Trainer Has 30 Month DQ Reduced to 3 Months

ALEX Verhagen has had his 30-month disqualification imposed by the Greyhound Welfare & Integrity Commission slashed to three-months on appeal.

SWAN Bay trainer Alex Verhagen has had his 30-month disqualification imposed by the Greyhound Welfare & Integrity Commission (GWIC) sensationally slashed to three-months on appeal.

On August 18, GWIC decision-makers slapped Verhagen with a string of suspensions and disqualifications to be served concurrently after facing 27 charges.

Of the 27 charges, six were either withdrawn or not proven, while a further five were met with monetary fines totalling $2,875.

After engaging prominent racing solicitor Paul O'Sullivan, Verhagen lodged an appeal on six of the more serious charges with the NSW Racing Appeals Tribunal.

At the centre of the charges levelled by GWIC was that Verhagen had failed to provide veterinary attention for two pups in his care; that he failed to provide veterinary attention to a litter of pups in his care; and that he was neglectful in connection with the registration of three greyhounds from a litter.

Verhagen was also charged with giving false evidence to GWIC inspectors and failing to maintain kennels at the set GWIC standard.

Following a lengthy and highly complex hearing, Judge Armati upheld appeals on four of the main charges in their entirety which centered around failures to provide adequate care to greyhounds in Verhagen's care.   

The appeal against the three-month disqualification for giving false evidence was dismissed as was the four-month suspension for maintaining kennels at a GWIC standard. 

Alex Verhagen (second from left) at The Gardens

Included in the appeals upheld was the 18-month disqualification for producing three pups from the Fernando Bale x Smiley Mulwee litter where DNA analysis concluded that neither the sire or dam were as suggested.

"It is that there is simply no evidence of what happened from the whelping to the time they left (the property)," the ruling read.

"The appellant has no explanation. Not unsurprisingly, the regulator has tried to find an explanation and cannot. Various possibilities have been suggested, namely, that the greyhounds were swapped. 

"The evidence is noted that there was a rumour about only three pups being born and not six, but there is no evidence to put weight to that rumour, and it has not formed part of the proceedings before the Tribunal. 

"It is, at the end of the day, the Tribunal simply does not know, the regulator does not know, it is the evidence of the appellant that he does not know, what happened. Was there a mix-up of the pups? Was there nefarious activity which has not been charged? It is not known. 

"What is left is the charge that was laid, and it is negligence. And it is negligence in completing a form and stating that the three pups had the breeding history set out on that form. And it is apparent they did not. 

"What then is the act of negligence? What is there to establish that in his (Verhagen) mind he failed to make due inquiry or failed to take other steps that a responsible breeder notifying the regulator in a matter as important as breeding should have done? 

"There is nothing advanced other than the fact that he was negligent when he completed the form because he must have had some sort of mix-up which he should have done something to avoid. 

"But what is that something he should have done to avoid, on the evidence, it not being a case where he has acted corruptly or criminally or otherwise. 

"It could well be that this appellant has engaged in the most improper conduct. Two things: firstly, that is not alleged against him and, secondly, it is not able to be established on evidence.

"He has no prior matters of improper behaviour prior to this group of matters that all came together. 

"And there is no reason why his inability to provide an explanation should be rejected on the evidence before the Tribunal, which would mean that he failed to do something or he did things he should not have done when he completed that form.

“The ingredient of negligence in completing the form is not established. 

"Charges 23, 24 and 25 are dismissed." 

Latest News Articles