Waikouaiti RC 1 January 2012 – R 1
ID: JCA11748
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waikouaiti RC - 1 January 2012
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
DSteel
Race Date:
2012/01/01
Race Number:
R1
Decision:
We therefore find the charge proved.
Penalty:
We believe the defendant was doing his conscientious best to comply with the rule. We acknowledge that a reprimand is an unusual course of action for a committee to adopt after finding a breach proved, and neither member of this committee can recall taking this step in the past, but this is what we propose to do in exercise of our discretion in this case, which we emphasise we view as being one with compelling mitigating features. The breach is found to be proved and Mr Johnson is reminded of his obligations under the rules of racing.
Charge:
Mr Davidson, stipendiary steward, alleged that Mr Johnson used an unapproved vest in race 1.
Facts:
Mr Davidson explained that the Phoenix/Tipperary vest used by the defendant in race 1 was not authorised by NZTR. Mr Davidson produced the New Zealand Thoroughbred Monthly which stated in the December 2011 issue that a Phoenix/Tipperary vest was authorised if it met the SATRA standard. This particular vest did not meet that standard.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Davidson emphasised that he was not alleging that the defendant was trying to gain a weight advantage. He produced the defendant’s vest and an authorised vest of the same make as that worn by the defendant. The defendant’s vest appeared to be brand new. The only discernible difference between the vests was an absence of 2 pads on the top of the shoulders. Mr Davidson said he believed the particular type of vest was authorised for harness racing but not thoroughbred.
Mr Johnson said that he was unaware that the vest was not approved. He called his partner Ms Middlewood to give evidence. She stated that the vest had been purchased from Garrards in Christchurch in the past 2 weeks and that they had been assured by them it was an authorised vest for the purpose of thoroughbred racing. She said both she and Mr Johnson genuinely believed that the vest was authorised. There was no deliberate breach of the rules. She said they should have been able to rely on Garrards as it was well-established wholesaler with experience in supplying gear to those involved in the thoroughbred racing industry.
Reasons for Decision:
The rule is clear. A jockey must wear a vest of a type and standard approved by NZTR. The responsibility under the rule rests upon the jockey. The rule is one of strict liability and the defendant has not satisfied us that he took all reasonable care. We accept his mistake is honest but it was open to him to acquaint himself with the list of approved vests as promulgated by the NZTR. This he did not do. He simply relied upon the experience of Garrards.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Davidson said that the defendant had no previous breach of this rule with respect to an unauthorised vest. He emphasised the need for jockeys to check with the stewards before purchasing vests. Mr Johnson had omitted to do this. He submitted that a penalty of between $200 to $500 was appropriate.
Mr Johnson emphasised it was a genuine mistake and that he had relied on an assurance from Garrards that the vest was authorised. He asked for a light penalty or no penalty at all.
Reasons for Penalty:
We have a discretion as to penalty. While we acknowledge the need to ensure compliance with the rules of racing, we do not believe that a monetary penalty in the interests of denunciation or deterrence, whether general or specific, is necessary in this case. Nor do we believe that the nature of the breach on this particular occasion is one where it is necessary to hold the defendant accountable for his actions. Mr Johnson has made a genuine and honest mistake and there was no advantage gained by him through wearing this particular vest. He has relied upon a reputable supplier of racing products. As it has transpired, that reliance was misguided and a check with the stewards would have disclosed this. We note that the brand is an authorised one, but not this particular style of vest as it does not have the approved (SATRA) standard label affixed. We do not overlook the health and safety issues which would normally predominate when imposing a penalty for a breach of this particular rule, but do not believe in the most unusual circumstances of this case that a financial penalty is necessary to ensure compliance with the rules.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 252cb1bf353db12bfcff8b49adf512a0
informantnumber: 5862
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 01/01/2012
hearing_title: Waikouaiti RC 1 January 2012 - R 1
charge:
Mr Davidson, stipendiary steward, alleged that Mr Johnson used an unapproved vest in race 1.
facts:
Mr Davidson explained that the Phoenix/Tipperary vest used by the defendant in race 1 was not authorised by NZTR. Mr Davidson produced the New Zealand Thoroughbred Monthly which stated in the December 2011 issue that a Phoenix/Tipperary vest was authorised if it met the SATRA standard. This particular vest did not meet that standard.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Davidson emphasised that he was not alleging that the defendant was trying to gain a weight advantage. He produced the defendant’s vest and an authorised vest of the same make as that worn by the defendant. The defendant’s vest appeared to be brand new. The only discernible difference between the vests was an absence of 2 pads on the top of the shoulders. Mr Davidson said he believed the particular type of vest was authorised for harness racing but not thoroughbred.
Mr Johnson said that he was unaware that the vest was not approved. He called his partner Ms Middlewood to give evidence. She stated that the vest had been purchased from Garrards in Christchurch in the past 2 weeks and that they had been assured by them it was an authorised vest for the purpose of thoroughbred racing. She said both she and Mr Johnson genuinely believed that the vest was authorised. There was no deliberate breach of the rules. She said they should have been able to rely on Garrards as it was well-established wholesaler with experience in supplying gear to those involved in the thoroughbred racing industry.
reasonsfordecision:
The rule is clear. A jockey must wear a vest of a type and standard approved by NZTR. The responsibility under the rule rests upon the jockey. The rule is one of strict liability and the defendant has not satisfied us that he took all reasonable care. We accept his mistake is honest but it was open to him to acquaint himself with the list of approved vests as promulgated by the NZTR. This he did not do. He simply relied upon the experience of Garrards.
Decision:
We therefore find the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Davidson said that the defendant had no previous breach of this rule with respect to an unauthorised vest. He emphasised the need for jockeys to check with the stewards before purchasing vests. Mr Johnson had omitted to do this. He submitted that a penalty of between $200 to $500 was appropriate.
Mr Johnson emphasised it was a genuine mistake and that he had relied on an assurance from Garrards that the vest was authorised. He asked for a light penalty or no penalty at all.
reasonsforpenalty:
We have a discretion as to penalty. While we acknowledge the need to ensure compliance with the rules of racing, we do not believe that a monetary penalty in the interests of denunciation or deterrence, whether general or specific, is necessary in this case. Nor do we believe that the nature of the breach on this particular occasion is one where it is necessary to hold the defendant accountable for his actions. Mr Johnson has made a genuine and honest mistake and there was no advantage gained by him through wearing this particular vest. He has relied upon a reputable supplier of racing products. As it has transpired, that reliance was misguided and a check with the stewards would have disclosed this. We note that the brand is an authorised one, but not this particular style of vest as it does not have the approved (SATRA) standard label affixed. We do not overlook the health and safety issues which would normally predominate when imposing a penalty for a breach of this particular rule, but do not believe in the most unusual circumstances of this case that a financial penalty is necessary to ensure compliance with the rules.
penalty:
We believe the defendant was doing his conscientious best to comply with the rule. We acknowledge that a reprimand is an unusual course of action for a committee to adopt after finding a breach proved, and neither member of this committee can recall taking this step in the past, but this is what we propose to do in exercise of our discretion in this case, which we emphasise we view as being one with compelling mitigating features. The breach is found to be proved and Mr Johnson is reminded of his obligations under the rules of racing.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 610(2)(a)
Informant: Mr M Davidson - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr C Johnson - Licensed Jockey
Otherperson: Miss Middlewood - Supporting Mr Johnson
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 2948de88091681f94bc926f09bd717ec
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 429bdace33ccc591aac19e3f2b1ab8c7
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/01/2012
meet_title: Waikouaiti RC - 1 January 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikouaiti-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: DSteel
meet_pm2: none
name: Waikouaiti RC