Non-Raceday Inquiry – TW Johnson

hearingid: 7d41d08aad1a264f35c588dabb7d7ef1

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non-Raceday Inquiry - TW Johnson

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Information No.7021, laid by Racecourse Inspector Mr RP Bevege.  The charge reads as follows –

Information No.7021, laid by Racecourse Inspector Mr RP Bevege.  The charge reads as follows –

“THAT on the 26^th day of April 2008, at the Trentham Racecourse at the race meeting conducted by the Wellington Racing Club, being a rider who, having been requested by a Racecourse Inspector to supply a sample of his urine which was found upon analysis, to contain the diuretic Frusemide, committed a breach of Rule 528(1) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing, AND THAT you are thereby liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to Rule 1003(1) of the said Rules.”

Mr Johnson was asked if he understood the Rule which he confirmed and indicated he pleaded guilty to the charge.

The summary of facts was read by Mr Bevege and the ESR report was produced as Exhibit 1.

Summary of Facts:

Mr Johnson agreed with the summary of facts and had no comment.   A letter from Mr Johnson was produced as evidence    The date of the letter was changed after consultation with Mr Johnson, Mr Gray and Mr Bevege as the wrong month was indicated.    A copy of that letter and its initialled change is shown as Exhibit 2.

Mr Gray was asked to comment and indicated to the committee Mr Johnson was a good lad with a future in the game and this offence to him was very disappointing.   He did indicate surprise a medical practitioner could be so happy to prescribe these sorts of pills.

Mr Bevege told the committee that this offence is taken seriously by NZTR.   This is the fourth case since random testing was undertaken at race days.   The range of penalties asked for, took into account the seniority of a jockey and repeating of the offence.   In the case of a senior jockey a fine of $1000 would be sought but in the case of junior jockeys and first offenders a fine of $500 would be sought.    He did point out in the event of repeat offending a severe penalty of suspension would be asked for.   In this particular case, because this was Mr Johnson’s first offence under this rule, his guilty plea and his co-operation with authorities a fine of $500 would be sought.   Because the hearing is held on a race day, between races, no costs were asked for.

Decision and Reason:

Mr Johnson.   In coming to our decision to fine you for this offence, we have taken into account that this is your first charge under this rule and your co-operation with authorities.   You, through your letter and the comments made on your behalf by Mr Gray indicate to us, that you seriously regret your actions.   Mr Gray’s comments on your future in the racing game have not gone unnoticed.   However, it must be pointed out again that there is no place for diuretic drugs in racing.

TW Castles                                                                              BP Holland

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 528.1, 1003.1

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: