integrity standards in the state.

Racing has to deal with the matter of public confidence. People have the choice of where they spend the wagering dollar. They will not spend it in an industry where they believe integrity standards are inappropriate. So, maintaining appropriate integrity standards is important for public confidence and public confidence is important to growing wagering revenue.

That is what I be looking to achieve!

*QRIC has extended the deadline for feedback on the draft penalty standards to September 30.