THE CURRIE CASE ... STILL A NEVER-ENDING STORY OR IS RACING QUEENSLAND ABOUT TO TAKE A STAND?

By Graham Potter | Thursday, April 18, 2019

On May 30, 2018 Racing NSW stewards issued Toowoomba based trainer Ben Currie with a notice requiring him to ‘show cause’ as to why the provisions of AR50 (see rule posted at the bottom of this article) should not be invoked after Currie was hit with numerous charges.

After receiving and considering submissions, Racing NSW stewards reached the conclusion on June 6, 2018 that ‘any hardship suffered by Mr Currie by the invoking the provisions of AR50, is outweighed by the prejudice to, and that undermining of, the image, interests and integrity of racing in NSW if he was permitted to nominate (and race) horses in NSW while the serious charges issued against him are yet to be determined. In those circumstances, the “balance of convenience” is against Mr Currie and, accordingly, Racing NSW Stewards rule that, acting under the provisions of AR50, nominations of horses trained by Mr Currie will be declined to be received and/or rejected until the charges issued by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission as detailed above have been resolved.’

Today in Queensland, just shy of ten and a half months after Racing NSW took such quick and decisive action to protect its product, QCAT granted Currie yet another stay of proceedings to allow him to continue training until the charges against him have been resolved.

A QCAT member announced the outcome saying that, on the balance of convenience he could see a clear detriment to Currie adding, "on the other hand, I can’t see to grant a stay undermines the integrity of racing."

The statements of Racing NSW stewards and the QCAT officials thus completely contradict each other … this, after even more charges were added to Currie’s case file than Racing NSW had to consider at the time.

You only have to look at how the fortunes of the two states are faring to see who is sailing on an even keel and who is spinning out of control.

In fact, you have to wonder what planet QCAT members are living on.

By almost any reasonable standard of quality, the Queensland Racing judicial system operation over the past few years has been a circus and, because of this, the integrity of racing has arguably been undermined over and over again … and again … and this is not just related to the Currie case.

The delays, the inordinate length of time it has taken to resolve cases, the amount of cases that are still ‘pending’ is arguably staggering in its failure to achieve a positive (if you’ll excuse the pun) outcome for the greater industry.

That the integrity of racing in Queensland has been, and continues to be undermined by its current judicial system, is not a point that has been hidden away. It has been mentioned often in newspaper or website articles. It is on social media. It is in general conversation. Words like ‘laughing stock,’ embarrassment’ etc are common descriptions that are used to describe an impasse that has long since become a crisis in racing in Queensland.

But in this flawed system QCAT have the responsibility and have every right to make any decision they see fit … but, “I can’t see to grant a stay undermines the integrity of racing.”

You have got to be kidding!

**************************************************************************************************

So here we are … just short of ten and a half months since Racing NSW made their decision on the Currie case.

A run of ‘stays’ to enable Currie to keep training in Queensland … charges altered, dropped, more charges added and all of the time Currie has rolled with the punches and has trained more than a hundred winners in Queensland since the Racing NSW decision stopped his attempted push into that state.

As ever, it must be acknowledged that Currie deserves the presumption of innocence while awaiting the long set of verdicts that still have to be decided upon and, as much as some try to hold it against him, Currie is certainly not responsible for the faults of a judicial system in need of an urgent and drastic overhaul.

You can say Currie deserves ‘natural justice.’

No argument there but, sadly, this is no longer merely a case of QRIC v Currie.

As mentioned, the integrity of racing is suffering … maybe you can debate to what degree but the suffering itself is a no contest … and many of racing’s stakeholders in Queensland are suffering by default because of the damage that the standing of their racing industry has endured directly as a result of the on-going negative case headlines.

There has been no ‘natural justice’ for them in all of this. They have just been left as collateral damage and it is therefore quite understandable why many believe that that it would clearly be beneficial to the industry if the action taken by Racing NSW stewards is duplicated as soon as possible by Racing Queensland in the Currie case … a step, it is believed, Racing Queensland has been considering this week while hoping for a better result, from their point of view, at QCAT.

Racing Queensland appears to have that authority, courtesy of a recently updated rule (in the Queensland context).

Would that be a fair ruling?

Fair or not, the important bottom line is that authorities would not have to even think about enacting the type of rule used by Racing NSW and now reportedly being considered by Racing Queensland if there was a system in place which brought swift and fair justice to such proceedings.

Until the current system is changed (and it must be changed) to a more practical and efficient system, some sort of more appropriate action than has been delivered in past has to be found and implemented even if, in the case of Queensland, it comes down to a case of better late than never.

That, ideally, that would mean keeping racing’s authority within racing.

*The rule that Racing NSW enacted against Currie: *Rule AR 50. All nominations and entries are subject to approval, and the Committee of any Club, or the Stewards, may decline to receive, or at any time after having received, reject any nomination or entry without giving any reason for so doing.

*Rule AR 55 (which is reportedly being considered for use in the Currie case): All nominations are subject to the approval of a Principal Racing Authority (in this case Racing Queensland). A PRA may decline to receive or after receiving reject any nomination in their absolute discretion and without giving reasons for so doing.