VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
REVIEW AND REGULATION LIST	vcat reference No. Z157/2023 & Z189/2023
	
CATCHWORDS	
Greyhound owner and track official—undertook 5,362 betting transactions (by way of ‘system betting’) when engaged as a track official over nine month period—made false statement to Stewards about this (recanted shortly thereafter)—review of penalties imposed by Victoria Racing Tribunal—effect of effluxion of time and of immediate removal as an official by the Stewards—whether condition imposed by VRT should be maintained—Racing Act 1958 (Vic) ss 50ZE, 83OH, Greyhound Australasia Rules 20(3), 86(d), 99, 104 (6)(c).	

Z157/2023		
APPLICANT	Anthony Ebeyer	
RESPONDENT	Greyhound Racing Victoria Stewards	
Z189/2023		
APPLICANT	Greyhound Racing Victoria Stewards	
RESPONDENT	Anthony Ebeyer	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Senior Member J. Smithers	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	28 November 2023	
DATE OF ORDER	13 December 2023	
CITATION	Ebeyer v Greyhound Racing Victoria Stewards (Review and Regulation) [2023] VCAT 1379	

Order
1	Greyhound Racing Victoria Stewards, as the proper respondent in matter Z157/2023, are substituted as the respondent in that proceeding.
2	Under s 83OH of the Racing Act 1958 (Vic), the decision of the Victorian Racing Tribunal of 15 February 2023 is varied. On charge 1, Mr Ebeyer is disqualified for a period of nine months from the date of this decision. On charge 2, Mr Ebeyer is fined $1,000.
3	This is subject to the following condition:
Mr Ebeyer is permitted to continue to reside at his property at Seville, notwithstanding that the operation of breeding and rearing greyhounds continues to be conducted on that property, but Mr Ebeyer is to have no involvement in that operation at all. 

J. Smithers
Senior Member			

APPEARANCES:		
For Mr Ebeyer  	In person, assisted by Mr G O’Keefe, friend	
For Greyhound Racing Victoria Stewards	Ms Pathan of counsel	

Reasons
1	Mr Anthony Ebeyer has been involved in Greyhound racing for his whole adult life. He is now 65 years old. He has been a trainer of greyhounds, but not for more than 30 years. In more recent times, his participation has involved owning some racing dogs, and also, an operation involving breeding and rearing greyhound pups up to the age of 18 months, at the 27 acre property where he lives at Seville. Additionally, he has, up until the events the subject of these proceedings, worked at the Healesville Greyhound Club as a starter, kennel attendant and kennel supervisor. This is the first time any breach of greyhound industry rules has been alleged against him.
2	On 15 February 2023, in the Victorian Racing Tribunal (‘VRT’) Mr Ebeyer pleaded guilty to two disciplinary charges brought against him by the Greyhound Racing Victoria Stewards (‘GRVS’).
3	The first charge concerns Mr Ebeyer engaging in 5,362 betting transactions (by way of ‘system betting’), when he was either a starter, kennel attendant or kennel supervisor at Healesville Greyhound Club. This occurred on approximately 104 different days between 1 January and 31 September 2021. It was a breach of rule 104(6)(c) of the Greyhound Australasia Rules (‘GARs’).
4	The second charge concerns false statements made to the Stewards. When his engagement in betting transactions on 28 September 2021 was put to him in a recorded telephone inquiry on the evening of 30 September 2021, he denied them. However, after short reflection, he rang the Stewards back two hours later and admitted that he had done so. Those false statements were a breach of GAR 86(d). 
5	Before ringing the Stewards back on 30 September 2021, Mr Ebeyer had rung the general manager of the Healesville Greyhound Club and told her he would resign as an official at the Club. 
6	On 1 October 2021, Mr Ebeyer gave formal written notice of resignation from all race day duties.
7	On 6 October 2021, the Chief Steward of the Greyhound Racing Integrity Unit (‘GRIU’), Mr Paul Searle, gave written notice under GAR 20(3)(h) that Mr Ebeyer had been removed from any official roles at race meetings. But the letter stated:
This does not impact on Mr Ebeyer in any other capacity at this point in time. i.e. as an owner of greyhounds or working Clubs on race days but he cannot act as an official (as described below) on race days.
8	This prevented Mr Ebeyer from acting as a starter, kennel assistant or kennel supervisor, until the completion of the inquiry which had commenced into his conduct.
9	The VRT hearing was conducted on 17 October 2022, and 9 and 15 February 2023. The two charges were found proved. Mr Ebeyer was disqualified for 12 months on charge 1 and fined $500 in relation to charge 2.
10	The VRT also imposed a condition on the disqualification (‘Condition’). During the VRT hearing, there was discussion about arrangements for the transition of the business of breeding and rearing greyhound pups, to Mr Ebeyer’s son. The Condition was designed to enable Mr Ebeyer’s son (or another licensed person) to carry on the business with Mr Ebeyer having no involvement in that operation. The VRT contests both the validity and the appropriateness of the Condition.
11	But for the Condition, as a result of Mr Ebeyer being a disqualified person, he would have to leave his property, or alternatively, all the greyhounds kept there would have to be removed. I was told that is due to the effect of GAR 99(3)(g), which prohibits a disqualified person from entering onto any place where greyhounds are kept.
12	Over the last year or two, Mr Ebeyer has transitioned away from involvement as an owner and as a breeder of greyhounds. He has now transferred all greyhounds out of his name. During 2023, he has transferred 31 dogs, with the last batch of 16 being transferred on 9 May 2023. 
13	Both Mr Ebeyer and the GRVS have brought proceedings at VCAT seeking review of the VRT’s penalty determinations. These are brought under s 83OH of the Racing Act 1958 (Vic) (‘the Act’).
14	In his application to VCAT, Mr Ebeyer sought a stay of the VRT’s decision of 15 February 2023. The GRVS consented, and on 3 March 2023, that decision was stayed under s 50 of the VCAT Act.
15	This meant that Mr Ebeyer could continue to own and rear greyhound pups at his property, pending the outcome of the VCAT reviews. 
16	However, it did not have the effect of staying the Chief Steward’s decision of 6 October 2021, preventing Mr Ebeyer from working in any official capacity at greyhound tracks.
17	Mr Ebeyer contends the 12 month disqualification for charge 1 is excessive. Having transferred the last of his greyhounds on 9 May 2023, his main concern now is that the disqualification prevents him from working as an official. He said that the disqualification has so far cost him in excess $20,000 in wages forgone. He does not challenge the $500 fine for charge 2.
18	The GRVS contend that both of these penalties are too lenient, especially that for charge 2. Its primary concern in relation to charge 1 is that there is no power to impose the Condition, because it purports to relate to third parties, rather than to the imposition of a penalty on the person charged, Mr Ebeyer.
19	Alternatively, the GRVS contend, even if there is such a power, in the exercise of its discretion, VCAT should not impose the Condition here.
20	On 14 March 2023, the General Manager of the GRIU wrote to Mr Ebeyer, stating that in the light of the two findings of guilt by the VRT on 15 February 2023, he would remain prohibited from acting as an official at any greyhound race meeting. This would remain the position until the VCAT reviews were finalised.
21	On the same day, Mr Ebeyer replied to the GRIU contending that the effect of the VCAT stay was that he could continue to work as an official at Healesville Greyhound Club, pending the completion of the VCAT review.
22	On 27 April 2023, following a VCAT directions hearing on 21 April 2023, Mr Ebeyer filed an email by way of submission to VCAT contending that he was not being fairly treated. He acknowledged he had done the wrong thing in engaging in the betting transactions, pled guilty to both charges at the VRT and deserved to be punished. But he said, in effect, the result in practice for him was that while he had received a 12 month disqualification, he had in fact been disqualified from operating as a race official for 19 months already (with that disqualification from acting as an official being ongoing).
23	On 3 May 2023, GRIU responded to Mr Ebeyer. It stated that it had consented to the stay order by VCAT as it had significant concerns with the penalty imposed by the VRT, ‘including its practicality and animal welfare issues’.
24	The GRIU said that the effect of the stay was that Mr Ebeyer could continue being an active member of the GRV, including breeding, rearing and racing greyhounds. Also, in response to an inquiry he had made, he was advised he was free to transfer greyhounds to another licensed person without the approval or assistance of the Chief Steward.
25	With regard to acting as an official, the letter then said:
The position prior to the VRT decision was as follows:
1.	GRV understood that you had resigned from official race day duties. In that regard, we refer you to your letter of resignation from race day duties dated 1 October 2021 (a copy of that correspondence is included at page 407 of the s49 documents filed with VCAT in these proceedings). The matter of your employment with the club (undertaking other duties such as working in the cafeteria) remains a separate issue.
2.	Since 6 October 2021, shortly after the commencement of the inquiry into your conduct, you had been informed that you would be removed from any ‘official’ duties at race meetings under rule 20(3)(h) of the GAR (2018) until further notice. Save that under the current GAR (effective 1 May 2022) the relevant rule is now GAR 19(3)(i), GRV’s position has not changed. That is, you will be removed by the Stewards from any ‘official’ functions at meetings.
26	On 29 October 2023, Mr Ebeyer sent a further email by way of submission to VCAT. This stated that it had not been brought to the VRT’s attention that he had been stood down from all employment as an official in the industry since 6 October 2021. He was critical of the GRV legal team for failing to do this, as they are ‘far more experienced in the application of the law than I am’. 
27	This criticism is not warranted, however. The transcript of the hearing on 9 February 2023 shows that the fact of Mr Ebeyer having been banned in October 2021 from acting as a starter, kennel attendant or kennel supervisor was drawn to the VRT’s attention.
28	Mr Ebeyer said that by the time of writing his submission, he had been penalised by being denied any employment in an official role at any track since 6 October 2021, a period of 25 months. He said that surely the period during which he has already been stood down from any official employment should be taken as ‘time already served’. It is that prohibition which has had the greatest impact on him, both emotionally and financially. He said he had not trained greyhounds since the 1980s, and no longer owns any greyhounds.
29	That submission was accompanied by four character references from friends and colleagues in the industry, attesting to his knowledge, generosity, service to the community, work ethic and integrity.
The charges and the VRT decision
30	The charges brought against Mr Ebeyer were as follows:
Charge No. 1 of 2
Greyhounds Australasia Rule 104(6)(c) reads as follows:
Rule 104 Suitability, availability and restrictions on conduct of Stewards and officials
(6)	An official officiating in a capacity that may have an affect on the result of an Event shall not-
(a)	own, train or lease a greyhound in the Event; 
(b)	adjudicate on a matter in which he is involved in a personal as opposed to an official capacity; or
(c)	directly or indirectly engage in any betting transaction on that event.
Particulars of Charge
1.	Between 1 January 2021 and 30 September 2021 you directly or indirectly engaged in 5362 betting transactions in relation to the events identified in Schedule A held at Healesville Greyhound Racing Association (the Events).
2.	You were an official for each of the Events.
3.	You were officiating in a capacity that may have had an effect on the result of each of the Events, in that you were a:
(a)	starter at the Events conducted on [91 dates between 3 January and 28 September 2021 are then set out].
(b)	kennel supervisor at the Events conducted on [7 dates between 17 January and 4 July 2021 are then set out].
(c)	kennel attendant at the Events conducted on [13 dates between 19 January and 16 July 2021 are then set out].
Charge No. 2 of 2
Greyhounds Australasia Rule 86(d) reads as follows:
Rule 86 A person (including an official) shall be guilty of an offence if the person-
(d)	being an owner, trainer, attendant or person having official duties in relation to greyhound racing, makes a false or misleading statement in relation to an investigation,  examination, test or inquiry, or makes or causes to be made a falsification in a document in connection with greyhound racing  or the registration of a greyhound.
Particulars of Charge
1.	You are, and were at all relevant times, an owner licensed by Greyhound Racing Victoria (licence number 2186) and a person  bound by the Greyhound Australasia Rules.
2.	On 30 September 2021, Stewards opened an Inquiry with you regarding your wagering activity in respect of Events in which you were an official.
3.	During this Inquiry, you made a false and misleading statement in relation to an investigation or inquiry, in that you denied placing bets on Events held at the Healesville Greyhound Racing Association on 8 September 2021 and:
(a)	wagering data indicates you placed 85 bets on Events held at the Healesville Greyhound Racing Association on 28 September 2021;
and
(b)	you later stated to Stewards on 30 September 2021 that you placed bets on Events held at the Healesville Greyhound Racing Association on 28 September 2021.
31	The decision of the VRT, comprised by Judge Bowman and Mr Greg Childs, in full, is as follows:
Mr Anthony Ebeyer, you have been charged with a breach of GAR 104(6)(c) and of GAR 86(d). You have pleaded guilty to both offences.
The more serious offence is clearly the breach of GAR[104](6)(c) and we shall deal with it before turning to the other offences.
At all relevant times for the purposes of GAR 104(6)(c) you were an official, officiating at the Healesville Greyhound Association track. Between 1 January 2021 and 30 September 2021, you engaged in 5,362 betting transactions in relation to events at that track.
For the majority of the occasions on which you placed such bets, you were acting in the capacity of starter. There is no suggestion that on any of the occasions, whether you were the starter or otherwise you engaged in any activity that in any way affected the outcome of a race or affected the performance of a dog.
The reason for the staggeringly large number of bets was that you were engaged in “system betting”. An acquaintance introduced you to this, and it obviously became something of an obsession. It consumed hours of your time. Apparently, you did run at a profit, which is more than can be said of most “systems”, but you became somewhat obsessed with it, and, as said, it took a large amount of your time. You have since made an attempt to get away from this obsession, and you seem to have been successful in so doing.
That is not to excuse what you did. The role of starter is an important one. As stated, there is no suggestion that at any time your betting affected your work. In addition, the safeguard which the Stewards have in place, and for which they are to be congratulated, are thorough and the chances of a starter being able to affect the outcome of a race are slim indeed.
However, officials betting on the racing industry in which they are engaged is a very bad look indeed. Further, your betting was not a “one off” affair. It was more like a business, with thousands of bets involved.
In relation to your personal background, you have been registered as a greyhound owner since 1 October 1985 and were still so registered at the time of these offences. Indeed, your current registration does not expire until 30 June 2027. You also completed four competency visits as a breeder. Either in your own name or other name of a syndicate, you are currently registered as an owner or part owner of some 33 greyhounds. You are a keen breeder and it is as an owner and breeder that you have been involved in the industry apart from your employment at Healesville. You obviously love the dogs and the industry.
There is no suggestion of you having previously infringed any Rule or committed any offence. In other words, you have an excellent record.
As we understand it, you have retired from your previous full-time employment. You are 64 years of age. You live on a 27 acre property in Seville. Your wife also lives on the property. It was formerly some kind of health institution and has upon it three houses. You and your wife live in one of the houses, and the others are not occupied on a full-time basis. The kennels, facilities, a small track and the like are approximately 100-120 metres from your residence.
You breed greyhounds and give them some early training. Your son, Mitchell, is also a licensed person and visits regularly, assisting with the work with the greyhounds. On occasions he and his partner may stay on the property, but they normally reside elsewhere.
We have gone into details of the set-up at your property because we have made no secret of the fact that you are looking at a period of disqualification. If that be so, the question of whether you could continue to live at the property, or alternatively whether the dogs, kennels and the like can continue there, potentially is a live issue. Because of this, we delayed our decision until the decision in the VCAT appeal of Greyhound Racing Victoria v Divirgilio was handed down. That certainly had some bearing on our decision.
Following the handing down of that decision on 7 December 2022, we completed the hearing of your case. In Divirgilio, the Tribunal’s power to permit a disqualified person to remain on registered premises was relied upon. VCAT upheld the power of the Tribunal to permit a disqualified person to continue to reside at registered premises where greyhounds also resided. In fact, Mr Divirgilio was permitted to carry out some very minor duties involving greyhounds which were kennelled on the premises, but were trained by his partner, who was also a registered trainer.
Insofar as this issue may involve a question of law, it is [the] decision of the chairperson, with the assistance of Mr Childs, but determined entirely solely by the chairperson.
The decision of VCAT affirming the decision of this Tribunal seems to be correct and will be followed. We can attach some terms to the disqualification. Accordingly, we will permit Mr Ebeyer to continue to reside at his present property. The greyhounds need not be removed and can continue to be prepared for a racing career at the property. This can be done by Mr Mitchell Ebeyer or another duly licensed person. However, you, Mr Anthony Ebeyer, can play no part in this. The greyhounds can continue to reside and undergo preliminary  training on the property. That must be by a licensed person, but not by you. Only in the event of an emergency, such as a fire, can you have any personal contact with the dogs.
Accordingly, our decision is this. On Charge 1, you are disqualified for a period of twelve months. Bearing in mind the penalties imposed is other cases, both in the greyhound and equine industries, this seems to us to be a fair and just outcome. We repeat that you have an excellent record and there is no suggestion that your betting activities in any way impacted upon your duties as a starter or general employee or on the way in which you carried [out] your duties. However, a period of disqualification of this nature and for 12 months is certainly warranted.
You are also charged with a breach of GAR 86(d). During the Stewards inquiry, you made a false and misleading statement to them.
Initially, you denied making any bets on events at Healesville on 28 September 2021, and on events in which you were an official. Wagering data in fact revealed that you had 85 bets. Later on the same day you admitted that you had placed such bets.
The Stewards have enough to do without having to waste time as a result of being misled. In the present case, you righted the situation by admitting that you had lied and made that admission on the same day, namely 30 September 2021.
Accordingly, not much of the time of the Stewards was wasted as might otherwise have been the case. Nevertheless, you did mislead them and did give them false information concerning a quite complicated and serious matter.
In all the circumstances, on Charge 2, you are fined the sum of $500. In summary, you are disqualified for a period of 12 months, but you are permitted to continue to reside at your present residence. You are not permitted to have any contact – with the dogs kennelled on the property – that is, you cannot take any active role in their maintenance or training during the period of disqualification. You are also fined the sum of $500.
Submissions by Mr Ebeyer
32	As described above, Mr Ebeyer seeks that no disqualification be imposed. He submits that the (by now) 26 month prohibition on acting as an official which he has already undergone is enough. He notes he now faces the possibility, on the GRVS’ submissions, of being unable to act as an official for up to three and a half years. (This is because of the effect of GAR 99(2)(f), which prohibits a disqualified person from acting as an official at a race meeting).
33	Mr Ebeyer has now relinquished of all his greyhounds. He acknowledged his conduct was wrong, and merited punishment. But he points to his otherwise clear record over many years in the industry, his plea of guilty, and the positive character references given on his behalf.
Submissions by the GRVS
34	In relation to Mr Ebeyer’s concern about the impact on his employment, the GRVS’ position is that this is a separate issue to the question of what the proper penalty should be for his conduct in engaging in betting, and in making a false statement to the stewards about that.
35	In terms of penalty, the GRVS submitted, including by reference to other cases, that the nature of the conduct is so serious as to warrant as a ‘starting point’, a disqualification for more than 15 months and in fact, closer to 24 months. But taking into account the mitigating factors, an appropriate period of disqualification would be at least 12 months, and in the range of 12-18 months.
36	For charge 2, the GRVS submitted that the fine is inadequate, and it should be replaced with a period of disqualification, to be served cumulatively upon that imposed for charge 1.
37	Concerning the Condition, the GRVS noted that in prior decisions, such as Greyhound Racing Victoria Stewards v Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board of Greyhound Racing (‘Finn’), and Greyhound Racing Victoria Stewards v Divirgilio  (‘Divirgilio’), VCAT endorsed the power of the VRT to impose conditions which comprise ‘carve outs’ from the impact of a disqualification otherwise imposed:
In Finn’s Case, VCAT held that the predecessor provision to s 50ZE(1)(b) authorised the creation of an exception to a disqualification order, whereby Mr Finn could attend greyhound trials while still disqualified. In Divirgilio, the ‘assistance condition’ imposed by the VRT on Mr Divirgilio’s disqualification permitted him to assist with the ‘toileting and feeding’ of his partner’s greyhounds.
Consideration
38	In considering penalty, in addition to the usual aspects of the seriousness of the conduct, general and specific deterrence, and mitigating factors, I am required to deal with two other matters. These are the impact of the prohibition on Mr Ebeyer from acting as an official which has been in place since October 2021, and whether the Condition may validly be imposed (and if so, whether it should be).
39	The nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct the subject of charge 1 is described in the VRT decision, above. The GRVS point to the serious breaches of the rules, whereby an official engaged in a massive volume of betting transactions over an extended period, when he was operating in a position of trust as an official, namely, as a starter, kennel attendant and kennel supervisor. 
40	General deterrence is important in this case. Betting is obviously integral to greyhound racing. The integrity, and perceived integrity of the industry depends on officials scrupulously abiding by the prohibition on betting in any races where they are officiating in a capacity that may potentially affect the result of an event.
41	The GRVS note that no disciplinary penalty has yet been served for this conduct, and submit that it needs to be. I agree. Mr Ebeyer also implicitly acknowledged this, but says that he has already served a sufficient period of ‘disqualification’. 
42	The GRVS referred to two comparable cases as follows:
As before the VRT, GRV submits that while there are no recent similar matters relating to GRV given the very large number of bets placed by Mr Ebeyer, the NSW Greyhound Welfare & Integrity Commission matter of Mr Evan Taylor heard on 26 April 2022 is instructive. In that case, there were betting offences committed on 24 dates and the Commission considered the ‘appropriate starting point … to be a 15-month disqualification’, which was reduced to 9 months taking into consideration various matters. Mr Taylor was also a race official.
GRV also refers again to the NSW Greyhound Welfare & Integrity Commission matter of Mr Ryan Jones heard on 25 November 2021, in which the Commission ultimately imposed a 9 month disqualification for the placing of multiple bets on three dates on which Mr Jones was engaged in work as a swab official. The Commission stated that it: 
considers that matters where race officials place bets whilst working in an official capacity to be particularly serious and the need for the Commission to ensure integrity remains paramount. Having regard to the seriousness of these matters a starting point of a 12-month disqualification is the benchmark when dealing with future matters involving similar conduct.
43	In the hearing, a list of some prior decisions was handed up by Mr Ebeyer. However, no copies of these decisions were provided, only very brief statements of penalties imposed (mostly for apparently engaging in betting while acting as an official). They all related to conduct apparently in Shepparton in 2011, save for two dated 2013. As such, these decisions would be of limited assistance given their age, even if further information had been provided about them. 
44	The various relevant components of the cases of Taylor and Jones are quite similar the present matter: there were early pleas, no priors, a long record of involvement in the industry, and no evidence of impropriety in relation to the bets placed, nor any impact on the outcome of a race or of the performance of a dog.
45	There is a difference, however, in terms of the scale of the betting, especially in comparison with Jones. I agree with the VRT that the ‘starting point’ here, before consideration of mitigating factors, would be a disqualification of at least 15 months. 
46	Mr Ebeyer says in effect, that in terms of impact on him in a personal sense, as a result of his circumstances having now changed, it is the loss of his ability to act as an official which has had the greatest impact.
47	In effect, what Mr Ebeyer seeks is to serve different components of his disqualification at different times. This has come about in part due to the 16 month period which elapsed after the conduct while the investigation and VRT hearing processes ran their course. (This was itself in part due to the VRT hearing process being extended to consider the circumstances which gave rise to the Condition being imposed.) 
48	It also came about in part as a result of Mr Ebeyer’s own choice, in making his successful application for a stay by VCAT of the VRT’s decision, pending this review. For seven out of the nine months the stay has been in place, it has not been of any practical assistance to him with regard to breeding and rearing greyhounds, because he relinquished the last of his dogs on 9 May 2023. Since then, all the stay has done is to delay the commencement of the period when any disqualification would commence, and hence, he says, made things worse for him. 
49	This was in circumstances where he was clearly aware that the multiple betting transactions which he had admitted, would inevitably lead to a substantial penalty, likely a significant period of disqualification.
50	Also, it is clearly the case that the delay in the finalisation of the investigation and disciplinary prosecution process up to 15 February 2023 gave Mr Ebeyer time to make the decision to cease involvement as an owner and carry out the transfers of his dogs in an orderly way.
51	The processes for the appointment of officials, and for permitting them to act as officials or not, are the subject of separate rules to the rules and the provisions of the Act which govern the imposition of disciplinary penalties by the VRT, and by VCAT on review. 
52	To some extent, the greater impact which Mr Ebeyer faces as a result of a disqualification is something which, while unfortunate for him personally, is a consequence he would or should have been aware of. As someone who derives benefits in terms of remuneration, and perhaps other benefits in terms of social connections in the industry, he would have been aware that any serious breach of the rules would impact him in this additional way, not just in his capacity as an owner. 
53	Nevertheless, in my view, it is reasonable to take into account the impact of the 16 month period which the investigation and VRT disciplinary process ran for, and the personal impact on Mr Ebeyer, but only to a limited extent. 
54	At the same time, I need to be cognisant that the primary aim of a disqualification (as opposed to a suspension) is, broadly, to prevent any participation at all in the industry, or any association with it. 
55	One possibility which might be contemplated is that there could be a ‘carve out’ similarly to that in the cases of Finn and Divirgilio, such that Mr Ebeyer could continue to act as an official during his period of disqualification. That is, the effect of GAR 99(2)(f) could be ‘carved out’. 
56	However, there are a number of reasons why this would not be appropriate. First, neither party suggested that. Second, and more importantly, it would in my view be inconsistent with the concept of disqualification for a person to be disqualified, and yet able to carry out the trusted role as an official at the same time. And third, the power to remove an official during race meetings under GAR 20(3)(h) is one which is vested in the Stewards, and is not the subject of this review. 
The Condition
57	I turn now to the question of the validity of the Condition. This is not formally stated in the VRT decision as a standalone condition. Rather, it is expressed in the seventh-last paragraph of the text of the VRT decision. 
58	In my view the Condition serves two purposes, one valid, and the other not. 
59	The first thing which the Condition does is to allow Mr Ebeyer to continue to reside at his residence on his property at Seville, notwithstanding that the greyhound pups are still being housed at the kennels there (albeit separated by about 100 metres from his home). But he must have nothing to do with them. 
60	This first aspect of the Condition in effect modifies GAR 99(3)(g), which would otherwise prohibit a disqualified person from entering onto any place where greyhounds are kept. 
61	In my view, the first purpose is conceptually the same as the conditions imposed in Finn and Divirgilio. Similarly to those cases, this aspect of the Condition is a ‘carve out’ from the disqualification ordered. It relates to the penalty being imposed on Mr Ebeyer, not the future operation of the business at the premises. It is saying that, similarly to those cases, the impact which the disqualification would otherwise have is modified to the extent that Mr Ebeyer may continue to reside at the property where he lives, notwithstanding that the dogs, in particular, greyhound pups, formerly owned by him are still kept there, and others are bred there, as long as he has nothing to do with them. 
62	Section 50ZE(1)(b) of the Act provides that in determining a matter before it, the VRT may make any decision or order it considers is required in the interests of justice, including the imposition of any penalty under the rules.
63	I agree that the Act does empower the imposition of a condition of this kind. I agree with, and adopt, the analysis of Senior Member Tang in Divirgilio in this regard. 
64	The second thing which the Condition does is to purport to allow Mr Ebeyer’s son, or some other licensed person, to keep greyhounds on that property. 
65	In that sense, it purports to modify the operation of LR 11.7. That rule relevantly prohibits a registered person (such as Mr Ebeyer’s son, for example) from keeping greyhounds at a ‘Greyhound Training Property’ (an expression which is broadly defined) of a person who has been disqualified (that is, Mr Ebeyer). 
66	In my view, that part of the Condition does go beyond the power to impose conditions as part of a penalty handed down to Mr Ebeyer in the exercise of the power under s 50ZE(1)(b) of the Act.
67	It is a matter between the regulator and the person having responsibility for the care and management of the greyhounds on the property as to how LR 11.7 (or now, LR 25.1) is negotiated. There is a discretion in the Board of GRV to approve an arrangement which is contrary to LR 11.7. There was also discussion in the hearing about the meaning of the word ‘property’ in LR 11.7, and whether a lease or other arrangement might overcome the effect of LR 11.7. 
68	The GRVS expressed concerns as to whether the attendance of Mr Ebeyer’s son (or whoever has responsibility for the dogs) from off-site was sufficient to ensure the welfare of the pups. 
69	Such matters are beyond the scope of these penalty reviews, however, and are, as stated, a matter between the person having responsibility for the pups and GRV.
70	The above analysis has the effect of simplifying the question of whether, in the exercise of VCAT’s discretion, the Condition should be imposed.  
71	In my view, the first part of the Condition should be imposed. Not to do so would be unnecessarily punitive. The second part will not be.
Penalty for charge 1
72	In the light of the above analysis of the issue of the impact of the prohibition since October 2021 on acting as an official, and of the Condition, I make the following determination in relation to the penalty for charge 1. 
73	As noted, Mr Ebeyer has been prevented from acting as an official for 26 months now, and this has had an adverse impact on him. But this is moderated by the actions he has taken, and the benefit he has obtained from  having had time to resolve his position as an owner, which he finalised on 9 May 2023.  
74	I also take into account the mitigating factors referred to above, including Mr Ebeyer’s remorse, early plea and lack of any adverse effect on the performance of any dog or outcome of any race, plus the personal references provided by him.
75	Synthesising these factors, I determine that Mr Ebeyer is to be disqualified for a period of nine months from the date of this decision.
Penalty for charge 2
76	Concerning charge 2, there is no doubt as to the importance of sending a message that dishonesty in responding to Stewards’ inquiries is of the utmost seriousness. The industry relies on the trustworthiness of those carrying out official roles, in particular. I agree with the GRVS that an additional period of disqualification would ordinarily be appropriate where a person has sought to avoid disciplinary prosecution by making false denials. 
77	At the same time, however, I am conscious that what occurred here was that when the allegations of placing bets on races at the meeting at Healesville two days earlier were put to him, apparently without warning, Mr Ebeyer panicked, and denied them. He prevaricated and referred to the possibility that they had been placed by his son, which is something he maintains did occur on his betting accounts, from time to time. Where someone has responded dishonestly when allegations are put to them for the first time, they should be given every encouragement to do what Mr Ebeyer did, and that is to respond to their conscience, and immediately initiate contact (ringing the Stewards back later that same evening) and ‘coming clean’. Clearly, the fact that when he did call the Stewards back, Mr Ebeyer had already notified the Club of his resignation, demonstrates insight and remorse. 
78	I note the VRT decision characterised this conduct in terms of wasting the Stewards’ time. In my view, even where the false statement was corrected two hours later, general deterrence requires that a penalty of some substance be imposed. In the circumstances, I determine that this is an exception to the usual situation where a false statement would attract an additional period of disqualification. However, a fine of $500 is in my view, insufficient. I impose a fine of $1,000 for charge 2.  
Conclusion
79	Mr Ebeyer will be disqualified for nine months. This prevents him from having any involvement in the industry as an owner, or attending racecourses, or premises associated with the industry (subject only to the Condition). Up until now, he has not been subject to any such limitation.
80	Additionally, as explained above, this has the effect of continuing the prohibition, already imposed by other means, on acting as an official, for the duration of the disqualification. 

J. Smithers 
Senior Member