Non Raceday Inquiry – RIU v RR Manning – Decision dated 9 June 2014

hearingid: d4d3f98712951374740676f72e29f796

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 05/06/2014

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - RIU v RR Manning - Decision dated 9 June 2014

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v Mr RR Manning

Rules:

801(1) (s) (ii)

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

HELD AT TE RAPA RACECOURSE

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing

BETWEEN RIU (Mr B Oliver – Assistant Investigator appearing for the RIU)

Informant

AND Mr RR Manning – Licensed Trainer

Defendant

Information No: A2221

Venue: Te Rapa Racecourse

Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman – R Seabrook, Committee Member

Persons Present: Mr R Manning – Licensed Trainer

Mr B Oliver – Assistant Racing Investigator

Mr J Oatham – Senior Stipendiary Steward

Mr N Grimstone – Racing Investigator

Mr D Ryan – Journalist

Mr B Lichter - Journalist

Registrar: Mr M Williamson – Stipendiary Steward

Plea: Admitted

Date of Hearing: 7 June 2014

Charge:

An Information was filed pursuant to Rule 801(1) (s) (ii). The Informant, Mr B Oliver alleged that on the 24th of May 2014, at Ellerslie Racecourse, Mr R Manning, uttered insulting namely words “our handicapper, he’s the most corrupt person in racing” and “the handicapper is so corrupt. I don’t mind saying it” with reference to Brett Scelly, a handicapper employer by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.

RULE 801(1)(s)(ii)

801 (1) A person commits a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of these Rules who:

(s) either by himself or in conjunction with any other person;

(ii) at any time writes or causes to be written, publishes or causes to be published, or utters or causes to be uttered, any insulting or abusive words with reference to a Tribunal, NZTR, Committee of a Club or a member or Official of any such body or a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator, or Registered Medical Practitioner,

PENALTY (2) 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 period of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed License; and/or

c) a fine not exceeding $50,000.

Mr Manning acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule.

Mr Manning confirmed that he admitted the breach.

Mr Manning confirmed that relevant documents had been disclosed to him. He accepted the contents of the summary of facts and consented to them being admitted as evidence. Mr Oliver submitted the documents to be admitted as evidence and produced a letter authorizing to lodge this Information from Mr Godber, General Manager of the RIU. The proposed procedure for the conduct of the hearing was explained to the parties present. They confirmed they had no concerns or objections.

Evidence for the Informant:

Mr Oliver presented to the hearing a Summary of Facts

Mr Ralph Manning is a Licensed Trainer holding a Class A License.

On Saturday the 24th of May 2014, CIVICS ROCK a five year old horse trained and 75% owned by Mr Manning ran in Race 2, the Bidvest 1200 at a Race Meeting conducted by the Auckland Racing Club at Ellerslie. The horse won that Race.

Shortly after the conclusion of the Race, Mr Manning was interviewed on Trackside television, a live to air interview that was seen in New Zealand and Australia.

During that interview Mr Manning made the following comments “our handicapper, he’s the most corrupt person in racing’ and ‘the handicapper is so corrupt. I don’t mind saying it” These responses were made in reference to previous handicapping issues.

About 1.15pm that afternoon, Mr Manning was interviewed about his comments. He told the Investigator that the comments he made were directed at Mr Brett Scelly, a handicapper employed by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing. He said that he had had some issues with Mr Scelly for several years and felt that his horses were being given more handicap points than other trainers were in similar circumstances. He said that he had tried to discuss these anomalies with Mr Scelly but had been unsuccessful.

He said that he had no evidence of ‘corruption’ but felt that inconsistent would be a better word. He said that he had never brought his concerns about his handicapping issues formally to the attention of NZTR but had discussed them with a number of officials. Mr Manning acknowledged that he had used the wrong forum to express his views and that he was prepared to made a written apology to Mr Scelly.

On 26 May Mr Scelly was spoken to and said that he had seen Mr Manning make the comments on Trackside and felt as though he had been “kicked in the guts”. He said that he had been seriously insulted. He said that in his nine years of handicapping he had never been called corrupt let alone on national television.

On the 26th of May Mr Manning issued a full and contrite public apology to Mr Scelly and to any other person in the Racing Industry who had been offended by the comments. He went on to say that in future he will focus his comments on issues rather than personalities. Mr Scelly accepts the apology offered.

Mr. Manning is a Senior Class A Trainer in Cambridge. He has been in the industry since he left school at 15 years of age. He invests heavily in the industry and has 8 staff working for him. He has no previous history of this type of offence.

At all times during this enquiry Mr Manning has been co operative and professional in his dealings with the Investigator.

Evidence for the Defendant:

Mr Manning commenced his submissions by reiterating that he admitted the breach. In reference to the charge Mr Manning told the Committee he owned 75% of CIVICS ROCK and the horse had just won his 11th race. Due to the frustrations he has experienced with the handicapper over the last 2 years his immediate thought following the win was “where do I go from here, because in his view he wouldn’t know how many points the horse would receive”.

Mr Manning went on to say that his comments were “a poor choice of words” and he should have used the word incompetent. He repeated this arose out of frustrations with Mr Scelly over a long period of time.

Mr Manning then provided several detailed instances where he felt his horses were disadvantaged. This resulted in him contacting Mr Scelly to raise his concerns surrounding the rating points his horses were receiving in comparison to other horses. He said Mr Scelly was quite arrogant and became angry.

Mr Manning produced what he viewed as a very relevant example when KEEN AFFAIR was rated at 76 points after winning a low grade race in the South Island. He then contacted Mr Scelly requesting an explanation and later that day found that KEEN AFFAIR had been dropped to a rating 71. He stated that Mr Scelly’s assessment was “worse than incompetent”.

Mr Manning stated to the Committee that during the interview in question he did not mention the handicapper’s name. He advised the Committee that he recently raised his concerns with two members of the RIU to no avail.

Mr Manning said he normally “does not say a lot” but his comments were made out of frustration. He stated his apology was headlined on the NZ Racing website for 10 days causing him undue stress and embarrassment.

In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Manning said he had no electronic record of the correspondence he had with Mr Scelly and he didn’t raise his concerns with New Zealand Trainers Association.

Unreserved Apology from Ralph Manning to Brett Scelly:

I would like to take this opportunity to offer an unreserved apology to Mr Brett Scelly, the chief handicapper, for my unfortunate choice of words used when I was interviewed on Trackside Saturday last.

I wish it to be known that whilst I have been disenchanted with the current handicapping model for quite some time, and somewhat disillusioned with the manner in which some of my horses have been treated (on a compare and contrast basis), I have never known, and did not mean to suggest, that Mr Scelly has ever to my knowledge been guilty of corrupt behaviour toward me or within the greater NZ racing industry.

What I intended to say, but in the heat of the battle the correct words escaped me, was that the “system” has been corrupted, in for example the way a computer hard drive might be.

On that basis I offer an this unconditional apology to Mr Scelly, NZTR, the RIU, and to any person involved in the industry who may have been a party to or heard my comments on Trackside and been offended by those comments.

I also take this opportunity to acknowledge that in the future I will focus my comments on issues as distinct from personalities and that I will use conventional means and channels to air my concerns.

Yours In Racing

Ralph Manning

Mr Oliver in response to Mr Manning’s submissions told the hearing the correct avenue for Mr Manning concerns should have been raised with the independent complaints process for handicapping a Committee run by NZTR. Mr Oliver added he was willing to assist Mr Manning in the future to resolve his concerns.

Decision:

As Mr Manning admitted the breach we find the charge proved.

Submissions in relation to penalty by the Informant Mr Oliver:
The allegations of corruption made by Mr Manning have no basis in fact and Mr Manning is unable to substantiate his claims. His comments were broadcast live to an approximate audience of 60 to 100 thousand in New Zealand as well as being live in Australia.

Any perceived corruption in Racing in New Zealand is detrimental to the industry and weakens Racings relationship with punters and the community. If Mr Manning had concerns he should take the appropriate steps to have them looked at, instead he has voiced his opinion on a live television programme.

The handicapper, Mr Scelly is rightly upset with the comments. He described them as a ‘kick in the guts’ and seriously insulting. He has never been called corrupt before. There have been some issues between the two but Mr Scelly advises that he has not spoken to Mr Manning for at least 6 months.

Despite the full and contrite apology offered and accepted by Mr Scelly, the breach of the Rule was a very public utterance of some serious insulting comments that have undermined the integrity of the industry. After considering the RIU v W decision of earlier this year the RIU considers that no disqualification or suspension should occur and that a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 is appropriate.

Submissions in relation to penalty on behalf of the Defendant:

Mr Manning submitted he has been a license holder for 37 years without a blemish on his record. Mr Manning said he employed 8 staff, was well respected in the Industry, he worked hard and sponsored races. Mr Manning said he was one of the largest owners in the Industry and had promoted the Industry internationally providing his travels with SEACHANGE as an example.

Mr Manning said he was like all Trainers “battling to keep his head above water” and would be disappointed is he was fined for this breach.

Mr Manning reiterated he was uneducated and it was a bad choice of words on his part.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented.

To Mr Manning’s credit on the 26th of May he issued a full and contrite public apology to Mr Scelly and to any other person in the Racing Industry who had been offended by the comments. He went on to say that in future he will focus his comments on issues rather than personalities. We note Mr Scelly accepted the apology offered.

Mr Manning, by his own admission, acknowledged that he had used the wrong forum to express his views. He conceded that he had no evidence of any ‘corruption’ on Mr Scelly’s part. Mr Manning added that he left school at 15, was not well educated and conceded today’s charge arose from his poor choice of words.

The Integrity of Racing however is paramount and all participants in the Racing Industry need to always be aware of this. The Industry depends significantly on the betting turnover and it may well be anticipated that unless Racing is perceived to be conducted fairly and honestly, people may be discouraged from betting.

The New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing impose a high duty on Trainers to ensure the Rules are complied with. An aggravating feature of this breach was Mr Manning’s comments were broadcast live to an approximate audience of 60 to 100 thousand in New Zealand as well as being live in Australia.

We have to say that where there is a breach of this Rule, Trainers must expect a significant penalty which acts as a deterrent to all license holders.

The position facing this Committee today is that we are dealing with a Trainer whose integrity is not challenged by Mr Oliver, who has a clear record under this Rule, who has accepted his responsibility as a Trainer and has co-operated with the Racing Integrity Unit.

It is significant Mr Manning has been a license holder for 37 years and is well respected in the Industry. After hearing all the evidence surrounding this charge it was obvious to the Committee this situation arose from frustration felt by Mr Manning over at least 2 years relating to handicap ratings involving his horses. This was supported by detailed evidence supplied by Mr Manning.

While the Committee certainly doesn’t condone Mr Manning’s comments they were made in the heat of the moment following the win of CIVICS ROCK. This particular breach related to the unfortunate comments made by Mr Manning which by his own admission was a mistake.

Mr Manning has admitted the charge and accordingly it is proved.

The Committee referred to the JCA listing of penalties for guidance of similar breaches. However it was clear this type of breach is presented very rarely.

Taking into account all of the matters presented to us we consider an appropriate penalty is a $6,000 fine.

Penalty:

The Committee therefore imposes a fine of $6,000 on Mr Manning.

Costs:

Due to this matter being heard on a race day there will be no order for JCA costs.

The RIU did not seek any costs.

Adrian Dooley          Richard Seabrook

Chair                       Committee Member

Dated 9 June 2014

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: