Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v P W Lock 20 March 2013 – Decision dated 25 March 2013
ID: JCA16709
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
AND IN THE MATTER of the NZ Rules of Thoroughbred Racing
BETWEEN:
THE RACING INTEGRITY UNIT ON BEHALF OF NZ THOROUGHBRED RACING
(Mr J Oatham – Senior Stipendiary Steward appearing)
Informant
AND MR PETER W LOCK - LICENSED CLASS A TRAINER
Respondent
Information No: A4258
Judicial Committee: BJ Scott (Chairman), AJ Dooley (Committee Member)
Present: Mr J Oatham – Senior Stipendiary Steward for the Informant,
Mr PW Lock – Respondent
Mr L Molloy – Assisting Mr Lock
Registrar: Mr M Williamson
Plea: Admitted
Venue: Pukekohe Park Racecourse
Date of Hearing: 20th March 2013
Date of Decision: 25th March 2013
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Evidence:
[1] The Respondent Licensed Class A Trainer, Mr PW Lock, faces the following charge:
That about 1.15 pm on Saturday the 2nd of March 2013 at the meeting of Hawke’s Bay Racing at Hastings you did commit a breach of Rule 804(5) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing in that you did administer by injection a substance with a syringe into the mouth of the horse RE DEEL prior to racing in race 2 on the program AND THAT such administration was not under the direction of a Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Investigator and that again you are thereby liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to Rule 804(7) of the said Rules.
[2]
Rule 804(5) provides:
“A person, except for a Veterinarian who is an official, shall not, during a day of racing, administer by injection, nasal gastric tube, gastric tube, ventilator or nebulizer to a horse entered in a Race on that day of racing or any substance whatsoever, unless such administration occurred after the horse has raced or under the direction of a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator. For the purposes of this sub-Rule the day of racing is deemed to commence at 12.01 am and to conclude after the last Race.”
Rule 804(6) provides:
“A person who commits a breach of sub-Rule (2) or (3) or (4) or (5) of this Rule shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding five years: and /or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
(c) a fine not exceeding $25,000”
[3] Mr Lock acknowledged that he had been served with the Information and the Notice of Charge.
[4] Mr Lock also acknowledged that he had been provided with copies of both of the above Rules and that he understood them.
[5] Mr Oatham produced written authority from the Operations Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit to lodge the Information charging Mr Lock with a breach of Rule 804(5).
[6] Mr Oatham then produced his Summary of Facts which stated as follows:
(a) Peter Lock is the trainer of the thoroughbred gelding RE DEEL.
(b) On Saturday 2nd March 2013 RE DEEL was engaged to compete in Race 2 at the Hawke’s Bay Racing Incorporated’s meeting held at Hastings. The race was scheduled to commence at 1.30pm.
(c) At approximately 1.15pm Assistant Stipendiary Steward Mr Brian Bateup, who was in the process of checking the gear of runners in Race 2 and who was approaching RE DEEL, noticed Mr Lock administering a substance to the gelding by way of a syringe.
(d) Mr Lock was open in his actions and did not try and conceal what he was doing.
(e) Assistant Stipendiary Steward Bateup immediately went up to Mr Lock and said that what he was doing was not permitted.
(f) Mr Lock stated that the substance he was administering was just glycerine and then invited Mr Bateup to look into his gear bag. Mr Bateup did so and this revealed a white container labelled Glycerine BP (Clycerol). The approximate weight of the container being 1kg.
(g) Mr Bateup advised the Chairman of Stewards for that day, Mr Neil Goodwin, what he had found. Mr Goodwin then requested a ruling from the Judicial Committee as to whether RE DEEL should be permitted to start as it had been administered a substance on race day by way of a method which is contrary to the Rules.
(h) The Judicial Committee determined that RE DEEL be scratched from the race.
(i) Subsequent to the Race Meeting Mr Lock was contacted by the Stewards and advised that as a consequence a charge would be filed against him in relation to Rule 804(5) of the Rules of Racing.
(j) Mr Lock readily admitted his error and acknowledged that he had breached the provisions of Rule 804(5).
(k) Mr Lock advised that the charge would be admitted and that he would like the matter dealt with at the earliest convenience.
(l) The Stewards, however, advised that the substance from the syringe had been sent for analysis and that the hearing would not be requested prior to the results of this analysis being known.
(m) The result has now been reported as negative.
[7] Messrs Lock and Molloy accepted that the Summary of Facts fairly presented the position and did not challenge it.
Decision:
[8] The charge has been admitted and accordingly it is upheld.
Penalty Submissions by Mr Oatham:
[9] Mr Oatham in his submission said that the Mr Lock had held a Trainer’s Licence since 1982 and he had not had any prior relevant breaches of the Rules. He said that throughout the investigation Mr Lock had proved to be totally co-operative and fully acknowledged his wrong doing at the outset. He further said that the RIU accepted that Mr Lock did not act with a sinister motive.
[10] Mr Oatham submitted to the Committee that it was the intention of the Rule to maintain the Integrity of Racing.
[11] He then submitted to the Committee that the meaning of the term “injection” was determined by the Appeal Tribunal in the case of HRNZ v C to be the dictionary meaning of the word and not the usual medical/veterinary meaning which is a syringe with a needle attached. The dictionary meaning would include any device which can be used to force veterinary products into the mouth of a horse.
[12] Mr Oatham said the use of the syringe by Mr Lock was to inject a substance into his horse and it was not done under the direction and permission of the Stipendiary Steward or Investigator on the day. He did add that if Mr Lock had made such a request then permission would not have been given anyway.
[13] He further submitted that Mr Lock was a trainer of many years of experience and he should have known the Rule and if he was unaware of the Rule then that was not an excuse.
[14] Mr Oatham then presented three previous decisions to the Committee which were for like offences. He said that two of them were under the old Rule being 1104(2)(c) and these were NZTR v S and NZTR v N and also submitted NZTR v R which was a decision under the new Rule. In respect to the latter decision, Mr Oatham said that that decision was given in April 2010 and the circumstances of that case were very similar to the charge being faced by Mr Lock.
[15] Mr Oatham advised the Committee that in each of the three previous cases that he presented that the penalty had been a fine of $750.00 and accordingly he submitted that a fine of a similar amount was appropriate in this case.
He also advised that the RIU was not seeking costs even thought it had incurred expense in having the substance from the syringe sent for analysis.
Penalty Submissions by Mr Molloy/Mr Lock:
[16] Mr Molloy submitted that Mr Lock is a fine example of a horse trainer who has old fashion values.
[17] He accepted that ignorance is not a defence but he said that on the day Mr Lock was oblivious to the consequences of his actions.
[18] Mr Molloy said that on the day Assistant Stipendiary Steward Mr Bateup had the opportunity to intervene and did not do so. He said that if Mr Bateup had have intervened then the charge might not have been brought.
[19] Mr Molloy said that on the day, Mr Lock was giving his horse glycerine. He said that because of the very dry conditions prevailing at present some horses get a dry cough and it is necessary to lubricate the horse’s throat and that was what Mr Lock was doing. He said it was not a drug and it was not performance enhancing and he also said that when Mr Lock was interviewed he had told the Stewards he was only doing what he had done previously.
[20] Mr Molloy said that some Trainers use pump bottles to squirt water down their horses’ throats on raceday to make sure the throat is lubricated. He submitted that that is not a breach of the Rule and he suggested that the RIU has lost sight of what is an injection.
[21] Mr Molloy said that what Mr Lock was doing was an age old remedy by using glycerine and that it was for the animal’s welfare and to prevent a dust cough.
[22] Mr Molloy endeavoured to distinguish the other cases that Mr Oatham had presented to the Committee today and suggested that the purpose of administration in those cases was to enhance each of the horse’s performance whereas the purpose of Mr Lock’s administration was for animal welfare purposes only.
[23] Mr Molloy submitted that NZ Racing and the RIU should amend its Rules because what Mr Lock did was for animal welfare purposes only and did not have any sinister purpose.
[24] Mr Molloy finally submitted that this charge was different to the others and it was at the bottom end of the scale and he submitted that it could be dealt with by way of a fine of $250.00.
Decision:
[25] The charge has been admitted and accordingly it is proved.
Reasons for Penalty:
[26] The Committee assessed the evidence put before it. The Statement of Facts presented by Mr Oatham is very clear and at the end of Mr Oatham’s case the Committee asked Messrs Molloy and Lock if they agreed with the Statement of Facts. They said it was a fair presentation of the facts and did not challenge any aspect of it.
[27] The Committee does not question Mr Lock’s integrity and notes that it was not questioned by the RIU as well. Mr Lock however is a very experienced trainer and he should not have only known the Rule but he should have been aware of the other cases referred to by Mr Oatham which occurred in the Waikato Area.
[28] The Integrity of Racing is paramount and all participants in the Racing Industry need to always be aware of this. An industry that is reliant upon the gambling dollar needs to always uphold its Integrity to retain the Public’s confidence.
[29] In dealing with integrity issues it is important for all those involved in the Racing Industry to be aware of how important “perception” is. In this case we are told by Mr Molloy that the substance was only glycerine and we are told by Mr Oatham that analysis of the sample was reported as negative. The important point to us, however, is that if a member of the public or for that matter other trainers saw Mr Lock squirting something into his horse’s mouth on raceday then the perception would be that he was doing some sinister.
We have pointed out to Messrs Lock and Molloy the maximum penalties provided for under Rule 804(6). We are told that this charge is the lower end of the scale of seriousness.
At the end of the day, what Mr Lock did was a breach of the Rules of Racing and it is a serious matter to breach those Rules on raceday.
[30] In arriving at penalty we have reviewed the prior decisions submitted to us by Mr Oatham and we are aware of further decision involving “administration by injection on raceday” being HRNZ v S. The penalty in that case was also a fine of $750.00. This Committee is mindful of the need to treat all people in the Racing Industry fairly and to be consistent with any penalty that it imposes. The Committee is conscious of the fact that the circumstances in Mr Lock’s case are virtually identical to that of RIU v R.
Penalty:
Decision as to Penalty and Costs:
[31] For the reasons set out above, this Committee makes the following Orders:
(a) That Mr Lock is to pay a fine in the sum of $750.00.
(b) The RIU did not seek costs and accordingly no order is made.
(c) That Mr Lock pays costs to the Judicial Control Authority in the amount of $200.00.
Dated this 25th day of March 2013
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 01/04/2013
Publish Date: 01/04/2013
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: d6f6d9d54a801670849bd4bdd15b19d8
informantnumber: A4258
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 01/04/2013
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v P W Lock 20 March 2013 - Decision dated 25 March 2013
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
AND IN THE MATTER of the NZ Rules of Thoroughbred Racing
BETWEEN:
THE RACING INTEGRITY UNIT ON BEHALF OF NZ THOROUGHBRED RACING
(Mr J Oatham – Senior Stipendiary Steward appearing)
Informant
AND MR PETER W LOCK - LICENSED CLASS A TRAINER
Respondent
Information No: A4258
Judicial Committee: BJ Scott (Chairman), AJ Dooley (Committee Member)
Present: Mr J Oatham – Senior Stipendiary Steward for the Informant,
Mr PW Lock – Respondent
Mr L Molloy – Assisting Mr Lock
Registrar: Mr M Williamson
Plea: Admitted
Venue: Pukekohe Park Racecourse
Date of Hearing: 20th March 2013
Date of Decision: 25th March 2013
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Evidence:
[1] The Respondent Licensed Class A Trainer, Mr PW Lock, faces the following charge:
That about 1.15 pm on Saturday the 2nd of March 2013 at the meeting of Hawke’s Bay Racing at Hastings you did commit a breach of Rule 804(5) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing in that you did administer by injection a substance with a syringe into the mouth of the horse RE DEEL prior to racing in race 2 on the program AND THAT such administration was not under the direction of a Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Investigator and that again you are thereby liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to Rule 804(7) of the said Rules.
[2]
Rule 804(5) provides:
“A person, except for a Veterinarian who is an official, shall not, during a day of racing, administer by injection, nasal gastric tube, gastric tube, ventilator or nebulizer to a horse entered in a Race on that day of racing or any substance whatsoever, unless such administration occurred after the horse has raced or under the direction of a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator. For the purposes of this sub-Rule the day of racing is deemed to commence at 12.01 am and to conclude after the last Race.”
Rule 804(6) provides:
“A person who commits a breach of sub-Rule (2) or (3) or (4) or (5) of this Rule shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding five years: and /or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
(c) a fine not exceeding $25,000”
[3] Mr Lock acknowledged that he had been served with the Information and the Notice of Charge.
[4] Mr Lock also acknowledged that he had been provided with copies of both of the above Rules and that he understood them.
[5] Mr Oatham produced written authority from the Operations Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit to lodge the Information charging Mr Lock with a breach of Rule 804(5).
[6] Mr Oatham then produced his Summary of Facts which stated as follows:
(a) Peter Lock is the trainer of the thoroughbred gelding RE DEEL.
(b) On Saturday 2nd March 2013 RE DEEL was engaged to compete in Race 2 at the Hawke’s Bay Racing Incorporated’s meeting held at Hastings. The race was scheduled to commence at 1.30pm.
(c) At approximately 1.15pm Assistant Stipendiary Steward Mr Brian Bateup, who was in the process of checking the gear of runners in Race 2 and who was approaching RE DEEL, noticed Mr Lock administering a substance to the gelding by way of a syringe.
(d) Mr Lock was open in his actions and did not try and conceal what he was doing.
(e) Assistant Stipendiary Steward Bateup immediately went up to Mr Lock and said that what he was doing was not permitted.
(f) Mr Lock stated that the substance he was administering was just glycerine and then invited Mr Bateup to look into his gear bag. Mr Bateup did so and this revealed a white container labelled Glycerine BP (Clycerol). The approximate weight of the container being 1kg.
(g) Mr Bateup advised the Chairman of Stewards for that day, Mr Neil Goodwin, what he had found. Mr Goodwin then requested a ruling from the Judicial Committee as to whether RE DEEL should be permitted to start as it had been administered a substance on race day by way of a method which is contrary to the Rules.
(h) The Judicial Committee determined that RE DEEL be scratched from the race.
(i) Subsequent to the Race Meeting Mr Lock was contacted by the Stewards and advised that as a consequence a charge would be filed against him in relation to Rule 804(5) of the Rules of Racing.
(j) Mr Lock readily admitted his error and acknowledged that he had breached the provisions of Rule 804(5).
(k) Mr Lock advised that the charge would be admitted and that he would like the matter dealt with at the earliest convenience.
(l) The Stewards, however, advised that the substance from the syringe had been sent for analysis and that the hearing would not be requested prior to the results of this analysis being known.
(m) The result has now been reported as negative.
[7] Messrs Lock and Molloy accepted that the Summary of Facts fairly presented the position and did not challenge it.
Decision:
[8] The charge has been admitted and accordingly it is upheld.
Penalty Submissions by Mr Oatham:
[9] Mr Oatham in his submission said that the Mr Lock had held a Trainer’s Licence since 1982 and he had not had any prior relevant breaches of the Rules. He said that throughout the investigation Mr Lock had proved to be totally co-operative and fully acknowledged his wrong doing at the outset. He further said that the RIU accepted that Mr Lock did not act with a sinister motive.
[10] Mr Oatham submitted to the Committee that it was the intention of the Rule to maintain the Integrity of Racing.
[11] He then submitted to the Committee that the meaning of the term “injection” was determined by the Appeal Tribunal in the case of HRNZ v C to be the dictionary meaning of the word and not the usual medical/veterinary meaning which is a syringe with a needle attached. The dictionary meaning would include any device which can be used to force veterinary products into the mouth of a horse.
[12] Mr Oatham said the use of the syringe by Mr Lock was to inject a substance into his horse and it was not done under the direction and permission of the Stipendiary Steward or Investigator on the day. He did add that if Mr Lock had made such a request then permission would not have been given anyway.
[13] He further submitted that Mr Lock was a trainer of many years of experience and he should have known the Rule and if he was unaware of the Rule then that was not an excuse.
[14] Mr Oatham then presented three previous decisions to the Committee which were for like offences. He said that two of them were under the old Rule being 1104(2)(c) and these were NZTR v S and NZTR v N and also submitted NZTR v R which was a decision under the new Rule. In respect to the latter decision, Mr Oatham said that that decision was given in April 2010 and the circumstances of that case were very similar to the charge being faced by Mr Lock.
[15] Mr Oatham advised the Committee that in each of the three previous cases that he presented that the penalty had been a fine of $750.00 and accordingly he submitted that a fine of a similar amount was appropriate in this case.
He also advised that the RIU was not seeking costs even thought it had incurred expense in having the substance from the syringe sent for analysis.
Penalty Submissions by Mr Molloy/Mr Lock:
[16] Mr Molloy submitted that Mr Lock is a fine example of a horse trainer who has old fashion values.
[17] He accepted that ignorance is not a defence but he said that on the day Mr Lock was oblivious to the consequences of his actions.
[18] Mr Molloy said that on the day Assistant Stipendiary Steward Mr Bateup had the opportunity to intervene and did not do so. He said that if Mr Bateup had have intervened then the charge might not have been brought.
[19] Mr Molloy said that on the day, Mr Lock was giving his horse glycerine. He said that because of the very dry conditions prevailing at present some horses get a dry cough and it is necessary to lubricate the horse’s throat and that was what Mr Lock was doing. He said it was not a drug and it was not performance enhancing and he also said that when Mr Lock was interviewed he had told the Stewards he was only doing what he had done previously.
[20] Mr Molloy said that some Trainers use pump bottles to squirt water down their horses’ throats on raceday to make sure the throat is lubricated. He submitted that that is not a breach of the Rule and he suggested that the RIU has lost sight of what is an injection.
[21] Mr Molloy said that what Mr Lock was doing was an age old remedy by using glycerine and that it was for the animal’s welfare and to prevent a dust cough.
[22] Mr Molloy endeavoured to distinguish the other cases that Mr Oatham had presented to the Committee today and suggested that the purpose of administration in those cases was to enhance each of the horse’s performance whereas the purpose of Mr Lock’s administration was for animal welfare purposes only.
[23] Mr Molloy submitted that NZ Racing and the RIU should amend its Rules because what Mr Lock did was for animal welfare purposes only and did not have any sinister purpose.
[24] Mr Molloy finally submitted that this charge was different to the others and it was at the bottom end of the scale and he submitted that it could be dealt with by way of a fine of $250.00.
Decision:
[25] The charge has been admitted and accordingly it is proved.
Reasons for Penalty:
[26] The Committee assessed the evidence put before it. The Statement of Facts presented by Mr Oatham is very clear and at the end of Mr Oatham’s case the Committee asked Messrs Molloy and Lock if they agreed with the Statement of Facts. They said it was a fair presentation of the facts and did not challenge any aspect of it.
[27] The Committee does not question Mr Lock’s integrity and notes that it was not questioned by the RIU as well. Mr Lock however is a very experienced trainer and he should not have only known the Rule but he should have been aware of the other cases referred to by Mr Oatham which occurred in the Waikato Area.
[28] The Integrity of Racing is paramount and all participants in the Racing Industry need to always be aware of this. An industry that is reliant upon the gambling dollar needs to always uphold its Integrity to retain the Public’s confidence.
[29] In dealing with integrity issues it is important for all those involved in the Racing Industry to be aware of how important “perception” is. In this case we are told by Mr Molloy that the substance was only glycerine and we are told by Mr Oatham that analysis of the sample was reported as negative. The important point to us, however, is that if a member of the public or for that matter other trainers saw Mr Lock squirting something into his horse’s mouth on raceday then the perception would be that he was doing some sinister.
We have pointed out to Messrs Lock and Molloy the maximum penalties provided for under Rule 804(6). We are told that this charge is the lower end of the scale of seriousness.
At the end of the day, what Mr Lock did was a breach of the Rules of Racing and it is a serious matter to breach those Rules on raceday.
[30] In arriving at penalty we have reviewed the prior decisions submitted to us by Mr Oatham and we are aware of further decision involving “administration by injection on raceday” being HRNZ v S. The penalty in that case was also a fine of $750.00. This Committee is mindful of the need to treat all people in the Racing Industry fairly and to be consistent with any penalty that it imposes. The Committee is conscious of the fact that the circumstances in Mr Lock’s case are virtually identical to that of RIU v R.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
Decision as to Penalty and Costs:
[31] For the reasons set out above, this Committee makes the following Orders:
(a) That Mr Lock is to pay a fine in the sum of $750.00.
(b) The RIU did not seek costs and accordingly no order is made.
(c) That Mr Lock pays costs to the Judicial Control Authority in the amount of $200.00.
Dated this 25th day of March 2013
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 804(5)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward for the Informant, Mr P W Lock - Respondent, Mr L Molloy - Assisting Mr Lock
Respondent: Mr Peter W Lock - Licensed Class A 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: