Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v B Craik – Decision dated 5 May 2015
ID: JCA16877
Decision:
Non Raceday Inquiry – RIU v B Craik
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT – Informant
AND BARBARA CRAIK – Respondent – Licenced Handler
Informant: Michael Austin - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mrs Barbara Craik – Licenced Handler NZGRA
Rules: 68.1
Information: A4451
Judicial Committee: BJ Scott, Chairman – AJ Dooley, Committee Member
Appearing: Mr R Neal (Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward) for the Informant
Mr B Craik (Licensed Trainer) for the Respondent
Ms L Bleik Swab Official (Greyhound Identification Official)
Mrs P Coutts (Kenneling Official)
Registrar Mr B Van Kan (Stipendiary Steward)
Venue: Manukau Greyhound Raceway
Date of Hearing: 21st April 2015
Date of Decision: 5th May 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
1. Mrs Barbara Craik appeared before this Judicial Committee on the following charge:
That on Sunday the 8th of February 2015 at a Race Meeting conducted by the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau Stadium, you being a Registered Handler committed a breach of Rule 68.1 of the Rules of Greyhound Racing when you presented the greyhound DON DRAPER at the inspection area for kenneling in Race 5 when the greyhound engaged to compete in Race 5 was LUCKY MAN.
Rule 68.1 provides:
“The Handler of a Greyhound competing at a Meeting shall produce the correct Greyhound to the Stewards at or before the time specified in Rule 68.2.”
Rule 68.2 provides:
“Unless otherwise specified, a Greyhound competing at a Meeting conducted by a Club shall be in the hands of the Stewards not later than sixty (60) minutes before the advertised starting time of the first Race of that Meeting”.
2. A copy of the written Authority dated the 3rd of March 2015 and signed by the General Manager of the RIU authorizing the charge against Mrs Craik was provided to the Committee prior to the Hearing.
3. Mr Neal on behalf of the RIU said that the charge was simply on the basis that Mrs Craik presented the wrong Greyhound in the inspection area for Race 5.
4. Mr Neal then called Mr M Austin to give evidence:
(a) Mr Austin said that he was the Stipendiary Steward in charge of the Meeting and he first gave evidence of the process on Race Day. He said that Handlers bring the Greyhounds and the papers down to the kennel block and present them to the Identification Official. The Official also checks the Greyhound’s microchip and then the Greyhounds proceed to a vet check.
Mr Austin then said that providing that all that information is correct then the Handlers are given a card with the details of the Greyhound and its number and the Handler then takes the Greyhound to the kennel block and it is then handed over to another Official for weighing and that Official checks the Greyhound’s ear brand etc.
(b) He said that prior to the Race and after the Greyhounds are checked against the papers, including the rug with the number on it, they then proceed to the Parade Ring and then carry on to the track.
(c) Mr Austin then spoke of his involvement in the Meeting on the 8th of February 2015 and confirmed that he was the Steward in charge of the Meeting.
He said that prior to Race 8 he had had a call from Ms Bleik from the kennel block who said that there was an issue with the identification of one of the runners in Race 8. She said it should have been DON DRAPER but on checking the ear brands found that it was LUCKY MAN.
(d) Mr Austin said that he asked Stipendiary Steward Mr Van Kan to go to Mr and Mrs Craik’s trailer to check the Greyhound that had previously raced and Mr Van Kan said that that Greyhound was DON DRAPER. We understood that Mr Van Kan was accompanied by Mr Craik’s daughter Tracey and she immediately identified that it was the wrong Greyhound.
(e) Mr Austin said that it was obvious that DON DRAPER had raced as LUCKY MAN in Race 5 and he therefore scratched the Craik Greyhound in Race 8 and disqualified their Greyhound from fifth in Race 5.
(f) Mr Neal said that Mr Austin had explained the chronology of events that happened at the Meeting on the 8th of February 2015.
(g) Mr Craik then by way of cross examination asked if DON DRAPER had been identified by both microchip and ear brand and Mr Austin was unable to confirm that. Mr Craik referred Mr Austin to Rule 68.10 and to the identification process set out in that Rule. Mr Austin acknowledged the Rule but said that the identification process was commenced by the Identification Official, continued at weighing in and at kenneling. Mr Austin said that Greyhounds should be checked against their Race Cards when first inspected and that at weighing in only the official ear brands are checked and not the microchip.
Mr Craik then wanted to ask further questions of Mr Austin but was directed to cross examine on Mr Austins’ evidence.
(h) Mr Craik then queried the word “correct” in Rule 68.1. He suggested that if the wrong Greyhound was presented then the identification process would discover this and it would be totally impossible to present the wrong Greyhound.
(i) In response Mr Neal said that the word “correct” had been introduced to the Rule approximately five months ago and this was to bring the Rule in line with the Australian Rule.
(j) Mr Neal said that the Stewards have a wide discretion to warn or reprimand anyone presenting an incorrect Greyhound but that there was a strict duty on the Handler to present the correct Greyhound.
(k) Mr Neal then called Ms Bleik to give evidence. She said she was a Swab Steward and assists the vet and first identify the Greyhounds. She said that she checks the Greyhounds and the ear brands and she helps the vet with any injuries.
(l) Mrs Bleik said that on the 8th of February Mrs Craik brought in DON DRAPER for Race 5 and she checked the Greyhound and the Greyhound was then weighed and she said that Mrs Craik took the Greyhound over and told Pam (Mrs Coutts) that she had LUCKY MAN.
(m) Mrs Bleik said that she checked the ear brand. She did not check the microchip because the battery was flat in the microchip machine.
(n) Mrs Bleik said that after kenneling she believed that the wrong Greyhound went out for Race 5 and this was not picked up until Mrs Coutts identified the error when checking the Greyhounds prior to Race 8 that the wrong Greyhound was being presented for that Race.
(o) Mr Craik objected to this process and referred to Rule 68.10. He said that in terms of markings both LUCKY MAN and DON DRAPER were black Greyhounds without markings and he asked Mrs Bleik if she only used the ear brand. Mrs Bleik said that the Greyhound that was checked was DON DRAPER.
(p) Mrs Bleik said in answer to a further question from Mr Craik that she did only check the Greyhound by its brand because the microchip machine was not working.
(q) She also said that she did not check all of the Greyhounds on the day.
5. Mr Neal then called Mrs P Coutts to give evidence.
(a) Mrs Coutts said that she was on duty at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club’s Meeting on the 8th of February 2015.
(b) She said that prior to Race 5 she said to Barbara (Mrs Craik) “is this LUCKY MAN”. She said “yes”. When the second Greyhound was weighed prior to Race 8 she said “I checked the brand and I said that this was the wrong Greyhound. She said this is LUCKY MAN not DON DRAPER.”
(c) In answer to a question Mrs Coutts said that in Race 5 she read the ear brand and that looked correct. She said that if she couldn’t read the brand then she scans the Greyhound but of course that didn’t happen for Race 5 but did happen for Race 8.
(d) Mrs Coutts was asked if she knew that she should check the Greyhound by two different means. She did so for Race 8.
6. Mr Craik then called Mrs Barbara Craik to give evidence.
(a) He asked her if she brought the first Greyhound down to kenneling (being the Greyhound for Race 5) and she said “yes”.
(b) Mrs Craik confirmed that the Greyhound had been identified by Mrs Bleik.
(c) Mr Craik said that he had no further questions.
(d) Mr Neal by way of cross examination asked Mrs Craik to confirm that she had brought one Greyhound down. Mrs Craik said that “yes I brought one down it was DON DRAPER”.
(e) Mr Craik responded “that is not what you told me at home Dear”.
Mr R Neal Summary
7. Mr Neal said it was the duty of the Handler under Rule 68.1 to present the correct Greyhound in the Inspection Area. He said that Rule 68.2 had been complied with. Mr Neal further said that Mrs Craik confirmed that she brought down DON DRAPER and clearly it was the wrong Greyhound.
8. Mr Neal acknowledged the error in the Officials not being able to use the microchip scanner but he said that this did not alleviate the Handler of the responsibility of presenting the correct Greyhound. He further said that the error was picked up by the Kenneling Officials prior to Race 8.
9. Mr Neal also said that what happens in other cases is not relevant to this case and the only matters that are relevant are the facts in this case.
10. He said that unfortunately it is very clear that Mrs Craik presented the wrong Greyhound.
Mr B Craik Summary
11. Mr Craik said that he disagreed with the Officials’ interpretation of Rule 68.1. He said that it only applies when a Greyhound does not appear at all at a Race Meeting.
12. Mr Craik said that it is necessary for at least two different forms of ID used and he said that the Stewards had cleared the Greyhounds to race in Race 5. He suggested that the mix up was in the kennel block.
13. Mr Craik said that such mix up had happened before at the Auckland Club and that the checking there was very lax.
14. Mr Craik further said that if his daughter Tracey was the Handler then the mix up would have been correctly identified.
15. Mr Craik also said that it was not an offence to bring the wrong Greyhound to identification because if it is the wrong Greyhound then it can be sent back and that has happened before. He again said that he has to assume that a mix up has occurred.
16. In answer to a question from the Committee Mr Craik suggested that there is a responsibility on the Officials to check properly and that that did not happen in Race 5. Mr Craik also acknowledged a late kenneling for Race 8 although in answer to a question he did say that on that night his wife and he had 11 Greyhounds racing and there was no split kenneling of his racing team. He suggested that the Greyhounds were all kenneled at once although he did acknowledge that he was not at the races.
17. Mr Craik said that he had raced Greyhounds for 44 years and on this occasion somehow there has been a mix up in the kennel block. Mr Craik also acknowledged that he had not kenneled Greyhounds at Auckland for approximately 8 years.
Mr R Neal Response
18. Mr Neal said that the Rule was consistent with the Australian Rule.
19. He said that the Stewards do not accept that a mix up occurred and that having a lot of Greyhounds is not an excuse for presenting the wrong Greyhound.
20. He said that it was very clear that the wrong Greyhound was presented and this was acknowledged by Mrs Craik.
Reasons for Decision
21. Mr Austin has set out clearly for us the process that operates at a Race Meeting. Mrs Bleik and Mrs Coutts have both been very clear in their evidence and in the steps that they took on Race Night.
22. The only problem with the identification process is the fact that the microchip scanner was not operating for Race 5 but there were other forms of identification. The evidence as to what happened on Race Day is quite compelling and clearly DON DRAPER was presented for Race 5 when it should have been LUCKY MAN. There was an error in the checking process for Race 5 but this does not absolve Mrs Craik from her responsibility for presenting the correct Greyhound to race. The Officials quite correctly picked up the error after the Greyhounds were taken from the kennel block and re-inspected prior to the start of Race 8 and this resulted in DON DRAPER being disqualified from Race 5 and LUCKY MAN being scratched from Race 8.
23. Mrs Craik has also acknowledged that she presented DON DRAPER for Race 5 and that is a clear acknowledgement by her that the wrong Greyhound was presented for that Race.
24. Mr Craik has submitted to us that the Rule only applies where a Greyhound is not presented at a Race Meeting. We reject that totally. We also reject Mr Craik’s suggestion that the responsibility for correctly processing the Greyhounds lies with the Officials. The responsibility, as Mr Neal correctly says, is on the part of the Handler and it is clear to us that somehow Mrs Craik has presented the wrong Greyhound for Race 5.
25. Mr Craik also spoke during the Hearing of there being split kenneling and that there might have been a mix up because of the split kenneling. He seemed to change his mind during his final submissions and suggested that all the Greyhounds were kenneled at once. We are of the view that there was split kenneling on this occasion and we note that the Handler takes the Greyhound for identification, is given a card, takes the Greyhound to weigh in and then kennels it. The Handler is present at all times.
26. On this occasion Mrs Craik has got it wrong and for the above reasons we uphold the charge.
Decision
27. The charge is upheld.
Penalty and Costs
28. The Informant is to present written submissions as to penalty and costs within seven days from the date of this Decision and Mr Craik has a further seven days to respond with his own submissions as to penalty and costs.
BJ Scott AJ Dooley
Chairman Committee Member
5 May 2015
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 02/05/2015
Publish Date: 02/05/2015
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: ad95c60bcda31c1135def62a094a2c73
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 02/05/2015
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v B Craik - Decision dated 5 May 2015
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Non Raceday Inquiry – RIU v B Craik
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT – Informant
AND BARBARA CRAIK – Respondent – Licenced Handler
Informant: Michael Austin - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mrs Barbara Craik – Licenced Handler NZGRA
Rules: 68.1
Information: A4451
Judicial Committee: BJ Scott, Chairman – AJ Dooley, Committee Member
Appearing: Mr R Neal (Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward) for the Informant
Mr B Craik (Licensed Trainer) for the Respondent
Ms L Bleik Swab Official (Greyhound Identification Official)
Mrs P Coutts (Kenneling Official)
Registrar Mr B Van Kan (Stipendiary Steward)
Venue: Manukau Greyhound Raceway
Date of Hearing: 21st April 2015
Date of Decision: 5th May 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
1. Mrs Barbara Craik appeared before this Judicial Committee on the following charge:
That on Sunday the 8th of February 2015 at a Race Meeting conducted by the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau Stadium, you being a Registered Handler committed a breach of Rule 68.1 of the Rules of Greyhound Racing when you presented the greyhound DON DRAPER at the inspection area for kenneling in Race 5 when the greyhound engaged to compete in Race 5 was LUCKY MAN.
Rule 68.1 provides:
“The Handler of a Greyhound competing at a Meeting shall produce the correct Greyhound to the Stewards at or before the time specified in Rule 68.2.”
Rule 68.2 provides:
“Unless otherwise specified, a Greyhound competing at a Meeting conducted by a Club shall be in the hands of the Stewards not later than sixty (60) minutes before the advertised starting time of the first Race of that Meeting”.
2. A copy of the written Authority dated the 3rd of March 2015 and signed by the General Manager of the RIU authorizing the charge against Mrs Craik was provided to the Committee prior to the Hearing.
3. Mr Neal on behalf of the RIU said that the charge was simply on the basis that Mrs Craik presented the wrong Greyhound in the inspection area for Race 5.
4. Mr Neal then called Mr M Austin to give evidence:
(a) Mr Austin said that he was the Stipendiary Steward in charge of the Meeting and he first gave evidence of the process on Race Day. He said that Handlers bring the Greyhounds and the papers down to the kennel block and present them to the Identification Official. The Official also checks the Greyhound’s microchip and then the Greyhounds proceed to a vet check.
Mr Austin then said that providing that all that information is correct then the Handlers are given a card with the details of the Greyhound and its number and the Handler then takes the Greyhound to the kennel block and it is then handed over to another Official for weighing and that Official checks the Greyhound’s ear brand etc.
(b) He said that prior to the Race and after the Greyhounds are checked against the papers, including the rug with the number on it, they then proceed to the Parade Ring and then carry on to the track.
(c) Mr Austin then spoke of his involvement in the Meeting on the 8th of February 2015 and confirmed that he was the Steward in charge of the Meeting.
He said that prior to Race 8 he had had a call from Ms Bleik from the kennel block who said that there was an issue with the identification of one of the runners in Race 8. She said it should have been DON DRAPER but on checking the ear brands found that it was LUCKY MAN.
(d) Mr Austin said that he asked Stipendiary Steward Mr Van Kan to go to Mr and Mrs Craik’s trailer to check the Greyhound that had previously raced and Mr Van Kan said that that Greyhound was DON DRAPER. We understood that Mr Van Kan was accompanied by Mr Craik’s daughter Tracey and she immediately identified that it was the wrong Greyhound.
(e) Mr Austin said that it was obvious that DON DRAPER had raced as LUCKY MAN in Race 5 and he therefore scratched the Craik Greyhound in Race 8 and disqualified their Greyhound from fifth in Race 5.
(f) Mr Neal said that Mr Austin had explained the chronology of events that happened at the Meeting on the 8th of February 2015.
(g) Mr Craik then by way of cross examination asked if DON DRAPER had been identified by both microchip and ear brand and Mr Austin was unable to confirm that. Mr Craik referred Mr Austin to Rule 68.10 and to the identification process set out in that Rule. Mr Austin acknowledged the Rule but said that the identification process was commenced by the Identification Official, continued at weighing in and at kenneling. Mr Austin said that Greyhounds should be checked against their Race Cards when first inspected and that at weighing in only the official ear brands are checked and not the microchip.
Mr Craik then wanted to ask further questions of Mr Austin but was directed to cross examine on Mr Austins’ evidence.
(h) Mr Craik then queried the word “correct” in Rule 68.1. He suggested that if the wrong Greyhound was presented then the identification process would discover this and it would be totally impossible to present the wrong Greyhound.
(i) In response Mr Neal said that the word “correct” had been introduced to the Rule approximately five months ago and this was to bring the Rule in line with the Australian Rule.
(j) Mr Neal said that the Stewards have a wide discretion to warn or reprimand anyone presenting an incorrect Greyhound but that there was a strict duty on the Handler to present the correct Greyhound.
(k) Mr Neal then called Ms Bleik to give evidence. She said she was a Swab Steward and assists the vet and first identify the Greyhounds. She said that she checks the Greyhounds and the ear brands and she helps the vet with any injuries.
(l) Mrs Bleik said that on the 8th of February Mrs Craik brought in DON DRAPER for Race 5 and she checked the Greyhound and the Greyhound was then weighed and she said that Mrs Craik took the Greyhound over and told Pam (Mrs Coutts) that she had LUCKY MAN.
(m) Mrs Bleik said that she checked the ear brand. She did not check the microchip because the battery was flat in the microchip machine.
(n) Mrs Bleik said that after kenneling she believed that the wrong Greyhound went out for Race 5 and this was not picked up until Mrs Coutts identified the error when checking the Greyhounds prior to Race 8 that the wrong Greyhound was being presented for that Race.
(o) Mr Craik objected to this process and referred to Rule 68.10. He said that in terms of markings both LUCKY MAN and DON DRAPER were black Greyhounds without markings and he asked Mrs Bleik if she only used the ear brand. Mrs Bleik said that the Greyhound that was checked was DON DRAPER.
(p) Mrs Bleik said in answer to a further question from Mr Craik that she did only check the Greyhound by its brand because the microchip machine was not working.
(q) She also said that she did not check all of the Greyhounds on the day.
5. Mr Neal then called Mrs P Coutts to give evidence.
(a) Mrs Coutts said that she was on duty at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club’s Meeting on the 8th of February 2015.
(b) She said that prior to Race 5 she said to Barbara (Mrs Craik) “is this LUCKY MAN”. She said “yes”. When the second Greyhound was weighed prior to Race 8 she said “I checked the brand and I said that this was the wrong Greyhound. She said this is LUCKY MAN not DON DRAPER.”
(c) In answer to a question Mrs Coutts said that in Race 5 she read the ear brand and that looked correct. She said that if she couldn’t read the brand then she scans the Greyhound but of course that didn’t happen for Race 5 but did happen for Race 8.
(d) Mrs Coutts was asked if she knew that she should check the Greyhound by two different means. She did so for Race 8.
6. Mr Craik then called Mrs Barbara Craik to give evidence.
(a) He asked her if she brought the first Greyhound down to kenneling (being the Greyhound for Race 5) and she said “yes”.
(b) Mrs Craik confirmed that the Greyhound had been identified by Mrs Bleik.
(c) Mr Craik said that he had no further questions.
(d) Mr Neal by way of cross examination asked Mrs Craik to confirm that she had brought one Greyhound down. Mrs Craik said that “yes I brought one down it was DON DRAPER”.
(e) Mr Craik responded “that is not what you told me at home Dear”.
Mr R Neal Summary
7. Mr Neal said it was the duty of the Handler under Rule 68.1 to present the correct Greyhound in the Inspection Area. He said that Rule 68.2 had been complied with. Mr Neal further said that Mrs Craik confirmed that she brought down DON DRAPER and clearly it was the wrong Greyhound.
8. Mr Neal acknowledged the error in the Officials not being able to use the microchip scanner but he said that this did not alleviate the Handler of the responsibility of presenting the correct Greyhound. He further said that the error was picked up by the Kenneling Officials prior to Race 8.
9. Mr Neal also said that what happens in other cases is not relevant to this case and the only matters that are relevant are the facts in this case.
10. He said that unfortunately it is very clear that Mrs Craik presented the wrong Greyhound.
Mr B Craik Summary
11. Mr Craik said that he disagreed with the Officials’ interpretation of Rule 68.1. He said that it only applies when a Greyhound does not appear at all at a Race Meeting.
12. Mr Craik said that it is necessary for at least two different forms of ID used and he said that the Stewards had cleared the Greyhounds to race in Race 5. He suggested that the mix up was in the kennel block.
13. Mr Craik said that such mix up had happened before at the Auckland Club and that the checking there was very lax.
14. Mr Craik further said that if his daughter Tracey was the Handler then the mix up would have been correctly identified.
15. Mr Craik also said that it was not an offence to bring the wrong Greyhound to identification because if it is the wrong Greyhound then it can be sent back and that has happened before. He again said that he has to assume that a mix up has occurred.
16. In answer to a question from the Committee Mr Craik suggested that there is a responsibility on the Officials to check properly and that that did not happen in Race 5. Mr Craik also acknowledged a late kenneling for Race 8 although in answer to a question he did say that on that night his wife and he had 11 Greyhounds racing and there was no split kenneling of his racing team. He suggested that the Greyhounds were all kenneled at once although he did acknowledge that he was not at the races.
17. Mr Craik said that he had raced Greyhounds for 44 years and on this occasion somehow there has been a mix up in the kennel block. Mr Craik also acknowledged that he had not kenneled Greyhounds at Auckland for approximately 8 years.
Mr R Neal Response
18. Mr Neal said that the Rule was consistent with the Australian Rule.
19. He said that the Stewards do not accept that a mix up occurred and that having a lot of Greyhounds is not an excuse for presenting the wrong Greyhound.
20. He said that it was very clear that the wrong Greyhound was presented and this was acknowledged by Mrs Craik.
Reasons for Decision
21. Mr Austin has set out clearly for us the process that operates at a Race Meeting. Mrs Bleik and Mrs Coutts have both been very clear in their evidence and in the steps that they took on Race Night.
22. The only problem with the identification process is the fact that the microchip scanner was not operating for Race 5 but there were other forms of identification. The evidence as to what happened on Race Day is quite compelling and clearly DON DRAPER was presented for Race 5 when it should have been LUCKY MAN. There was an error in the checking process for Race 5 but this does not absolve Mrs Craik from her responsibility for presenting the correct Greyhound to race. The Officials quite correctly picked up the error after the Greyhounds were taken from the kennel block and re-inspected prior to the start of Race 8 and this resulted in DON DRAPER being disqualified from Race 5 and LUCKY MAN being scratched from Race 8.
23. Mrs Craik has also acknowledged that she presented DON DRAPER for Race 5 and that is a clear acknowledgement by her that the wrong Greyhound was presented for that Race.
24. Mr Craik has submitted to us that the Rule only applies where a Greyhound is not presented at a Race Meeting. We reject that totally. We also reject Mr Craik’s suggestion that the responsibility for correctly processing the Greyhounds lies with the Officials. The responsibility, as Mr Neal correctly says, is on the part of the Handler and it is clear to us that somehow Mrs Craik has presented the wrong Greyhound for Race 5.
25. Mr Craik also spoke during the Hearing of there being split kenneling and that there might have been a mix up because of the split kenneling. He seemed to change his mind during his final submissions and suggested that all the Greyhounds were kenneled at once. We are of the view that there was split kenneling on this occasion and we note that the Handler takes the Greyhound for identification, is given a card, takes the Greyhound to weigh in and then kennels it. The Handler is present at all times.
26. On this occasion Mrs Craik has got it wrong and for the above reasons we uphold the charge.
Decision
27. The charge is upheld.
Penalty and Costs
28. The Informant is to present written submissions as to penalty and costs within seven days from the date of this Decision and Mr Craik has a further seven days to respond with his own submissions as to penalty and costs.
BJ Scott AJ Dooley
Chairman Committee Member
5 May 2015
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: