Non Raceday Inquiry – TR Pilcher – Decision dated 30 May 2011
ID: JCA17745
Decision:
1 An undated Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr G Whiterod against Mr T Pilcher alleging “that Mr Pilcher placed bets on races 4 and 12 whilst working as the lure driver at the (Palmerston North Greyhounds) race meeting”.
2 On 4 May 2011 Mr Pilcher was advised in a letter from Stipendiary Steward Mr G Whiterod that he had been charged with an alleged breach of Rule 39.2 of the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated). The charge was as follows:-
“THAT you, an official of the Palmerston North Greyhounds placed bets at its race meeting conducted on 27 April 2011 when you were officiating for the club in the capacity of lure driver. The bets placed by you were;
“THAT you, an official of the Palmerston North Greyhounds placed bets at its race meeting conducted on 27 April 2011 when you were officiating for the club in the capacity of lure driver. The bets placed by you were;
1) $40 win bet on Palmerston Greyhounds Race 4 Number 7 – Bound By Pride
2) $10 place bet on Palmerston Greyhounds Race 12 Number 1 – Ignite The Light”
2) $10 place bet on Palmerston Greyhounds Race 12 Number 1 – Ignite The Light”
3 Both the Information and the letter of 4 May 2011 were tabled by Mr Whiterod. Mr Pilcher had previously indicated on the information he admitted the breach. At the hearing today he again confirmed he admitted the breach. He also confirmed he had received a copy of the 4 May letter and other documents relating to this hearing sent to him by the Executive Officer, Judicial Control Authority on 24 May 2011.
4 Mr Whiterod read out Rule 39.2 which provides as follows: –
“No official, Steward or veterinarian shall directly or indirectly engage in any betting transaction at a meeting in which he/she officiates”.
“No official, Steward or veterinarian shall directly or indirectly engage in any betting transaction at a meeting in which he/she officiates”.
5 Mr Pilcher confirmed he understood the rule and as the breach was admitted the charge was deemed to be proved.
6 Mr Whiterod produced an authority from Mr M Godber of the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) dated 5 May 2011 pursuant to Rule 92.2(a) giving approval to charge Mr Pilcher with a breach of Rule 39.2 of the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)(NZGRA).
Submissions
7 Mr Whiterod said that over the last 2 or 3 years it had been reported to the stewards that Mr Pilcher may have been betting whilst working in his official capacity as the lure driver at greyhound meetings. He said Mr Pilcher had been spoken to on more than one occasion by the stewards and reminded of his obligations not to bet whilst working at a race meeting. Mr Whiterod confirmed that prior to the race meeting on 27 April 2011 the stipendiary stewards had no evidence to support the suspicions that had been reported to them.
7 Mr Whiterod said that over the last 2 or 3 years it had been reported to the stewards that Mr Pilcher may have been betting whilst working in his official capacity as the lure driver at greyhound meetings. He said Mr Pilcher had been spoken to on more than one occasion by the stewards and reminded of his obligations not to bet whilst working at a race meeting. Mr Whiterod confirmed that prior to the race meeting on 27 April 2011 the stipendiary stewards had no evidence to support the suspicions that had been reported to them.
8 Mr Whiterod said that recently he received information that Mr Pilcher had been betting and he reported that fact to the Mr Cameron George, Chief Stipendiary Steward of the RIU, who initiated his own enquiries which confirmed that Mr Pilcher did have a telephone account with the TAB and had placed bets on the 27 April 2011 meeting of the Palmerston North Greyhounds. Mr Whiterod said he then interviewed Mr Pilcher in the presence of Stipendiary Steward Mr M Austin. During that interview Mr Whiterod said that Mr Pilcher readily admitted that he placed bets on races at the 27 April 2011 meeting.
9 Mr Whiterod said information on the two dogs that Mr Pilcher bet on was as follows:-
* Bound by Pride won race 4, was drawn 7 and was the favourite. He said he couldn’t recall what it actually paid ($1.70) but remembered writing down that prior to the start of the race it was paying $2 for a win.
* Ignite the Light finished 4th in race12, was drawn 1 and was 2nd favourite in the betting (it was actually 3/3) and remembered writing down prior to the start of the race that it was paying $5 for a win.
* Ignite the Light finished 4th in race12, was drawn 1 and was 2nd favourite in the betting (it was actually 3/3) and remembered writing down prior to the start of the race that it was paying $5 for a win.
10 Following the initial interview with Mr Pilcher, Mr Whiterod reported his findings to Mr George and the decision was made to charge Mr Pilcher with a breach of Rule 39.2.
11 To questions from the Committee Mr Whiterod confirmed the lure driver was an official who was paid by the Greyhound Club. He said Mr Pilcher had been a lure driver at Palmerston North for over 20 years and he also drove the lure on trial days at the track. Mr Whiterod confirmed the club also had a back up lure driver although the person currently designated as the back up lure driver was also the starter. He confirmed that on 27 April 2011Mr Pilcher was the designated lure driver although his back up could have been asked to do the role for any race as requested by the Stipendiary Steward. He also said that following his interview with Mr Pilcher the General Manager of the NZGRA, Mr J Leach, had by letter of 5 May 2011 withdrawn the approval for Mr Pilcher to be a lure driver until further notice and this role was now being undertaken by the Assistant Lure Driver from Wanganui.
12 Mr Pilcher said he could remember being spoken to once by Stipendiary Steward Mr M Austin who suspected he might have been betting. Mr Pilcher said at that time he was reminded of his obligation not to bet.
13 Mr Pilcher asked Mr Whiterod if he noticed any irregularity in the lure driving during the races he bet on on 27 April 2011. Mr Whiterod said he was not aware of any irregularities. Mr Pilcher also asked Mr Whiterod if he could recall any instances where he (Mr Pilcher) had been spoken to by Mr Whiterod about this general lure driving. Mr Whiterod said discussions had taken place with him “on numerous occasions” about the speed of the lure as it went past the boxes at the beginning of the race as the speed of the lure could influence the start and also on how far the lure was in front of the dogs particularly during the early stages of a race.
14 Mr Pilcher said he had held positions in the Palmerston Greyhound Club up to and including having been president of the Club. He said he gave a lot of voluntary time to the club and thought he was known in the industry as an honest and reliable person.
15 To a question from the Committee he said that he was aware of Rule 39.2 and that he realised he made a mistake and should not have bet on races he was the lure driver for. He said that his lure driving had not been influenced by the odd bet that he’d had. He said he hadn’t planned to have the bets but did it because of “a bit of boredom between races”.
16 Mr Pilcher indicated he had been involved in racing greyhounds for over 20 years and has not been charged in relation to the racing of those dogs.
17 To a question from Mr Whiterod Mr Pilcher confirmed the bets placed on the two races on 27 April 2011 was not a one off instance and that in the past he had bet on races when working as the lure driver.
Submissions on Penalty
18 Mr Whiterod said he had known Mr Pilcher for over 11 years. He said Pilcher was employed in a full time capacity outside of the racing industry and had been in the same employment in Palmerston North for over 30 years. He said he had put a lot of time and effort into the local club and the industry in general and this was to his credit.
18 Mr Whiterod said he had known Mr Pilcher for over 11 years. He said Pilcher was employed in a full time capacity outside of the racing industry and had been in the same employment in Palmerston North for over 30 years. He said he had put a lot of time and effort into the local club and the industry in general and this was to his credit.
19 Mr Whiterod said this was a very serious charge that struck at the heart of the integrity of racing. He said in his opinion the lure driver, more than any other raceday official, was in a position to influence the outcome of a race by the way the lure was driven although he also said that in the discussions he had with Mr Pilcher over the years about his lure driving he had not seen any instances when Mr Pilcher’s driving of the lure was not correct. Mr Whiterod said that he kept records relating to the speed of the lure during the run up to box in order to answer questions that he might receive from owners, trainer and/or members of the public about the driving of the lure during a particular race.
20 He said that all these issues reinforced the public perception that the driving of the lure could influence the performance of a dog during a race and also the outcome of the race. That is why Stipendiary Stewards received the comments they did from time to time about lure driving. He said it was most important that the all involved in the industry had confidence that it “was as clean as we can possibly make it”. He said driving the lure was a very important job and Mr Pilcher’s breach of rule 39.2 was a very serious offence. Mr Whiterod said Mr Pilcher’s betting was totally unacceptable and that a penalty be imposed that is a deterrent to both Mr Pilcher and any other official who might want to breach rule 39.2.
21 Mr Whiterod submitted that Mr Pilcher be fined a sum of not less than $1,000. He also confirmed the RIU were not seeking recovery of any costs.
22 Mr Whiterod also said following the publication of the Committee’s decision he intended recommending to the NZGRA that Mr Pilcher’s approval to drive the lure be removed on a permanent basis.
23 To a question from the Committee Mr Whiterod confirmed this was the first time any official within the Greyhound Racing code had been charged with an offence under Rule 39.2.
24 Mr Pilcher asked Mr Whiterod if he had any knowledge of an alleged “betting” incident that had occurred last year in New Plymouth. Whilst Mr Whiterod said he was aware of the some of the facts of the matter, he confirmed that no charges had been laid against the individual.
25 Mr Pilcher asked Mr Whiterod for clarification about his comments about a “stand down period”. Mr Whiterod said that despite Mr Pilcher having been spoken to in the past about the importance of not betting he had decided to ignore that, had admitted to betting on 27 April 2011 and had also agreed that this was not a one-off incident. Mr Whiterod said instances of betting by officials brought the integrity of the industry into question and it was important people be able to invest in the industry with confidence that everything was “above board”. He said the bringing of charges like this could lead to people thinking not all was right with the industry and it was important to remove any doubts people might have about it’s integrity. He said removing Mr Pilcher from his role of lure driver would assist in achieving that outcome.
26 It was pointed out to both Mr Whiterod and Mr Pilcher that the Committee would make a decision on the charges before it and if Mr Pilcher wished to discuss any matters in relation to his future as a lure driver with the NZGRA he could do so once he had received a copy of our decision.
27 Mr Pilcher had no comments to make on a possible penalty and no other comments to make on the penalty submission of Mr Whiterod.
Penalty Rule
28 The relevant penalty is Rule 89.1 which says:-
“Any person found guilty of an offence under these rules shall be liable, in the sole and absolute discretion of the Board or stewards:-
a) a fine not exceeding $10,000 for any 1 offence and/or
b) suspension and/or
c) disqualification and/or
d) warning off”
Further, Rule 88.1 (o) says
“Any person commits an offence if he/she has – in relation to a Greyhound or greyhound racing done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper or constitutes misconduct”.
“Any person commits an offence if he/she has – in relation to a Greyhound or greyhound racing done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper or constitutes misconduct”.
Reasons for Decision
29 The Committee has listened carefully to the submissions put before it. It is not disputed that Mr Pilcher placed bets on two races at the Palmerston North Greyhounds race meeting on 27 April 2011. To his credit he readily admitted the breach when spoken to by the Stipendiary Stewards and he cooperated fully with them on all matters that culminated in the hearing today. The Committee has also noted that the Stipendiary Stewards found no irregularities with the driving of the lure on 27 April 2011. There are, however, no other mitigating factors.
29 The Committee has listened carefully to the submissions put before it. It is not disputed that Mr Pilcher placed bets on two races at the Palmerston North Greyhounds race meeting on 27 April 2011. To his credit he readily admitted the breach when spoken to by the Stipendiary Stewards and he cooperated fully with them on all matters that culminated in the hearing today. The Committee has also noted that the Stipendiary Stewards found no irregularities with the driving of the lure on 27 April 2011. There are, however, no other mitigating factors.
30 The role of the Lure Driver is vital in ensuring that a greyhound race is successfully completed and the lure driver, more than any other raceday official, is in a position to influence the outcome of a race by the way the lure is driven. Mr Pilcher’s admittance that he placed bets on the two races on 27 April 2011 doesn’t just create the impression of impropriety - it is clearly improper conduct and contrary to professional standards of behaviour. The fact he has confirmed to the Committee today that he has also placed bets in the past on races where he was the lure driver further emphasises his improper conduct, conduct that he admitted he knew was in breach of Rule 39.2.
31 A Judicial Committee must have regard to the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in the greyhound industry. This committee is conscious of this need. This need is more important in the case of serious racing offences as the breaches before us today are. Serious racing offences strike at the very heart of the industry and erode the integrity of greyhound racing and the penalty imposed must reflect that.
32 We have noted the common thread coming out of Mr Whiterod’s submissions that the Racing Integrity Unit views this breach of the rule 39.2 as a very serious matter. This Committee also views the breach as very serious.
34 We have also noted Mr Whiterod’s intention to seek a permanent withdrawal of Mr Pilcher’s authorisation to be a lure driver and see this as further emphasising that the RIU view these betting charges as a very serious matter.
35 We do not believe a penalty of a fine as submitted by Mr Whiterod will act as much of a deterrent to anybody else who chooses to bet whilst working in an official capacity for NZGRA on a raceday. We believe the offending to be at the top end of the scale and the penalty given today should send the strongest possible signal to the industry that this behaviour will not be tolerated under any circumstances.
36 The Committee is aware this is the first time that charges alleging a breach of Rule 39.2 of the Rules of NZGRA have been brought before the Judicial Control Authority and that there is no precedent in relation to the setting of a penalty.
Penalty:
37 Taking all of the above matters into account the Mr Pilcher is disqualified with effect from Tuesday 14 June 2011 for five (5) years with the disqualification ending on 13 June 2016. The deferred commencement of the disqualification is to allow Mr Pilcher to resolve any issues he may have through having any financial interests in any greyhounds. Mr Pilcher is also fined $500 and ordered to pay to the JCA costs of $350.
Paul Williams Tom Castles
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 25/05/2011
Publish Date: 25/05/2011
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: e845e55364739a2f5fb313f59f436a16
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 25/05/2011
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - TR Pilcher - Decision dated 30 May 2011
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
1 An undated Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr G Whiterod against Mr T Pilcher alleging “that Mr Pilcher placed bets on races 4 and 12 whilst working as the lure driver at the (Palmerston North Greyhounds) race meeting”.
2 On 4 May 2011 Mr Pilcher was advised in a letter from Stipendiary Steward Mr G Whiterod that he had been charged with an alleged breach of Rule 39.2 of the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated). The charge was as follows:-
“THAT you, an official of the Palmerston North Greyhounds placed bets at its race meeting conducted on 27 April 2011 when you were officiating for the club in the capacity of lure driver. The bets placed by you were;
“THAT you, an official of the Palmerston North Greyhounds placed bets at its race meeting conducted on 27 April 2011 when you were officiating for the club in the capacity of lure driver. The bets placed by you were;
1) $40 win bet on Palmerston Greyhounds Race 4 Number 7 – Bound By Pride
2) $10 place bet on Palmerston Greyhounds Race 12 Number 1 – Ignite The Light”
2) $10 place bet on Palmerston Greyhounds Race 12 Number 1 – Ignite The Light”
3 Both the Information and the letter of 4 May 2011 were tabled by Mr Whiterod. Mr Pilcher had previously indicated on the information he admitted the breach. At the hearing today he again confirmed he admitted the breach. He also confirmed he had received a copy of the 4 May letter and other documents relating to this hearing sent to him by the Executive Officer, Judicial Control Authority on 24 May 2011.
4 Mr Whiterod read out Rule 39.2 which provides as follows: –
“No official, Steward or veterinarian shall directly or indirectly engage in any betting transaction at a meeting in which he/she officiates”.
“No official, Steward or veterinarian shall directly or indirectly engage in any betting transaction at a meeting in which he/she officiates”.
5 Mr Pilcher confirmed he understood the rule and as the breach was admitted the charge was deemed to be proved.
6 Mr Whiterod produced an authority from Mr M Godber of the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) dated 5 May 2011 pursuant to Rule 92.2(a) giving approval to charge Mr Pilcher with a breach of Rule 39.2 of the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)(NZGRA).
Submissions
7 Mr Whiterod said that over the last 2 or 3 years it had been reported to the stewards that Mr Pilcher may have been betting whilst working in his official capacity as the lure driver at greyhound meetings. He said Mr Pilcher had been spoken to on more than one occasion by the stewards and reminded of his obligations not to bet whilst working at a race meeting. Mr Whiterod confirmed that prior to the race meeting on 27 April 2011 the stipendiary stewards had no evidence to support the suspicions that had been reported to them.
7 Mr Whiterod said that over the last 2 or 3 years it had been reported to the stewards that Mr Pilcher may have been betting whilst working in his official capacity as the lure driver at greyhound meetings. He said Mr Pilcher had been spoken to on more than one occasion by the stewards and reminded of his obligations not to bet whilst working at a race meeting. Mr Whiterod confirmed that prior to the race meeting on 27 April 2011 the stipendiary stewards had no evidence to support the suspicions that had been reported to them.
8 Mr Whiterod said that recently he received information that Mr Pilcher had been betting and he reported that fact to the Mr Cameron George, Chief Stipendiary Steward of the RIU, who initiated his own enquiries which confirmed that Mr Pilcher did have a telephone account with the TAB and had placed bets on the 27 April 2011 meeting of the Palmerston North Greyhounds. Mr Whiterod said he then interviewed Mr Pilcher in the presence of Stipendiary Steward Mr M Austin. During that interview Mr Whiterod said that Mr Pilcher readily admitted that he placed bets on races at the 27 April 2011 meeting.
9 Mr Whiterod said information on the two dogs that Mr Pilcher bet on was as follows:-
* Bound by Pride won race 4, was drawn 7 and was the favourite. He said he couldn’t recall what it actually paid ($1.70) but remembered writing down that prior to the start of the race it was paying $2 for a win.
* Ignite the Light finished 4th in race12, was drawn 1 and was 2nd favourite in the betting (it was actually 3/3) and remembered writing down prior to the start of the race that it was paying $5 for a win.
* Ignite the Light finished 4th in race12, was drawn 1 and was 2nd favourite in the betting (it was actually 3/3) and remembered writing down prior to the start of the race that it was paying $5 for a win.
10 Following the initial interview with Mr Pilcher, Mr Whiterod reported his findings to Mr George and the decision was made to charge Mr Pilcher with a breach of Rule 39.2.
11 To questions from the Committee Mr Whiterod confirmed the lure driver was an official who was paid by the Greyhound Club. He said Mr Pilcher had been a lure driver at Palmerston North for over 20 years and he also drove the lure on trial days at the track. Mr Whiterod confirmed the club also had a back up lure driver although the person currently designated as the back up lure driver was also the starter. He confirmed that on 27 April 2011Mr Pilcher was the designated lure driver although his back up could have been asked to do the role for any race as requested by the Stipendiary Steward. He also said that following his interview with Mr Pilcher the General Manager of the NZGRA, Mr J Leach, had by letter of 5 May 2011 withdrawn the approval for Mr Pilcher to be a lure driver until further notice and this role was now being undertaken by the Assistant Lure Driver from Wanganui.
12 Mr Pilcher said he could remember being spoken to once by Stipendiary Steward Mr M Austin who suspected he might have been betting. Mr Pilcher said at that time he was reminded of his obligation not to bet.
13 Mr Pilcher asked Mr Whiterod if he noticed any irregularity in the lure driving during the races he bet on on 27 April 2011. Mr Whiterod said he was not aware of any irregularities. Mr Pilcher also asked Mr Whiterod if he could recall any instances where he (Mr Pilcher) had been spoken to by Mr Whiterod about this general lure driving. Mr Whiterod said discussions had taken place with him “on numerous occasions” about the speed of the lure as it went past the boxes at the beginning of the race as the speed of the lure could influence the start and also on how far the lure was in front of the dogs particularly during the early stages of a race.
14 Mr Pilcher said he had held positions in the Palmerston Greyhound Club up to and including having been president of the Club. He said he gave a lot of voluntary time to the club and thought he was known in the industry as an honest and reliable person.
15 To a question from the Committee he said that he was aware of Rule 39.2 and that he realised he made a mistake and should not have bet on races he was the lure driver for. He said that his lure driving had not been influenced by the odd bet that he’d had. He said he hadn’t planned to have the bets but did it because of “a bit of boredom between races”.
16 Mr Pilcher indicated he had been involved in racing greyhounds for over 20 years and has not been charged in relation to the racing of those dogs.
17 To a question from Mr Whiterod Mr Pilcher confirmed the bets placed on the two races on 27 April 2011 was not a one off instance and that in the past he had bet on races when working as the lure driver.
Submissions on Penalty
18 Mr Whiterod said he had known Mr Pilcher for over 11 years. He said Pilcher was employed in a full time capacity outside of the racing industry and had been in the same employment in Palmerston North for over 30 years. He said he had put a lot of time and effort into the local club and the industry in general and this was to his credit.
18 Mr Whiterod said he had known Mr Pilcher for over 11 years. He said Pilcher was employed in a full time capacity outside of the racing industry and had been in the same employment in Palmerston North for over 30 years. He said he had put a lot of time and effort into the local club and the industry in general and this was to his credit.
19 Mr Whiterod said this was a very serious charge that struck at the heart of the integrity of racing. He said in his opinion the lure driver, more than any other raceday official, was in a position to influence the outcome of a race by the way the lure was driven although he also said that in the discussions he had with Mr Pilcher over the years about his lure driving he had not seen any instances when Mr Pilcher’s driving of the lure was not correct. Mr Whiterod said that he kept records relating to the speed of the lure during the run up to box in order to answer questions that he might receive from owners, trainer and/or members of the public about the driving of the lure during a particular race.
20 He said that all these issues reinforced the public perception that the driving of the lure could influence the performance of a dog during a race and also the outcome of the race. That is why Stipendiary Stewards received the comments they did from time to time about lure driving. He said it was most important that the all involved in the industry had confidence that it “was as clean as we can possibly make it”. He said driving the lure was a very important job and Mr Pilcher’s breach of rule 39.2 was a very serious offence. Mr Whiterod said Mr Pilcher’s betting was totally unacceptable and that a penalty be imposed that is a deterrent to both Mr Pilcher and any other official who might want to breach rule 39.2.
21 Mr Whiterod submitted that Mr Pilcher be fined a sum of not less than $1,000. He also confirmed the RIU were not seeking recovery of any costs.
22 Mr Whiterod also said following the publication of the Committee’s decision he intended recommending to the NZGRA that Mr Pilcher’s approval to drive the lure be removed on a permanent basis.
23 To a question from the Committee Mr Whiterod confirmed this was the first time any official within the Greyhound Racing code had been charged with an offence under Rule 39.2.
24 Mr Pilcher asked Mr Whiterod if he had any knowledge of an alleged “betting” incident that had occurred last year in New Plymouth. Whilst Mr Whiterod said he was aware of the some of the facts of the matter, he confirmed that no charges had been laid against the individual.
25 Mr Pilcher asked Mr Whiterod for clarification about his comments about a “stand down period”. Mr Whiterod said that despite Mr Pilcher having been spoken to in the past about the importance of not betting he had decided to ignore that, had admitted to betting on 27 April 2011 and had also agreed that this was not a one-off incident. Mr Whiterod said instances of betting by officials brought the integrity of the industry into question and it was important people be able to invest in the industry with confidence that everything was “above board”. He said the bringing of charges like this could lead to people thinking not all was right with the industry and it was important to remove any doubts people might have about it’s integrity. He said removing Mr Pilcher from his role of lure driver would assist in achieving that outcome.
26 It was pointed out to both Mr Whiterod and Mr Pilcher that the Committee would make a decision on the charges before it and if Mr Pilcher wished to discuss any matters in relation to his future as a lure driver with the NZGRA he could do so once he had received a copy of our decision.
27 Mr Pilcher had no comments to make on a possible penalty and no other comments to make on the penalty submission of Mr Whiterod.
Penalty Rule
28 The relevant penalty is Rule 89.1 which says:-
“Any person found guilty of an offence under these rules shall be liable, in the sole and absolute discretion of the Board or stewards:-
a) a fine not exceeding $10,000 for any 1 offence and/or
b) suspension and/or
c) disqualification and/or
d) warning off”
Further, Rule 88.1 (o) says
“Any person commits an offence if he/she has – in relation to a Greyhound or greyhound racing done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper or constitutes misconduct”.
“Any person commits an offence if he/she has – in relation to a Greyhound or greyhound racing done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper or constitutes misconduct”.
Reasons for Decision
29 The Committee has listened carefully to the submissions put before it. It is not disputed that Mr Pilcher placed bets on two races at the Palmerston North Greyhounds race meeting on 27 April 2011. To his credit he readily admitted the breach when spoken to by the Stipendiary Stewards and he cooperated fully with them on all matters that culminated in the hearing today. The Committee has also noted that the Stipendiary Stewards found no irregularities with the driving of the lure on 27 April 2011. There are, however, no other mitigating factors.
29 The Committee has listened carefully to the submissions put before it. It is not disputed that Mr Pilcher placed bets on two races at the Palmerston North Greyhounds race meeting on 27 April 2011. To his credit he readily admitted the breach when spoken to by the Stipendiary Stewards and he cooperated fully with them on all matters that culminated in the hearing today. The Committee has also noted that the Stipendiary Stewards found no irregularities with the driving of the lure on 27 April 2011. There are, however, no other mitigating factors.
30 The role of the Lure Driver is vital in ensuring that a greyhound race is successfully completed and the lure driver, more than any other raceday official, is in a position to influence the outcome of a race by the way the lure is driven. Mr Pilcher’s admittance that he placed bets on the two races on 27 April 2011 doesn’t just create the impression of impropriety - it is clearly improper conduct and contrary to professional standards of behaviour. The fact he has confirmed to the Committee today that he has also placed bets in the past on races where he was the lure driver further emphasises his improper conduct, conduct that he admitted he knew was in breach of Rule 39.2.
31 A Judicial Committee must have regard to the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in the greyhound industry. This committee is conscious of this need. This need is more important in the case of serious racing offences as the breaches before us today are. Serious racing offences strike at the very heart of the industry and erode the integrity of greyhound racing and the penalty imposed must reflect that.
32 We have noted the common thread coming out of Mr Whiterod’s submissions that the Racing Integrity Unit views this breach of the rule 39.2 as a very serious matter. This Committee also views the breach as very serious.
34 We have also noted Mr Whiterod’s intention to seek a permanent withdrawal of Mr Pilcher’s authorisation to be a lure driver and see this as further emphasising that the RIU view these betting charges as a very serious matter.
35 We do not believe a penalty of a fine as submitted by Mr Whiterod will act as much of a deterrent to anybody else who chooses to bet whilst working in an official capacity for NZGRA on a raceday. We believe the offending to be at the top end of the scale and the penalty given today should send the strongest possible signal to the industry that this behaviour will not be tolerated under any circumstances.
36 The Committee is aware this is the first time that charges alleging a breach of Rule 39.2 of the Rules of NZGRA have been brought before the Judicial Control Authority and that there is no precedent in relation to the setting of a penalty.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
37 Taking all of the above matters into account the Mr Pilcher is disqualified with effect from Tuesday 14 June 2011 for five (5) years with the disqualification ending on 13 June 2016. The deferred commencement of the disqualification is to allow Mr Pilcher to resolve any issues he may have through having any financial interests in any greyhounds. Mr Pilcher is also fined $500 and ordered to pay to the JCA costs of $350.
Paul Williams Tom Castles
Chairman Committee Member
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 39.2
Informant: Mr G Whiterod - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent: Mr T Pilcher
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: