Non Raceday Inquiry NZTR v R I McKay – Decision dated 25 June 2011
ID: JCA15858
Decision:
FACTS:
On Tuesday 3 May 2011, the Doncaster Turf Club held a trials meeting at the Ashburton Racecourse.
On Tuesday 3 May 2011, the Doncaster Turf Club held a trials meeting at the Ashburton Racecourse.
The records for that meeting show, heat one on the programme was a 2 year old Catch weight 600 metre event. Horse number 1 in that race was shown in the programme as being a 2 year old bay filly by “One Cool Cat” out of the dam “Jazzcat”.
The brands were listed as being ZR and 11 over 8.
T
he micro chip was listed as being 985125000014412.
The trainer for the horse was shown as Mr Russell Ian McKay.
Prior to the trial the horse was inspected as is customary in such cases by the Trials Officials. It was discovered that the horse being inspected in several respects did not match the identification on the documents held by the Officials.
The cipher brand on the horse being inspected read ZR.
Numerical brand was 10 over 8 and the micro chip read 985125000014194; these were not in accord with the papers.
The horse being inspected was in fact a 2 year old bay filly by “Dubai Destination” out of the dam “Yulia”.
It was later established that the two horses were bred by the same owner, Mr Norcross.
About 26 July 2010 the “One Cool Cat” filly was officially named “Jazzcat”. The New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing form was completed and filed with NZTR.
One filly was broken in and it was thought to be the “One Cool Cat”. It was later arranged by Mr Norcross to forward both fillies to Mr McKay’s racing stable.
On the 25 January, Mr McKay completed a Stable Return in respect to “Jazzcat”.
On the same date a lease of a Racehorse form was completed by Mr Norcross (50%) and Mr and Mrs McKay (25% each) for the same horse.
On both forms the brands and micro chip number were in accord with the details filed at NZTR.
Mr McKay took both horses into his stable but he was of the mistaken belief the filly “Jazzcat” was already broken in and the “Dubai Destination” filly was yet to be and it was broken in by Mr McKay and then spelled. He then prepared what he thought was the “One Cool Cat” for the Trials and nominated the filly for the Ashburton Trials.
When spoken to Mr McKay stated he had at no stage made any endeavour to confirm the identify of the two fillies by comparing the brands and micro chip number with New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing records.
Mr Scott produced a copy of the Official Trials Programme as Exhibit 1 and the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing documents relating to the identity of the horse in question as Exhibit 2.
Having regard to Mr McKay’s admission of the breach of the rules, the charge is deemed to be proved.
SUBMISSIONS IN REPLY
In reply, Mr McKay said that the “One Cool Cat” filly, “Jazzcat” and the two year old bay filly by “Dubai Destination” out of “Yulia” arrived at his stables having come from the same place and from the same owner.
In reply, Mr McKay said that the “One Cool Cat” filly, “Jazzcat” and the two year old bay filly by “Dubai Destination” out of “Yulia” arrived at his stables having come from the same place and from the same owner.
In conversations with the owner, a Mr Norcross, Mr McKay said that he was told that “Jazzcat” was broken in and that the ” Dubai Destination” out of “Yulia” filly was not broken in. Mr McKay said he broke in the second named horse and then turned it out.
However, it also transpired that Mr Norcross and/or his staff mixed up the two horses and thought that the “Dubai Destination” filly was “Jazzcat”. Both of the fillies are very similar in colour and apparently have very similar brands.
Mr McKay, however, accepted that as the trainer he should have been more vigilant in the checking of the brands and admitted the information against him at the earliest opportunity.
Mr McKay also expressed remorse and said that this is the first time he had had to appear before a Judicial Panel in his training career.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Mr Scott submitted that NZTR did not consider that the circumstances of the case warranted the matter being considered as a serious racing offence. Mr Scott said that it was evident from the facts that Mr McKay had been lulled into a false belief in so far as the identity of the horses were concerned. He said that the two fillies were of similar colour, and the brandings were also similar. However, Mr Scott stated that it is the responsibility of the trainer who is in charge of the horse to ensure that he is training the correct horse, and that the identity of every horse in his care is in accordance with the records held by NZTR. Once a trainer receives a copy of the registration papers from the owner, the trainer is expected to confirm the identity of the horse in his care.
Mr Scott submitted that NZTR did not consider that the circumstances of the case warranted the matter being considered as a serious racing offence. Mr Scott said that it was evident from the facts that Mr McKay had been lulled into a false belief in so far as the identity of the horses were concerned. He said that the two fillies were of similar colour, and the brandings were also similar. However, Mr Scott stated that it is the responsibility of the trainer who is in charge of the horse to ensure that he is training the correct horse, and that the identity of every horse in his care is in accordance with the records held by NZTR. Once a trainer receives a copy of the registration papers from the owner, the trainer is expected to confirm the identity of the horse in his care.
Mr Scott submitted that the matter could be dealt with by way of a fine.
The Chairman traversed with Mr Scott, the impact of a suspension on a trainer in the circumstances, and Mr Scott confirmed that that would have the effect of depriving the trainer of his income for a period of time with a flow-on effect in so far as his staff is concerned.
In reply, Mr McKay expressed his remorse for his lack of vigilance in relation to the matter. He accepted that a fine was an appropriate penalty in the circumstances.
Penalty:
It is this committee’s view that a fine is an appropriate penalty in this instance. Having regard to the fact that Mr McKay was lulled into a sense of false security with regard to these horses by the staff of the breeder and owner, the only aggravating feature in this matter was therefore his lack of vigilance in checking the brands.
By way of mitigation, Mr McKay has admitted the charge against him at the earliest opportunity and was cooperative with the Racing Integrity Unit. He also expressed remorse for his lack of vigilance.
After taking into account the mitigating and aggravating features of this case, this Committee is satisfied that a fine of $500 should be imposed together with costs in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.
In setting the level of this fine, the Committee has had regard to fines imposed in a number of cases between 1997 and 2009. The fines that have been imposed in the past range from $400 to $2,500. In this case, the level of fine can be kept at a lower level because of the fact that the matter arose from a trials meeting, and therefore the interests of a racing club and the betting public were not inconvenienced.
Mr McKay is accordingly fined $500 together with costs of $350 in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.
KG Hales J Phelan
Chairman Committee Member
Chairman Committee Member
25 June 2011
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 06/07/2011
Publish Date: 06/07/2011
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: ddc0caee5b9979e927c429df92e9ed8c
informantnumber: 1000
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 06/07/2011
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry NZTR v R I McKay - Decision dated 25 June 2011
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
FACTS:
On Tuesday 3 May 2011, the Doncaster Turf Club held a trials meeting at the Ashburton Racecourse.
On Tuesday 3 May 2011, the Doncaster Turf Club held a trials meeting at the Ashburton Racecourse.
The records for that meeting show, heat one on the programme was a 2 year old Catch weight 600 metre event. Horse number 1 in that race was shown in the programme as being a 2 year old bay filly by “One Cool Cat” out of the dam “Jazzcat”.
The brands were listed as being ZR and 11 over 8.
T
he micro chip was listed as being 985125000014412.
The trainer for the horse was shown as Mr Russell Ian McKay.
Prior to the trial the horse was inspected as is customary in such cases by the Trials Officials. It was discovered that the horse being inspected in several respects did not match the identification on the documents held by the Officials.
The cipher brand on the horse being inspected read ZR.
Numerical brand was 10 over 8 and the micro chip read 985125000014194; these were not in accord with the papers.
The horse being inspected was in fact a 2 year old bay filly by “Dubai Destination” out of the dam “Yulia”.
It was later established that the two horses were bred by the same owner, Mr Norcross.
About 26 July 2010 the “One Cool Cat” filly was officially named “Jazzcat”. The New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing form was completed and filed with NZTR.
One filly was broken in and it was thought to be the “One Cool Cat”. It was later arranged by Mr Norcross to forward both fillies to Mr McKay’s racing stable.
On the 25 January, Mr McKay completed a Stable Return in respect to “Jazzcat”.
On the same date a lease of a Racehorse form was completed by Mr Norcross (50%) and Mr and Mrs McKay (25% each) for the same horse.
On both forms the brands and micro chip number were in accord with the details filed at NZTR.
Mr McKay took both horses into his stable but he was of the mistaken belief the filly “Jazzcat” was already broken in and the “Dubai Destination” filly was yet to be and it was broken in by Mr McKay and then spelled. He then prepared what he thought was the “One Cool Cat” for the Trials and nominated the filly for the Ashburton Trials.
When spoken to Mr McKay stated he had at no stage made any endeavour to confirm the identify of the two fillies by comparing the brands and micro chip number with New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing records.
Mr Scott produced a copy of the Official Trials Programme as Exhibit 1 and the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing documents relating to the identity of the horse in question as Exhibit 2.
Having regard to Mr McKay’s admission of the breach of the rules, the charge is deemed to be proved.
SUBMISSIONS IN REPLY
In reply, Mr McKay said that the “One Cool Cat” filly, “Jazzcat” and the two year old bay filly by “Dubai Destination” out of “Yulia” arrived at his stables having come from the same place and from the same owner.
In reply, Mr McKay said that the “One Cool Cat” filly, “Jazzcat” and the two year old bay filly by “Dubai Destination” out of “Yulia” arrived at his stables having come from the same place and from the same owner.
In conversations with the owner, a Mr Norcross, Mr McKay said that he was told that “Jazzcat” was broken in and that the ” Dubai Destination” out of “Yulia” filly was not broken in. Mr McKay said he broke in the second named horse and then turned it out.
However, it also transpired that Mr Norcross and/or his staff mixed up the two horses and thought that the “Dubai Destination” filly was “Jazzcat”. Both of the fillies are very similar in colour and apparently have very similar brands.
Mr McKay, however, accepted that as the trainer he should have been more vigilant in the checking of the brands and admitted the information against him at the earliest opportunity.
Mr McKay also expressed remorse and said that this is the first time he had had to appear before a Judicial Panel in his training career.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Mr Scott submitted that NZTR did not consider that the circumstances of the case warranted the matter being considered as a serious racing offence. Mr Scott said that it was evident from the facts that Mr McKay had been lulled into a false belief in so far as the identity of the horses were concerned. He said that the two fillies were of similar colour, and the brandings were also similar. However, Mr Scott stated that it is the responsibility of the trainer who is in charge of the horse to ensure that he is training the correct horse, and that the identity of every horse in his care is in accordance with the records held by NZTR. Once a trainer receives a copy of the registration papers from the owner, the trainer is expected to confirm the identity of the horse in his care.
Mr Scott submitted that NZTR did not consider that the circumstances of the case warranted the matter being considered as a serious racing offence. Mr Scott said that it was evident from the facts that Mr McKay had been lulled into a false belief in so far as the identity of the horses were concerned. He said that the two fillies were of similar colour, and the brandings were also similar. However, Mr Scott stated that it is the responsibility of the trainer who is in charge of the horse to ensure that he is training the correct horse, and that the identity of every horse in his care is in accordance with the records held by NZTR. Once a trainer receives a copy of the registration papers from the owner, the trainer is expected to confirm the identity of the horse in his care.
Mr Scott submitted that the matter could be dealt with by way of a fine.
The Chairman traversed with Mr Scott, the impact of a suspension on a trainer in the circumstances, and Mr Scott confirmed that that would have the effect of depriving the trainer of his income for a period of time with a flow-on effect in so far as his staff is concerned.
In reply, Mr McKay expressed his remorse for his lack of vigilance in relation to the matter. He accepted that a fine was an appropriate penalty in the circumstances.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
It is this committee’s view that a fine is an appropriate penalty in this instance. Having regard to the fact that Mr McKay was lulled into a sense of false security with regard to these horses by the staff of the breeder and owner, the only aggravating feature in this matter was therefore his lack of vigilance in checking the brands.
By way of mitigation, Mr McKay has admitted the charge against him at the earliest opportunity and was cooperative with the Racing Integrity Unit. He also expressed remorse for his lack of vigilance.
After taking into account the mitigating and aggravating features of this case, this Committee is satisfied that a fine of $500 should be imposed together with costs in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.
In setting the level of this fine, the Committee has had regard to fines imposed in a number of cases between 1997 and 2009. The fines that have been imposed in the past range from $400 to $2,500. In this case, the level of fine can be kept at a lower level because of the fact that the matter arose from a trials meeting, and therefore the interests of a racing club and the betting public were not inconvenienced.
Mr McKay is accordingly fined $500 together with costs of $350 in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.
KG Hales J Phelan
Chairman Committee Member
Chairman Committee Member
25 June 2011
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: Third Appendix (Regulations for Trials) pursuant to Rules 658 and 802(1)(a)
Informant: Mr R D Scott - Racing Investigator Racing Integrity Unit
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr M Davidson - Registrar
Respondent: Mr R I McKay - Licensed Trainer
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: