They suspected he had remained involved in training pacers at his 12-hectare, $2.5 million property near Singleton while suspended, an allegation he denies.
Goadsby has not provided the handsets, claiming they contain material that is commercially sensitive and covered by legal professional privilege.
Loading
According to Supreme Court documents, he reported that during a six-week period from last December “he had used more than one phone and, in fact, had used quite a number of phones, perhaps 12, because he used other people’s phones during the course of his business activities, particularly over Christmas when his workers (in businesses unrelated to harness racing) were on leave”.
Contacted by this masthead, Goadsby declined to comment with an appeal and court action afoot. But a statement by Pit Patrol said he was acting on legal advice to safeguard the privacy of his company’s dealings with clients.
“Apart from these numerous devices, Mr Goadsby has supplied HRNSW with all other information that they requested and has made concerted and determined efforts to work with HRNSW to extract information from the phones that he is lawfully able to provide,” said the June 28 statement on Facebook.
“Regrettably, for reasons known only to them, HRNSW have refused to engage with him in any meaningful way.
“To resolve the issue, Mr Goadsby has been forced to make a formal application to the Supreme Court of New South Wales to bring HRNSW to the table and resolve the issue in a proper and lawful manner.”
While Goadsby is not a major player in the sport, he has been an industry sponsor as well as a trainer and has sent horses to race at its state headquarters at Menangle in south-western Sydney under the banner Goozdolphin Racing. He has also had a winner there on the Miracle Mile card – harness racing’s night of nights.
He pleaded guilty at an initial stewards inquiry over Luvareschs being presented on race night with prohibited substances in its system, but maintained that the anti-inflammatories detected did not constitute a doping-style offence. While he was not considered “blameless” by stewards, the horse’s positive test was found to be a result of stable contamination.
Even if it was determined that he had violated the terms of his suspension he received, he would be looking only at an additional disqualification of possibly three months.
The issue surrounding the phones is of greater significance, posing a challenge to the sweeping integrity powers racing’s regulatory bodies possess.
In 2019, professional gambler Stephen Fletcher unsuccessfully sought to prevent the full contents of his phone being inspected by stewards from Racing NSW, which controls the thoroughbred racing industry in the state.
Professional gambler Stephen Fletcher took on Racing NSW over its access to his phone in 2019.
He argued they should be restricted to data relating to an investigation into his links with a former TAB trading manager who had been warned off for not producing her phone. But the Supreme Court rubber-stamped Racing NSW’s right to go through his device.
Goadsby also failed in March when he applied for an injunction to stop further action being taken against him by stewards until his appeal had been exhausted.
However, the Supreme Court judge who dismissed that bid was “satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried” in relation to the privileged information Goadsby says is on the phones and whether he should be compelled to hand them over.
Goadsby and Harness Racing NSW have since been unable to come to an agreement about how the contents of the phones might be scrutinised.
The trainer suggested in February that a third party be brought in to download the material from the handsets in the presence of representatives from both sides, and that he would then inspect the data to identify privileged and confidential material.
That suggestion was rejected by Harness Racing NSW.
It instead proposed the phones be presented two at a time to an independent, qualified person and for the copies of phone calls captured to be provided to its lawyers and Goadsby’s to determine which records should be redacted. If there was no agreement on particular calls, it set out that a member of its appeal panel would make the ultimate decision.
The Supreme Court hearing is listed for September 10.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.