Non Raceday Inquiry – MP Edmonds

hearingid: 1e19a98ebacf2650a6be1b60efb99432

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - MP Edmonds

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Information number 65187 alleges that in breach of R 411(3) Mr M Edmonds started ARCEEJAY in the Wobbly's Sports Bar Trot when that horse was ineligible to start.

Information number 65187 alleges that in breach of R 411(3) Mr M Edmonds started ARCEEJAY in the Wobbly's Sports Bar Trot when that horse was ineligible to start. Mr Knowles produced written permission from Mr Edward Rennell, General Manager HRNZ, dated 4 July 2007, authorising the lodging of the information pursuant to rule 1103(4)(c).

Rule 411 reads relevantly:

Mr Edmonds signed the information and stated that he admitted the breach and did not wish to be present at the hearing of the information. He indicated in the appropriate place on the form that "due to the extenuating circumstances I have pleaded guilty. I agree with the stipendiary steward's recommendation that the fine should be in the vicinity of $1000 to $1500."

Because the wording of the information reflected the substance of the allegation but did not mirror the wording of the rule, and as a breach of R 411(3) is a serious racing offence, the Committee wished to be certain that Mr Edmonds understood the precise nature of the breach of the rules that had been alleged and which he was admitting from a distance. In particular, the Committee wished to be certain that Mr Edmonds had no further mitigating factors that he wished to be placed before it.

The Committee thus requested the registrar, Mr Scott, to contact Mr Edmonds on the Committee's behalf. He spoke by telephone with Mr Edmonds and produced the following signed statement which the Committee determined, there being no objection from Mr Knowles, to add to the record and take into account.

"Acting in my capacity as Registrar for the hearing of HRNZ v Murray Edmonds, trainer, and on request from the Chairman of the JCA panel, I telephoned Mr Edmonds at 5.36 pm tonight.

Mr Edmonds is aware it is a serious racing offence and has admitted the breach. He accepts he is solely responsible as trainer and fully accepts this responsibility.

He says mistakes were made by several parties but again accepts full responsibility and liability. Once Darryn [Mr Simpson] told him after the race he instructed Darryn to immediately report the matter to the stipes to see if a "late scratching" could be effected to protect the punters.

He submits the incident was an unfortunate and innocent mistake but accepts full responsibility. He would appreciate [the Committee considering] his explanation in the course of deliberations."

Pursuant to R 1111(1)(d) we find the breach of R 411(3) proved.

HRNZ sought a penalty of between $500 and $1500.

On the 14^th June 2007 Mr M Edmonds (Public Trainer/Open Horseman) sent two horses to race at the Forbury Park TC meeting at Forbury Park Raceway, Dunedin. Mr Edmonds did not attend the meeting and had arranged for Mr D Simpson (Public Trainer/Open Horseman) to care for the horses in his absence.

The two horses were THE BOY WONDER (maiden trotter) and ARCEEJAY (one win pacer). THE BOY WONDER was carded to start in Race 1 the Wobbly's Sports Bar Trot and ARCEEJAY was to start in Race 11 the Faulks & Creighton Jewels Success Mobile Pace.

Following Race 2 Mr Simpson spoke to Mr C Allison, stipendiary steward, and informed Mr Allison that he had sent the wrong horse out to race in Race 1. Instead of gearing up THE BOY WONDER he had sent out ARCEEJAY by mistake.

The stewards immediately opened an inquiry into the incident. Both horses were inspected by Mr Allison and he was satisfied that ARCEEJAY had raced instead of THE BOY WONDER. The brands, markings, age and sex of each horse was verified and Mr Allison was satisfied that the correct horses had been presented to the meeting to race. We note that in his oral submissions Mr Knowles indicated that the horses are not similar in appearance.

Following the completion of the meeting the stewards interviewed Mr Simpson and also the float driver for Inter-island Horse Transport, Mr P Anisy.

Mr Simpson stated he had spoken to Mr Edmonds earlier in the week and that he had agreed to look after both horses at the meeting. They had briefly discussed what gear both horses used but little more. Mr Simpson had not seen either horse before and when he went to gear up THE BOY WONDER he identified the horse which had the name "Andy" written on the heavy rug. He did not check the brand or the markings.

Immediately after the race Mr Simpson had a discussion with Mr Mark Jones who had driven THE BOY WONDER for the first time that night. The horse had trotted for over a lap in its preliminary but had been pulled up by Mr Jones very shortly after the start. Mr Simpson at this point realised he had geared up ARCEEJAY by mistake. He reported the matter to the stewards at the first opportunity.

Mr Anisy told the stewards that he arrived at Mr Edmonds stables early on the raceday morning. He was aware he had two horses to transport and their names were logged on the weigh bill. Both horses had light dress rugs on for the journey south. Neither light dress rug had the name of the horse on them. He placed the larger of the two horses at the back of the float and the smaller one in a centre birth. When he arrived at the course he took both horses for a walk around the track and then placed them in the allotted stables 78 & 79. As the air temperature was cooling down he placed a heavy rug on each of them and left the stable area. He stated that neither horse was clearly labelled with a nametag either on the head collar or anywhere else and he did not know which horse was "Andy".

As Mr Edmonds did not attend the meeting the stewards' inquiries were adjourned to allow an opportunity to speak to him. The following day, the 15^th of June, the stewards contacted Mr Barry Kitto, Racecourse Inspector, Canterbury and asked him if he could interview Mr Edmonds. Mr Kitto interviewed Mr Edmonds at his Motukarara property on the 21^st June. Mr Edmonds stated he had spoken to Mr Simpson earlier in the week of the race meeting regarding both horses and what gear they would need to race in. He said the dress rugs had no horse names on them but the heavy rugs had the horse's nickname on them, "Andy" for THE BOY WONDER and "Gav" for ARCEEJAY.

Mr Edmonds said to Mr Kitto that following the race Mr Simpson had phoned to say he had started the wrong horse. He told Mr Simpson to inform the stewards immediately so they could late scratch the horse.

A breach of R 411(3) is declared to be a serious racing offence by R 411(5). There is no discretion in the Harness Racing Rules as to whether to declare a breach to be a serious racing offence as there is in their Thoroughbred counterpart (see below). Had we had that discretion, we would not have exercised it in the circumstances of this case which we see as being towards the lower end of the scale.

The penalties are set out in R 1001(2) with a maximum fine of $25,000 and/or suspension or disqualification for a specific period or for life.

There is no evidence before the Committee as to what steps, if any, Mr Edmonds had taken to ensure that Mr Simpson correctly identified the horses. We understand, however, that Mr Simpson had looked after horses for Mr Edmonds in the past and there had been no problems. Significantly, there is also no evidence before the Committee to suggest there was an attempt by either Mr Edmonds or Mr Simpson to mislead the public or to commit a fraudulent or corrupt practice. To the contrary, it is clear the starting of ARCEEJAY as THE BOY WONDER was an honest and genuine mistake. However, we are of the view that Mr Edmonds should have taken steps to ensure that the correct horses were identified rather than relying on nicknames on rugs, that, as we have been informed, were not even on the two horses when they were loaded on to the float for transportation to Dunedin. There were no halter tags, nor any marks on the horses' legs as a result of wearing hobbles, nor anything about the particular shoeing of the horses, to indicate to Mr Anisy or Mr Simpson which horse was which.

The Committee is satisfied that the incident occurred as a result of a lack of communication between Mr Edmonds and Mr Simpson and a failure to correctly label or identify the two horses. There is no evidence before us indicating that Mr Edmonds identified the two horses for Mr Anisy and thus nothing to suggest that Mr Anisy acted other than appropriately. We believe that he cannot be held in any way responsible for the incident.

The stipendiary stewards were notified by Mr Simpson after the all clear had been given and it was therefore not possible to late scratch ARCEEJAY and refund the money invested on the horse. However, since this incident the Racing Board and HRNZ have made arrangements with the TAB to refund all bets placed on THE BOY WONDER with the cost of the refunds being shared equally between the Racing Board and HRNZ. We understand that there has been no loss to the Forbury Park Trotting Club nor to the betting public.

There are no recent cases in Harness Racing for a similar breach of the Rules. However, there are two relatively recent cases recorded within the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing in which the breaches of the rules occurred in broadly similar circumstances. These are NZTR v Anderton (1998) and NZTR v Lock (2001). In both cases the trainers were charged with a breach of R 411(3) of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

Rule 411(3) reads: Every person who starts a horse in a race under a name other than its

registered name, but in circumstances not disclosing a breach of sub-rule (1) of this rule, commits a breach of these rules.

Sub-rule (1) reads: Every person who, for any purpose, uses as the name of any horse any

name other than its registered name commits a breach of these rules. The Judicial Committee may, in its discretion, adjudge or declare such breach to be a serious racing offence.

The raceday penalty for Anderton was $400, however this was increased to $1800 on appeal by the stewards. The Appeals Tribunal in that case stated that a penalty in the range of $2000 to $3000 could have been anticipated, but recognised that as this was an informant's appeal, a lower penalty was appropriate. The penalty for Lock was $4000 ($2000 for each charge) plus costs of $1250. However, in this case two horses started incorrectly.

We agree with the parties that neither disqualification nor suspension is appropriate in the circumstances of this particular case. We take as a starting point a fine in the sum of $2000 to $3000 as suggested in Anderton, which appears to be that also adopted in Lock. We observe that in Anderton the Appeals Tribunal expressly noted that the harm suffered must be weighed in the balance when quantifying an appropriate penalty. There is a significant aggravating factor present in both NZTR cases which is fortuitously absent in the case before us. In both Anderton and Lock a horse that was incorrectly started in the race won and the TAB paid out on the wrong horse. There was thus a substantial loss to many punters who had been misled as to the ability of the horse that had started and ultimately won the race. We believe the absence of this factor justifies the imposition of a lesser penalty in Mr Edmonds' case than in the two thoroughbred cases.

The position of licensed trainer requires a high degree of responsibility and professionalism. The performance of a trainer's duties in a careful and conscientious manner is an essential feature. Mr Edmonds had a duty to take care to ensure that the horse that started in race 1 was in fact the correct horse. The degree of care required was heightened by the fact that he was sending two horses to the meeting to be placed in the care of and to be driven by persons who had not previously handled the horses.

Mr Edmonds has readily admitted the breach of R 411(3) in the knowledge that he is admitting to a serious racing offence. As the licensed trainer of the two horses he has accepted his responsibility and it is to his credit that he has never attempted to resile from this fact. He has co-operated fully with HRNZ's investigation of the matter. A notable feature of this case is that over a period of some 20 years Mr Edmonds has been charged with only very minor breaches of the rules (late notification of driver, incorrect saddlecloth etc) and the highest penalty imposed previously has been a fine of $200. Mr Edmonds' record can only be described as exemplary. It is one of which he can justifiably be proud. These matters justify a significant reduction from our starting point.

On the other hand, we believe the integrity of Harness Racing has been compromised by Mr Edmonds' failure to ensure that each horse could be correctly identified by Mr Simpson. Whilst we are satisfied that specific deterrence is not necessary, the message has to be given to licence-holders that full and proper steps have to be taken to ensure that horses are identified correctly and that the horse accepted for the race is indeed the animal that competes therein. Although this was an unusual incident, there was potential for the image and integrity of Harness Racing to be sullied. Indeed, in the eyes of some this may have already occurred. The need to engender public confidence in the industry by way of an appropriate penalty is a significant factor in our decision as to quantum. Taking all these matters into account, we impose a fine of $1200. Neither party has sought an order for costs. The matter has been heard on raceday. There is no order for costs.

We understand that discussions are being held at present as to how to ensure that an incident such as this does not occur in the future. We commend this discussion and express our support for the necessary action to be taken.

G Hall Chairman

D Steel Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 1001.2, 411.3, 1103.4.c, 1111.1.d, 411.5

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: