‘It’s been the most talked about conversation this year’
Wayne Hawkes isn’t exaggerating – it is the case that has racing talking.
The decision to arguably go light on Anthony and Sam Freedman has become a central racing debate of 2026 with the potential ramifications likely debated long after their 28 day ban expires.
The issue isn’t necessarily whether the Freedmans deserve compassion. The key questions surround whether it outweighs the need for deterrence, consistency and confidence in the rules that govern racing.
Either way, the ruling has left many in racing flabbergasted.
‘Might as well just run the gauntlet’
Hawkes on Tuesday delivered an entertaining and even balanced take on the bans of his fellow Victorian trainers.
It’s the legal case, in racing’s dark winter months, that will dominate conversation well into the Spring Carnival.
Just how did the Victorian Racing Tribunal (VRT) hand two prominent trainers such a light sentence for such a serious breach?
Hawkes correctly points out a decision to allow the Freedmans back into racing after 28 days, despite pleading guilty to raceday treatments of their horses, has caused uproar in the sport.
Such is the confusion of the VRT’s decision to not give close to the mandatory 6-month ban and the messaging that comes with it, that Hawke’s even suggested on his entertaining SEN segment that it has almost proved an incentive for some to ‘’run the gauntlet’.
‘’What so many people have said … I might just go and do it. I am only going to get 28 days. I might as well just run the gauntlet. That’s the bad flip side of it, that it’s only 28 days,’’ he said on SEN on Monday.
Trainer Wayne Hawkes has his say on the suspension of Anthony & Sam Freedman.@bet365_aus | @HawkesRacing | @ghall27 | @SENGiddyUp pic.twitter.com/66FU5ahkEF
— SENTrack (@SEN_track) July 6, 2026
A bad luck story
Anthony and Sam Freedman can consider themselves lucky when their ruling came down, which is ironic given the case they presented to the VRT, was littered with a series of bad luck events.
The duo, who pleaded guilty to raceday treatment of two of their horses, outlined a series of unfortunate events they say explains why two horses due to compete later that day were receiving treatment.
The stable was caught after Racing Victoria Stewards just happened to walk into a stable at the exact moment their runners, Kira and Moonhaven, were receiving treatment in August last year.
According to evidence provided to the VRT, a stable hand also hadn’t seen a yellow tag that was supposed to indicate those two specific horses were running that day.
Another staff member was supposed to wipe the need for the treatment from a whiteboard.
To top off an unlucky day, the Freedmans’ staff also hadn’t registered the treatment of the two runners in the stable’s records. The duo was charged for that too, later fined $1500.
‘Very, very lucky’.
As far as a legal case goes, it seemed incredibly straight forward. Solid work from the Stewards, a guilty plea and a system that says the punishment is more or less a mandatory 6 months.
The Freedmans say it was a simple case of human error.
But with all legal cases, there is room to plead for lenience. There had long been rumours around the financial health of some Victorian stables, the Freedmans’ included.
It was clearly a consideration that the VRT took into account when choosing not to hand down a lengthy ban.
“It would cause major disruption logistically and significant loss of income, not only to the respondents, but also to the employees,” tribunal chairman, magistrate Peter Reardon, said.
“The respondents have outlaid large sums of money purchased yearlings to syndicate them, and hopefully train them, with the legitimate expectation of a fine for such a breach, not a disqualification.
The Freedmans asked for leniency because of the size of their stable, explaining they hire 60 staff in two states, pays $4.56 million in annual wages across two states.
The duo have staff on visas whose future would be uncertain if the stable was forced to shut, even temporarily.
A ban could see the stable fold, given their liabilities and responsibilities.
In short, the thesis was that the treatment wasn’t the fault of the Freedmans, we said sorry, we pleaded guilty, we helped investigators, but if we get the punishment was per the rules, our business could be in strife.
Which made sense to the VRT and even Racing Victoria Stewards, who only asked for a 3-month ban, instead of the mandatory 6 months.
But to the surprise of many, the Victorian Racing Tribunal handed down what has become the biggest talking point in the sport – a 28-day suspension.
The Tribunal chairman was at pains to say this case isn’t a precedent.
He also said trainers ‘’are now on notice’’. Many aren’t convinced.
There is now a concern from some in the industry that the ruling provides a textbook play-by-play that if you’re caught, a roadmap for leniency now exists, regardless of the Tribunal’s insistence it is not.
Even more worrying for some, is that going by the logic of the ruling, the bigger the stable, the more sway you may have.
The Freedmans may have 60 staff but there are many stables who hire more and have plenty to lose.
Even so, as one trainer told Betsy that ‘my business is worth as much to me as it is to [the Freedmans], even if I have a fraction of the horses they do’.
And make no mistake, the Freedmans too receive significant financial security from the ruling.
The ability to not have to transfer horses is a bonus, but the bill they would face to pay out the entitlements to its staff if the business was to close would be huge.
Under this ruling, does the practical effect become that larger operations are simply harder to disqualify than smaller ones?
‘There is only one rulebook’
Hawkes, in his view, said the Freedmans have got ‘’off very, very light’’.
‘’Because if you’re Mick from Moe and you got four in work, you cop the six months. Whereas if you are the big stable, you get an exemption because you employ a lot of staff,’’ he said on SEN.
‘’But really Terry Bailey, former chief steward, do you know he told me one day? ‘Mr Hawkes, there is only one rulebook.”
There may be one rule book, but how that book reads to some seems to be the problem.
Hawkes, who we assume has zero legal training, spoke sense when it came unravelling the issue.
He gave a view that seemingly is shared by many a trainer.
‘’It’s been a massive talking point leading up to this in the trainer’s hut. It’s been a massive point. Everywhere you go, everyone’s been talking about, are they going? Are they going to get off light because of who they are, or do they set an example and say, ‘This is what’s going to happen’,’’ he said on SEN.
‘’You know, it’s without knowing all of the facts. And sometimes we can all comment when we don’t know all of the facts. But if you’re guilty, you’re guilty. And they put their hand up and said they were guilty. But should you be found guilty if your staff member has completely done the wrong thing, accidentally stuffed it up and made a mistake?’’
’It’s a hard pill for the industry to cop’
But even if you accept the Freedman’s explanation of a staff error, as Hawkes points out, the punishment could be considered light.
‘’I mean other people have done similar things and got six months, so to get only 28 days,’’ he said.
‘’You might as well just go away for the worst month of the year in July, and have everything lined up with nominations acceptance.’’
Hawkes later said on SEN the ruling has left many unimpressed.
‘’It’s a hard pill for the industry to cop from the point of view that the people that have done the right thing and are doing the right thing look at this and say, ‘Well, the tall poppy syndrome hasn’t worked against it; it’s actually worked for them,’’ he said on SEN.
Racing Victoria’s dealing in the right areas
Racing Victoria has also come under scrutiny for helping the Freedmans stay afloat as a business while the ban is served.
But they are hardly the problem. Given the trainers were only handed a 28-day ban, why not help them stay afloat?
As long as the conversations didn’t include help from third parties, Racing Victoria were right to find ways to allow the Freedmans to survive.
The duo is an important element of the Victorian racing scene – Sam himself is often rolled out by Racing Victoria to help market the sport.
The most pertinent question Racing Victoria must answer is why didn’t they appeal the 28-day ban?
The ruling presents troubling optics for racing – simply, does it show the casual observer that you can break the most important rules in racing and be back within a month?
For those within the sport already, the saga has weakened confidence in the rules and their interpretation – and that’s no fault of the Freedmans either.
An appeal would at least have demonstrated that Racing Victoria believed the penalty fell short of the standards expected by the sport. Even if unsuccessful, it would have sent a clear message that confidence in racing’s integrity matters. For a sport that is acutely conscious of public perception, that was a message worth sending.
