There’s a fundamental problem with inquiries held in the racing industry. Put simply, there is no way that the authorities can compel a licenced person to appear before an inquiry – other than to threaten to take away their licence if they don’t appear. Trouble is, if that person simply decides to fold up the tents and slip away into the night, if they simply relinquish any attempt to hold on to a licence, then they can do precisely what Robert Smerdon and Greg & Denise Nelligan have done to the Aquanita Inquiry. The inquiry starts on April 30.

Faced with 115 charges of doping, Smerdon has allegedly said, when asked directly if he would be attending the inquiry into these charges: “No, I won’t be attending, full, stop”. The Nelligans have already failed to front the stewards and have been banned from all Victorian racetracks and training facilities.

Smerdon has apparently taken the view that, after he was charged in January and stood himself down from training, the consequences of that – the loss of horses in his care, and his access to training facilities – mean that, at his age, the idea of restarting from scratch is just too daunting. Well, maybe so, maybe not.

But his decision means, or could mean, several possible scenarios.

Firstly, the fact that, arguably, the major protagonist in this scheme will not be giving evidence could suggest that there is no mitigating evidence to give. Certainly, the weight of evidence against Smerdon, particularly the mobile phone logs, suggest that his position is completely indefensible. So, in this scenario, rather than fight to clear his name, and it’s a name that goes right back in Victorian racing history, Smerdon has decided that it’s all too hard. He would, apparently, rather be known as a serial cheat, than put up any defence.

Secondly, without Smerdon’s evidence, how strong are the cases against Liam Birchley, Trent Pennuto, Tony Vasil, Stuart Webb and Daniel Garland? We can assume that the Nelligans have already thrown in the towel.

Thirdly, how can it be that, in a billion dollar industry, it’s OK for anybody to do the wrong thing, and then say that they won’t be held accountable?

The Chief Steward says that it doesn’t matter whether Smerdon attends the inquiry or not. That’s just naïve. Of course it matters. If the main person – and Smerdon was the Head Trainer for Aquanita and therefore had to be the person most likely to be aware of the complexity and depth of the doping activities – fails to give evidence, how can the inquiry be expected to reach a fair and accurate determination? And isn’t that what should happen? Don’t the people who have been charged, and will be attending the inquiry deserve a fair hearing, with all of the evidence available? Not according to Robert Smerdon, apparently. Being part of the problem doesn’t appear to mean that you need to be a part of the solution in Smerdon world.

This is just wrong. But perhaps it is also a true reflection of the measure of the man. The sheer arrogance and stupidity of the whole doping program ranks up there with the current ball-tampering saga surrounding the Australian cricket team. Whatever were they all thinking?

The real question, of course, is where does cheating end and fraud begins. Smerdon – and the others – have been charged with systematically breaking the anti-doping rules over an extended period. If they are guilty, then why did they do that? The answer isn’t that hard to come by; they did it for financial gain, and for financial gain obtained unfairly. And that, in any reasonable assessment, is fraud.

So, what happens next?

The Aquanita Inquiry will go ahead. Conclusions will be drawn from the evidence available, and the indications are that there are truckloads of evidence against those charged. If the conclusions lead to licensing sanctions against those who haven’t disappeared into the woodwork, how can it be fair that there are no sanctions against the person who, from all appearances, was right in the middle of it all?

Maybe there really needs to be a connection made between breaking the racing rules and defrauding the public. Maybe the word “gutless” applies to a failure to front up to the consequences of one’s actions. Maybe, if the authorities allow the easy way out for one of the major participants in this whole sorry business, their decision merits the same word.

By Rob Young