Singo, Waterhouse charged but Johns, Hayson, Robinson evidence comes to nought
Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be lawyers
Make ’em be trainers and bookies and such
As I predicted in earlier posts, Waterhouse and Singleton were both charged at the NSW Racing inquiry into the failure of millionaire mare More Joyous.
If I had that sort of excellent form for punting on horses, I’d be a wealthy man – and probably not writing this report.
Singleton has come out of this affair quite nicely. He was talked out of putting $100,000 on his failing horse More Joyous. He was fined 15k for bringing horse racing into disrepute. He is 85 grand in front and enjoyed himself immensely playing the lovable larrikin.
As loyal readers of my posts will remember, I predicted trainer Gai Waterhouse would retire or scale down her racing empire, after the inquiry. By an unexpected circumstance, I could be proved right for the treble.
We all expected Waterhouse to be charged for not doing her homework by omitting from her exercise book treatment on More Joyous. She left it out of her essay What I Did in My Stable this Week.
She was charged with that but also with the far more serious offence of ‘fail to report to the stewards any condition or occurrence that may affect the running of a horse in a race.’
Most of us thought Waterhouse would escape this charge as her vet gave evidence that More Joyous’s ailment and treatment were ‘routine’
But that conditional ‘may’ can be a real bastard. Now Waterhouse has to prove the condition or incidence had zero probability, within a margin of error, of affecting the performance of More Joyous. Waterhouse has pleaded innocence and her lawyers will argue the toss next week.
Gai ran true to recent form and, indignant, she said she had done nothing wrong in 20 years, a claim Mother Teresa might have had trouble substantiating in her best two decades.
The stewards found no fault against Waterhouse’s bookmaking son Tom.
They fed peanuts to the elephant in the room, the rumours about the direction of the evidence of football Immortal Andrew Johns, ex-jockey Allan Robinson and brothel owner/ big punter Eddie Hayson.
Johns tried to please everyone by saying Tom Waterhouse told him the bookie did not like the chances of More Joyous. Johns said Waterhouse never said the horse was ‘off’.
The smart money was on Johns saying this but colourful Sydney lawyer Chris Murphy begged to differ. Murphy was representing ex-jockey Robinson and the lawyer had expectations of exposure of dirty deeds.
Murphy tweeted, ‘Some days I wish I wasn’t a lawyer. This is one of those days. Think I’ll go take a long hot shower.’
He was disappointed in Johns. ‘Please disregard anything positive I may have ever tweeted in positive expectation re Andrew Johns. He had his chance,’ he tweeted.’
Without support from Johns, Murphy nixed additional evidence from Robinson after stewards refused to bring back punter Eddie Hayson to the room to hear what Robinson had to say.
Befuddled readers are wondering what Hayson has to do with this inquiry. I could tell you but the defamation lawyers are circling. Suffice to say Hayson and one other person are central to the conspiracy theory which Chris Murphy believes to be true.
If Gai Waterhouse is found guilty that theory may yet get its first full public hearing.