The long road to a verdict: Victoria’s disciplinary model under pressure

Cover image courtesy of The Image Is Everything

In recent months, the headlines around Victorian racing have been dominated by two stories; the group of trainers who spent years fighting to clear their names after their horses tested positive for formestane and its metabolites, and Anthony and Sam Freedman, who now face disqualification after two of their horses were nebulised on race day in August 2025.

The two cases are very different in their facts and in what is at stake. What connects them is the way in which they have unfolded - both drawn out, both shaped by legal process, and both leaving those involved carrying the consequences long before any final decision has been reached.

Human error

The Freedman matter is, on its face, relatively straightforward.

On race morning in August 2025, stewards observed Moonhaven (Shalaa {Ire}) being nebulised. Further investigation established that Kira (Lonhro) had also been treated, and that veterinary treatment records for both horses were out of date. Both runners were scratched, and in December, the training partnership was charged under AR 249.

Anthony and Sam Freedman have pleaded guilty, but the issue is the consequence.

AR 249 carries a mandatory six-month disqualification unless special circumstances apply. Counsel for the Freedmans has argued that the case aligns with a line of precedent where fines have been imposed, pointing to the nature of the treatment, the absence of intent and the trainers’ cooperation.

He has also alleged that the prospect of a mandatory disqualification was introduced late. Racing Victoria has maintained that stewards have acted in accordance with the Rules of Racing and that penalty submissions were provided ahead of the hearing.

The decision of penalty sits with the Victorian Racing Tribunal, with the matter adjourned until June.

In the meantime, the stable continues to operate - more than $3 million spent at the sales, horses placed, business carried on - all without clarity on whether the trainers will be able to continue operating in the months ahead.

“Anthony Freedman has laid himself bare over the last two months… purchasing yearlings,” counsel for the Freedmans, Matthew Stirling, told the Tribunal.

“If there’s a case hanging over their head, and they’re subject to a mandatory six-month disqualification, why would you give a horse to them?”

The charge of presentation

The formestane case followed a very different path.

Charges were issued in April 2024 against Amy and Ash Yargi, Julius Sandhu, Smiley Chan, Symon Wilde, and Mark and Levi Kavanagh, relating to positive swabs returned in 2023 for formestane and its metabolite, 4-hydroxytestosterone.

What initially appeared to be a standard prohibited substance matter developed into something more complex.

During the course of proceedings, it was acknowledged that formestane could be of endogenous origin, as has been documented in both humans and cattle. In the absence of established precedent in thoroughbred racehorses, the case became a broader examination of the science, requiring expert evidence, laboratory input, and extended submissions from both sides.

Gallery: The trainers who received charges for formestane and its metabolites in 2024

The timeline reflected that.

The matter progressed through multiple directions hearings across 2024 and 2025, with delays driven by the need to obtain and respond to expert material and laboratory information. By the time the Tribunal handed down its decision in early 2026, close to two years had passed since charges were laid, and closer to three since the original swabs were taken.

All five trainers pleaded guilty to presentation. The Tribunal imposed fines ranging from $4000 to $6000, with 50% suspended for 12 months. There was no finding that any of the trainers had administered the substance.

The Tribunal’s decision brought the matter to a conclusion at that stage of the process.

The process itself had already imposed its cost - in time, legal expense and prolonged uncertainty.

Racing Victoria has since approached Racing Analytical Services Limited to undertake further scientific work into formestane, including whether the substance can occur naturally in thoroughbred racehorses and whether threshold levels should be considered.

A court-like system by design

The shape of both matters reflects the structure within which they have been handled.

The independent Victorian Racing Tribunal was established by the Victorian Government in 2019, replacing the three Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Boards that previously operated across the codes. It now oversees discipline for serious offences and hears appeals across thoroughbred, harness, and greyhound racing.

All serious offences are automatically referred to the Tribunal.

In that setting, Racing Victoria takes the role of prosecutor, and the licensed participant becomes the defendant. The Tribunal panel determines both liability and penalty.

It is a structure that sets Victoria apart from other principal racing authorities.

“In such cases, RV Stewards are merely the prosecutors,” a Racing Victoria spokesperson said. “Whilst they can submit what they believe is an appropriate penalty, it is the VRT that makes the decision… each case turns on its own set of circumstances.”

The intent is clear. The separation of roles is designed to remove any perception that the regulator is both bringing the case and determining the outcome. It introduces independence, and with it, a process that more closely resembles a court than a traditional stewards’ inquiry.

There are directions hearings. Each side can seek extensions to gather evidence. Submissions are made on both liability and penalty.

The consequence is that matters move more slowly.

The process is long

The length of the process is not an incidental feature, it is a consequence of how the system is designed to operate.

In a purely regulatory model, matters can be investigated and determined within a relatively contained timeframe. In a tribunal-based model, the requirements of procedural fairness, evidence gathering, and independent adjudication extend that timeline.

That is not, in itself, a criticism. It is, however, a reality that carries particular weight in a commercial environment.

Racing Victoria does not dispute that matters can take time, particularly where complexity is involved.

“We acknowledge that there are delays from time to time in the conduct of Stewards investigations owing to any number of reasons, just as there can be in the court process,” a spokesperson said.

“All parties use best endeavours to have matters dealt with expeditiously, as it is in the best interests of all, including the sport.”

Racing does not pause while cases are being resolved. Horses continue to race, to be sold, to be transferred between stables. Owners continue to invest and to make decisions about where their horses should be trained. Trainers continue to operate businesses that rely on confidence, continuity, and reputation.

Where a matter remains unresolved over an extended period, that uncertainty becomes part of the operating environment.

In the formestane case, that uncertainty extended over years, shaped by the need to resolve scientific questions that sat outside the immediate scope of the rules. In the Freedman matter, it is being experienced in real time, as the question of penalty remains open while the stable continues to function.

In both cases, the consequences of the process are not confined to the point at which a decision is ultimately delivered.

They are felt throughout the period in which that decision is being reached.

Racing Victoria has acknowledged the impact that can have.

“We are cognisant of the impact cases can have on all parties and again, where it is within our remit, we endeavour to deal with matters in an expeditious manner whilst protecting the integrity of the sport in an appropriate and thorough manner,” the spokesperson said.

A question of balance

In New South Wales, and similarly in jurisdictions such as Queensland, many comparable matters are dealt with directly by stewards, with penalties imposed at the conclusion of an inquiry and the right of appeal sitting behind that decision. The process is more immediate, the outcome clearer at an earlier stage, and the period of uncertainty often significantly shorter.

That immediacy, however, comes with its own risks. Decisions made quickly can later be tested, challenged or overturned, particularly where scientific evidence or procedural fairness comes into question.

Victoria has taken a different approach.

By separating investigation, prosecution and adjudication, and by referring serious offences to an independent Tribunal, it has prioritised procedural fairness and independence at the front end of the process. The trade-off is a system that operates more like a court, with the time, complexity and delay that can accompany it.

The formestane case and the Freedman proceedings show how that structure plays out in practice - not only in the penalties ultimately imposed, but in the period leading up to them. In both matters, the process itself has shaped the experience of those involved, extending well beyond the point at which the breach was first identified.

Racing Victoria has acknowledged the need to balance timeliness with integrity; presentation charges were removed from the list of serious offences on July 1, 2025, and now can be dealt with by the stewards.

The question is where that balance sits.

For participants, the consequences of a disciplinary matter are not limited to the penalty imposed at the end. They are felt in the time it takes to reach that outcome - in the decisions made without certainty, and in the commercial and reputational impact that sits alongside the process.

Whether the current model appropriately accounts for that impact is not something the rules explicitly address.

But it is increasingly part of the conversation.