|
|
Post by BVADMIN on May 14, 2013 9:27:23 GMT
TAKEN FROM THE RACING POST
TUESDAY 14th MAY 2013![]()
|
|
|
|
Post by djdjdj on May 14, 2013 18:32:03 GMT
Perhaps if he had appealed against the conviction, not just the sentence, then he might have served some purpose for the sport, and not had to pay a fine. What was the point really of admitting guilt by just appealing against the sentence and expecting not to be suspended and fined?  |
|
|
|
Post by BVADMIN on May 23, 2013 6:27:45 GMT
TAKEN FROM THE RACING POST
THURSDAY MAY 23rd 2013
GBGB made mistake in Mason appeal
THE decision to reduce Stuart Mason's ban to three month's at last month's GBGB appeal board meeting is to be revised.
The trainer originally had his license withdrawn for a period of two years following an iquiry into three positive samples taken from his greyhounds last November.
That was cut to three months on appeal, which would have allowed him to reapply for his licence last week.
However, the GBGB has admitted that they erred in that decision meaning the whole matter will be reviewed again in a fortnight.
A statement issued by the board yesterday said: "The GBGB Penalty Guidelines as part of the Rules of Racing specifically state that a minimum period of time a person's license can be withdrawn is six months.
"The independent Appeal Board will reconvene on Wednesday June 5 to address there sentencing in Mr Mason's appeal heard on April 24."
Mason said that he did not wish to comment further at this stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by BVADMIN on Jun 19, 2013 9:14:51 GMT
TAKEN FROM THE RACING POST
WEDNESDAY JUNE 19th 2013
Mason review
A TECHNICAL review of the GBGB Appeal Board's decision to reduce Stuart Mason's suspension to
three months from six has taken place.
The GBGB had pointed out a six-month minimum is normally specified under the rules, but it was confirmed
that the review committee does have the power to impose what it determined as a "just" period ie, the three-month ban.
|
|
