Egmont RC 1 July 2011 – R 1
ID: JCA12616
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Egmont RC - 1 July 2011
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
ISmith
Race Date:
2011/07/01
Race Number:
R 1
Decision:
As Mr Hurdle admitted the breach the charge was found to be proved.
Penalty:
Taking in to account all of these factors a monetary penalty of $150.00 was imposed.
Charge:
An information was lodged with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 610(4) in that R Hurdle had in his possession a modified vest.
Facts:
Mr Neal told the committee that over the past few weeks the stewards had been active in looking at riders who were not complying with the body protector rules.
He explained that he had spoken to riders at the Foxton race meeting on Queen’s Birthday Monday warning them that the Stewards would be checking for ‘absolute compliance’ of safety vests.
In addition a notice was recently placed on the NZTR website. This is as follows:
Safety Vest and Helmets
All participants are reminded that safety apparel must be of the approved type and standards. Stipendiary Stewards will be proactively carrying out inspections in the coming months. Charges will be issued in the first instance so ensure your safety apparel meets the requirements.
A check of all riders’ vests was done today and Mr Hurdle’s vest, which was of an approved Race Safe type, was found to have had the bottom back row of pads removed. Mr Hurdle, being an apprentice rider had Mr Gray to assist him.
Mr Hurdle told the committee that he had not modified the vest himself but rather it had been passed onto him in that state. He was at Foxton on the day the Stewards notified riders of the need to have compliant body protectors. Mr Hurdle admitted knowing that his vest had been modified but said Mr Bateup (assistant Stipendiary Steward), had looked at his vest at Foxton and told him that it was OK.
The committee requested Mr Bateup’s attendance at the hearing to clarify this matter. It was explained that on that particular day the Stewards were only looking at the brand of vests being worn not whether they had been modified or were compliant. Mr Bateup’s comment of the vest being OK referred to it being on NZTR’s list of approved types.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Neal emphasised to the committee the Stewards’ opinion that Mr Hurdle’s modification to his vest was of a minor nature and that his situation was not unique. He said it did not compromise safety, there was no intention to deceive and the Stewards viewed it simply an issue of non-compliance. Mr Hurdle had no previous breaches of the rule.
In relation to other breaches Mr Neal informed the committee of 3 separate charges last year where riders were all fined $500 for modification of safety vests. He said that in all of those situations strategic panels had been removed from the shoulder and torso area and the incidents were, in his opinion, more serious than Mr Hurdle’s charge as they had significantly compromised safety. Mr Neal’s submission was for a fine of $100.00.
Mr Gray had the very firm opinion that inexperienced apprentice riders such as Mr Hurdle should be mentored by their employer and senior people within the racing industry. He maintained that there was a very clear and obvious responsibility on an apprentice rider’s employer to ensure that all their gear was safe and correct.
Reasons for Penalty:
The committee took into account all of the submissions which were thoroughly presented by both parties. We also had the opportunity to inspect the vest and the modifications made to it which were identical to those made by another rider charged today.
We were informed of three previous offences under Rule 610(4) which all incurred fines of $500.00.
It was our opinion that mitigating factors in this instance were Mr Hurdle’s admission of the breach, his clear record and, in particular, the degree of modification made to his vest. Further Mr Hurdle did not modify the vest himself and whilst admitting he knew that some pads had been removed he genuinely believed that the vest still complied with the rules. The vest was otherwise in very good condition. Mr Hurdle’s youth and inexperience must also be taken into account.
In the absence of this rule being covered by the Penalty Guide the committee had to assess where this offence should lie. It was our opinion that the offending was at the lower end however the penalty should sit above those on the minor infringement list.
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: 3f9adacc276686a8017cf6c1747309c5
informantnumber: 5726
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 23/06/2011
hearing_title: Egmont RC 1 July 2011 - R 1
charge:
An information was lodged with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 610(4) in that R Hurdle had in his possession a modified vest.
facts:
Mr Neal told the committee that over the past few weeks the stewards had been active in looking at riders who were not complying with the body protector rules.
He explained that he had spoken to riders at the Foxton race meeting on Queen’s Birthday Monday warning them that the Stewards would be checking for ‘absolute compliance’ of safety vests.
In addition a notice was recently placed on the NZTR website. This is as follows:
Safety Vest and Helmets
All participants are reminded that safety apparel must be of the approved type and standards. Stipendiary Stewards will be proactively carrying out inspections in the coming months. Charges will be issued in the first instance so ensure your safety apparel meets the requirements.
A check of all riders’ vests was done today and Mr Hurdle’s vest, which was of an approved Race Safe type, was found to have had the bottom back row of pads removed. Mr Hurdle, being an apprentice rider had Mr Gray to assist him.
Mr Hurdle told the committee that he had not modified the vest himself but rather it had been passed onto him in that state. He was at Foxton on the day the Stewards notified riders of the need to have compliant body protectors. Mr Hurdle admitted knowing that his vest had been modified but said Mr Bateup (assistant Stipendiary Steward), had looked at his vest at Foxton and told him that it was OK.
The committee requested Mr Bateup’s attendance at the hearing to clarify this matter. It was explained that on that particular day the Stewards were only looking at the brand of vests being worn not whether they had been modified or were compliant. Mr Bateup’s comment of the vest being OK referred to it being on NZTR’s list of approved types.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
As Mr Hurdle admitted the breach the charge was found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Neal emphasised to the committee the Stewards’ opinion that Mr Hurdle’s modification to his vest was of a minor nature and that his situation was not unique. He said it did not compromise safety, there was no intention to deceive and the Stewards viewed it simply an issue of non-compliance. Mr Hurdle had no previous breaches of the rule.
In relation to other breaches Mr Neal informed the committee of 3 separate charges last year where riders were all fined $500 for modification of safety vests. He said that in all of those situations strategic panels had been removed from the shoulder and torso area and the incidents were, in his opinion, more serious than Mr Hurdle’s charge as they had significantly compromised safety. Mr Neal’s submission was for a fine of $100.00.
Mr Gray had the very firm opinion that inexperienced apprentice riders such as Mr Hurdle should be mentored by their employer and senior people within the racing industry. He maintained that there was a very clear and obvious responsibility on an apprentice rider’s employer to ensure that all their gear was safe and correct.
reasonsforpenalty:
The committee took into account all of the submissions which were thoroughly presented by both parties. We also had the opportunity to inspect the vest and the modifications made to it which were identical to those made by another rider charged today.
We were informed of three previous offences under Rule 610(4) which all incurred fines of $500.00.
It was our opinion that mitigating factors in this instance were Mr Hurdle’s admission of the breach, his clear record and, in particular, the degree of modification made to his vest. Further Mr Hurdle did not modify the vest himself and whilst admitting he knew that some pads had been removed he genuinely believed that the vest still complied with the rules. The vest was otherwise in very good condition. Mr Hurdle’s youth and inexperience must also be taken into account.
In the absence of this rule being covered by the Penalty Guide the committee had to assess where this offence should lie. It was our opinion that the offending was at the lower end however the penalty should sit above those on the minor infringement list.
penalty:
Taking in to account all of these factors a monetary penalty of $150.00 was imposed.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 610(4)
Informant: Mr R Neal - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr R Hurdle - Apprentice Rider
Otherperson: Mr K Gray - Licensed Trainer, Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 233138524ee3f9e95de53caad11cab64
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 940fabc1a8c8ca1ae338249af25eb8b0
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/07/2011
meet_title: Egmont RC - 1 July 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: egmont-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: ISmith
meet_pm2: none
name: Egmont RC