Harness Stewards Inquiry – Trainer/Driver Mr C. Saligari
Racing and Wagering Western Australia (RWWA) Stewards have today concluded an inquiry into an allegation that prior to race 3 at Gloucester Park on 24 January 2020, Trainer/Driver Mr Clinton Hall made an improper statement/s to Trainer/Driver Mr Craig Saligari who had a runner engaged in the race, with regard to the tactics and handling of that runner.
In relation to the same inquiry and as previously advised, the matter involving Trainer/Driver Mr Clinton Hall has been completed and Stewards had determined to lay a charge against Trainer/Driver Mr Craig Saligari under RWWA Rule of Harness Racing 229, which states;
- Chief Steward to be notified of inducement
A person employed, engaged or participating in the harness racing industry who is offered or given any money or other inducement improperly shall immediately inform the Chairman of Stewards or Chief Steward.
The particulars of the charge are that on 23 January 2020, Mr Saligari, being a registered person with RWWA, after being offered $2000.00 improperly in a telephone call from Trainer Mr Hall as an inducement to hand up the lead on CROCODILE KID, engaged in race 3 at Gloucester Park on 24 January 2020, failed to immediately inform the Chief Steward.
The inquiry resumed on 9 June 2020, where Mr Saligari pleaded not guilty to the above charge and provided defence submissions which were duly considered by Stewards. Mr Saligari was subsequently found guilty and attended a further inquiry on 30 June 2020 to provide submissions on the question of penalty.
Stewards have now completed their deliberations and have determined to impose a fine of $8000.00, of which $4000.00 is suspended for a period of two (2) years on the condition that, should Mr Saligari commit a similar breach of the rules within such period, the suspended amount will be fully payable and a further penalty may be imposed for the new offence as determined by Stewards.
In consideration of penalty, Stewards were mindful of the following factors:
- The fact that the inducement did not materialize due to Mr Saligari’s direct actions in rejecting the inducement.
- Mr Saligari’s cooperation during this matter upon commencement of inquiry.
- The unusual circumstances and nature of the offence.
- Mr Saligari’s personal circumstances.
- The strong need for both individual and general deterrence.
- Mr Saligari’s unblemished record over an extensive period.
- The seriousness of the offence.