Who else was involved in Aquanita scandal? Decision on phone means that ‘can never be answered’
Victoria’s racing integrity commissioner says the extent of involvement in the Aquanita doping scandal will never be known because of Racing Victoria’s decision to hand back Robert Smerdon’s phone as part of its investigation.
On Thursday, Sean Carroll published the findings of his review into Racing Victoria’s handling of the Aquanita saga, the biggest doping scandal in Victorian racing recent history. It led to Smerdon and six other licensed participants being found guilty of significant rule breaches and disqualified from racing.
Racing integrity commissioner Sean Carroll.Credit:Joe Armao
As part of his review, Carroll explored the adequacy of Racing Victoria’s investigation and whether there were any perceived, potential or actual conflicts of interest.
Carroll, whose office received nearly 100 complaints or enquiries related to Aquanita and Racing Victoria’s investigation, trawled through 500 documents, more than 30 interview transcripts and 120 spreadsheets of wagering data.
Ultimately, Carroll said the decision to return Smerdon’s phone meant questions would forever remain on who else was complicit in the Aquanita scandal. As a result of the investigation, Smerdon was disqualified from racing for life for doping 78 of his horses.
None of Aquanita’s horses ever returned a positive test result.
Robert Smerdon.Credit:Ken Irwin
“I identified deficiencies in certain aspects of the RVL investigation into Aquanita – in particular, relating to the seizure and management of participants’ telecommunications devices – which resulted in evidence either not being obtained at the first available opportunity, being destroyed, or permanently lost,” Carroll wrote in his report.
“I accept that this did not cause detriment to those who were subsequently charged and sanctioned.
“However, the absence of this evidence means that the question of whether others had knowledge of, or were implicated in, the systemic Aquanita doping can never be answered.”
Carroll said he had also explored whether there were any conflicts of interest, given the personal relationships of Racing Victoria staff with Aquanita board and committee members.
But he found no evidence of improper action.
“Many of the complaints received by my office relate to the potential conflict of interest of board and committee members and staff of both RVL and the MRC, and the impact this had on the investigation and subsequent decision-making about disqualification of Aquanita-trained horses and re-distribution of prizemoney,” Carroll wrote.
“I have found no evidence of any undeclared conflicts of interest, improper or inadequate management of any declared conflicts, or inappropriate participation or interference in any Aquanita decision-making by any person, including in relation to decisions to disqualify horses.
“I am also satisfied that no person with an Aquanita conflict of interest was involved in the decision not to recoup prizemoney that had already been paid to horses that were subsequently disqualified. I otherwise consider that this decision was a commercial one that was open to RVL to make. Any recovery of fines imposed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is also at the discretion of RVL.”
Carroll has previously identified shortcomings in Racing Victoria investigations and recommended changes to processes, most notably following the bungled Richard Laming case, when a steward acted improperly during a Victorian Racing Tribunal case, causing stomach tubing charges to be withdrawn.
Carroll said because those previously made recommendations had been adopted by Racing Victoria, he did not see the need to make further recommendations to improve the system used by stewards to investigate doping claims.
News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.
Most Viewed in Sport
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article