Latest News

Racing NSW Stewards today conducted a hearing of a charge issued against licensed trainer Grant Allard under AR48, for failing to disclose the full benefit he received for the sale of I Am Moses to Hong Kong interests in May 2018 and failing to disclose a contingency to be paid subject to the horse winning a class 1, 2 or 3 race in Hong Kong.

Evidence during the course of the inquiries conducted on 23 May 2019 and 16 August 2019 was taken from registered owners Mrs L Metcalf and Mr L Metcalf, Bloodstock Agent Mr D Flack and Mr Allard, who was assisted by solicitor Mr P O’Sullivan.

The particulars of the charge being that Mr Allard
a. received a benefit of $85,000 for the sale of I Am Moses when he had only disclosed to Mrs Metcalf (verbally), and only received her consent, to receive a benefit of $80,000 and
b. failed to disclose to Mrs Metcalf the full benefit he would receive, and Mrs Metcalf was entitled to receive, should I Am Moses win a Class 1, 2 or 3 race in Hong Kong namely a contingency payment of up to $70,000.

Stewards Findings
1. In a statement provided to Racing NSW on 24 July 2018, Mr Flack advised that he arranged for I Am Moses to be sold for a total of $230,000 to Hong Kong interests. He advised his commission was $25,000 and Mr Allard was paid a total of $85,000 for the sale of I Am Moses and an additional $5,000 for the outstanding training fees for a horse name Claro El Blanco. Mrs Metcalf was paid the sum of $120,000 by Mr Flack.

2. His evidence before the Stewards inquiry on 16 August 2019 was that he couldn’t specifically recall the break up of the payment to Mr Allard, however, did confirm he retained $25,000 for the sale of I Am Moses and Mrs Metcalf received $120,000. He advised the statement given to Racing NSW on 24 July 2018 was to the best of his recollection at the time.

3. On 23 May 2019 and 16 August 2019, Mr Allard advised that the additional $5000 paid into his bank account by Mr Flack was done so erroneously, as an additional payment for the training of Claro El Blanco. He confirmed he had not paid the money back to Mr Flack and that Mr Flack had not requested he return the money.

4. At today’s hearing, Mr Flack changed his evidence that he had erroneously paid Mr Allard an additional $5,000. He was questioned regarding his conflicting evidence and, in the opinion of the Stewards, was unable to provide an appropriate response as to why his evidence had changed.

5. In all of the circumstances, the Stewards prefer the evidence of Mr Flack in his statement of 24 July 2019.

6. Further, they find that given the evidence of Mr Flack on 16 August 2019 that he received $25,000 for the sale and Mrs Metcalf received $120,000 for the sale, that the remaining $85,000 from the sale was provided to Mr Allard and find that Mr Allard did fail to disclose to Mrs Metcalf the full benefit he received, that being $85,000.

7. In respect to the particulars relating to the contingency payment of $70,000 the Stewards found the particular not proven on the basis that Mr Allard had given evidence that he was not to be the beneficiary of the contingency payment and that he considered Mrs Metcalf to be the beneficiary of any such payment.

Penalty
Stewards considered the following matters in respect to penalty:

1. Mr Allard's not guilty plea;
2. Good record;
3. The total of the benefit not disclosed;
4. Precedent penalties for similar offences;
5. Seriousness of the offence, and
6. His current professional and personal circumstances.

In addition, the Stewards have considered the following general principles in their approach to penalty:

7. What message is to be given to this individual to not only ensure that in the future this type of conduct is not repeated, but to also ensure that there is an appropriate penalty imposed to indicate the response of the community to integrity issues.

8. What general message is required to be sent to the community at large to indicate to those who might be likeminded to engage in such conduct, what the likely consequences are, and, secondly, to indicate to the broader community who are not likely to engage in the type of conduct that, should it be detected, they, whether they be wagerers or people just generally interested in the individual code, will know that it is operating at the highest possible standards.

Mr Allard was disqualified for a period of four months effective immediately and fined the sum of $5000.

Relevant Rule
Division 4 – Sale or gifting of a horse

AR 48 Prohibition on secret commissions in connection with the sale of a horse

(1) This rule applies to:
(a) any person bound by these Australian Rules (“person”); and
(b) any named horse or unnamed horse (for the purposes of this rule, “relevant horse”).