Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v B Grylls 18 December 2013 – Decision dated 20 December 2013

hearingid: c9709aa3e5fcb032e457c736032f359e

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 17/12/2013

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v B Grylls 18 December 2013 - Decision dated 20 December 2013

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

HELD AT MATAMATA RACECOURSE

IN THE MATTER of Information No A2217

BETWEEN Mr B OLIVER, Assistant Investigator for the Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND MISS B. GRYLLS – Licensed Class B - Apprentice Rider

Defendant

Date of Hearing: 18 December 2013

Venue: Matamata Racecourse

Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman - Mr A Godsalve, Committee Member

Present: Mr B Oliver, Miss B Grylls, Mr K Kelso assisting Miss B Grylls, Mr B Jones (Registrar)

Date of Decision: 20 December 2013

Plea: Admitted

The Charge:

The Informant, Mr B Oliver, Assistant Racing Investigator, filed an information pursuant to Rule 801(1) (h) alleging that on the 2nd day of December 2013, at Te Aroha, Miss B Grylls, wilfully supplied false information to Stipendiary Steward, John Oatham and others, respecting a matter concerning Racing, namely that she was unable to attend the Race Meeting at Te Aroha on that date to fulfill a riding engagement in Race 5 because she had a tyre puncture.

Rule 801(1)(h) states: “A person commits a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of these Rules who wilfully supplies false or misleading information, or makes a false or misleading declaration or statement, respecting any matter connected with racing or otherwise in connection with these Rules to a Tribunal, NZTR or Committee of a Club, a Stipendiary Steward, an Investigator or any other body or tribunal or is knowingly a party to the giving of, false or misleading information or particulars”.

Rule 801(2) states: A person who commits a Serious Racing Offence shall be liable to;

(a) be disqualified for any specific period or for life; and/or

(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a License for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a License is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed License; and/or

(c) a fine not exceeding $50,000.00

Miss Grylls and Mr Kelso acknowledged they had received a copy of the charge and the relevant Rules. Miss Grylls told the Committee that she understood them and admitted the breach of the said Rule. Miss Grylls and Mr Kelso accepted that the summary of facts presented were a correct account of the incident and consented for them to be used as evidence.

A summary of facts presented as evidence by Mr Oliver:

1. Miss Bridget Grylls is an apprentice Jockey and had been so since June 2010. She is indentured to Licensed Trainer, Mr. Ken Kelso, that partnership commenced on 1 December 2013.

2. On Monday the 2nd of December 2013, races were being conducted at the Te Aroha Race Course. Miss Grylls was contracted to ride a horse in Race 5 at 3.30pm that day.

3. Around 3.10pm that day Miss Grylls contacted the Stewards on duty to say that she would not be able to get to the course on time as her vehicle had got a puncture near Morrinsville. A replacement rider was found for her mount.

4. The Racing Integrity Unit, as a result of information received, were conducting drug testing at the course. One of the riders to be tested was Miss Grylls.

5. Miss Grylls was phoned by the Senior Stipendiary Steward on duty and directed to come to the Te Aroha Racecourse. She arrived on course just after 4.15pm.

6. On arrival at the course the Investigator on duty spoke with Miss Grylls who confirmed the puncture on her vehicle and said that she had had to change it herself. On examination of the tyre in the boot of her vehicle Miss Grylls finally admitted that she did not get a puncture and was in fact at home in Matamata when she was directed to go to the course.

7. In explanation she said that she had been advised by other female jockeys on course at Te Aroha, that drug testing was being conducted and that she would be subject to a test. Miss Grylls had been at a party in Cambridge on Saturday the 30th of November and that she had become very drunk. She told the Investigator that she thought she would fail the test because of this and decided to make up a story about a tyre puncture to avoid the drug test.

8. She was subsequently drug tested and passed the test.

9. Miss Grylls persisted with the false information until the tyre was examined.

10. When spoken to by her employer and the Investigator, Miss Grylls realised that she had let a lot of people down; owners, trainers and the betting public by persisting with her false information. She showed concern and expressed her regret to those she had lied to.

11. Miss Grylls has not appeared on any type of misconduct offence before and this offence appears to be out of character. Nevertheless, the offence is a serious one that has consequences.

Evidence for the Defendant:

Mr Kelso on behalf of Miss Grylls, stated that this breach was a silly mistake and out of character. He said Miss Grylls is a hard working apprentice rider and was adamant Miss Grylls will not make the same mistake again. He said Miss Grylls had let everyone down and will have to pay a penalty for her actions.

Miss Grylls informed the Committee that she was sorry and it won’t happen again. She said it was a stupid mistake and apologised to the Stewards and everyone involved for lying.

Decision:

As Miss Grylls admitted the breach we find the charge proved.

Submissions for Penalty by Mr Oliver:

1. Miss Grylls has fabricated a story about her car getting a puncture in an attempt to avoid a drug test at the Te Aroha Races on 2 December 2013.

2. She continued with the lie for some time until and in fact, told the same lie to three Officials conducting that race meeting.

3. In doing so she has left down her employer, Mr. Kelso, the owners of the horse she did not ride, the betting public and most importantly herself.

4. Foolishly, Miss Grylls took the advice of other more senior female jockeys, who phoned her and suggested that she not attend the races that day if she had concerns about passing the drug test.

5. According to Miss Grylls she got excessively drunk at a party on the Saturday night and she thought that the alcohol would still be in her body.

6. After being directed to attend the Te Aroha Course she was drug tested and passed.

7. In sentencing Miss Grylls, the RIU seeks a monetary penalty and suggests $1000.00 is appropriate.

8. Previous breaches of this Rule have provided a divergence of penalties as the scope of the Rule is extensive.

9. The following penalties under this Rule and its post 2009 equivalent are;

31.5.13 McN $500

8.11.12 I 7 months suspension

30.5.11 H 2 month’s suspension on two charges

25.5.10 F $500

18.12.07 C 6 month’s disqualification and 2 months suspension.

10. Miss Grylls has shown considerable remorse and concern since she has realised the gravity of her actions and the number of people she has let down.

11. She is a 21 year old apprentice Jockey residing in Matamata and has not previously breached any Serious Racing Rule.

Submissions on penalty by Miss Grylls:

Mr Kelso acknowledged that Mr Oliver went through similar cases under this Rule and explained each of them to him and Miss Grylls.

Mr Kelso submitted Miss Grylls had recently re located to Matamata and initially suffered a serious trackwork incident which set her back 8 weeks. He said Miss Grylls had been back riding raceday for approximately 3 to 4 weeks and was finding it difficult to re-establish her contacts. He submitted an appropriate penalty would be a fine similar to Mr McN. He added that a suspension would make it difficult for Miss Grylls.

Miss Grylls had nothing further to add.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The mitigating factors are Miss Grylls admission of the breach, her clear record under this Rule, her genuine remorse which was evident during the hearing and her co–operation with the RIU.

We note that Miss Grylls followed a directive by the Stipendiary Steward to go to the racecourse for drug testing. She underwent the drug test and the results were negative.

The aggravating facts are, giving false information to a Stipendiary Steward or to any other person referred to in Rule 801(1) (h) cannot be condoned.

We are concerned Miss Grylls persisted with false information until the tyre was examined and when it was inevitable she was going to be found out Miss Grylls then admitted she had been lying.

If Miss Grylls had genuine concerns regarding her physical ability to fulfil her riding engagement on the 2nd of December there were options available to her, principally contacting Mr Kelso her employer for guidance.

The owners, trainer and betting public were all affected by Miss Grylls actions which lead to her being unable to meet her obligation to fulfil her riding engagement on the day, which in itself has a starting point of a $300 fine.

Integrity is paramount in racing and this was compromised by Miss Grylls actions.

We accept that Miss Grylls actions on the day were out of character and have not only let herself down but those closely associated to her. We accept this incident has been embarrassing for her as a respected apprentice rider.

The Committee emphasised to Miss Grylls that telling the truth would have been the best outcome for her.

The Committee referred to the JCA database for similar penalties under this Rule, they were all fact dependent and ranged from fines and suspensions to disqualifications for a number of months.

In Miss Grylls case we are of the view that she “panicked “on being advised by other senior female jockeys that she was liable to be drug tested if she attended the race meeting.

In fixing penalty we have factored in that Miss Grylls is an apprentice rider but we are mindful the penalty must reflect the seriousness of the offence.

Therefore taking into account all of the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty to be a fine of $1,250.

Penalty:

On the question of costs, the RIU and JCA sought no costs as this hearing was held prior to a race meeting.

Accordingly, Miss Grylls is fined the sum of $ 1,250.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: