Non Raceday Inquiry – NZTR v JR Thornton 25 May 2010 – Decision

hearingid: 7c7b0108f94fdbf8ea232d815ea12694

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - NZTR v JR Thornton 25 May 2010 - Decision

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:    RD Scott - Racecourse Inspector

Defendant:    Jason Reginald Thornton -

                    Registered Class B Miscellaneous Trainer

Information No:    10/45

Date:    25 May 2010

Venue:    Beaumaris Room, Riccarton Park

Rule Nos:    656(2) and 803(2)(b)

Judicial Committee:   KG Hales, Chairman - J M Phelan, Committee Member

Plea:    Admitted

Also Present:    Mr J McKenzie, Chief Racecourse Inspector

                       Mr J McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward (Observer)

FACTS:

At the commencement of the hearing Mr McKenzie produced authorisation pursuant to Rule 903(2)(d) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing whereby permission was granted by the Chief Executive Officer of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (“NZTR”) for an Information to be laid against the defendant.

On 6 May 2010, NZTR officials conducted random drug testing on a number of track work riders at the Riccarton Park Racecourse in Christchurch.

The defendant, Jason Thornton, was one of the riders selected for testing.  At 8.44 am he was approached by Racecourse Inspector, Mr RD Scott, and informed that he was required to undergo drug testing.  At that time, the defendant was handed a written notice that effect.

At the time that he was served with the notice, the defendant displayed concern and an obvious reluctance that he would comply with the request.  At 9.50 am, the defendant arrived at the drug testing room at the racecourse and spoke to Mr Scott.  He told Mr Scott that he was refusing to do the test.  He stated that as he had never  been advised that rider drug testing was carried out at Riccarton Park, he was refusing to comply with the written request for a workplace drug test. 

The NZTR section of the employment urine drug testing form was endorsed accordingly, and signed by the defendant.

Mr Scott informed the defendant that he could not be physically compelled to take the test, but his refusal would result in him being charged and probably disqualified which would prevent him from being involved in any way with racing during such a term of disqualification. 

He was again asked to undergo the test, and again the defendant refused.  He then left the drug testing area, and the racecourse.

As a consequence, Mr Thornton was charged with a breach of Rules 656(2) and 803(2)(b), which rules read as follows:

DRUGS AND ALCOHOL TESTING

656 (2)             “A Stipendiary Steward or Investigator may require a Rider to supply a sample of his blood, breath, urine, saliva or sweat (or more than one thereof) at a time and place nominated by the Stipendiary Steward or Investigator.  If so, such Rider must comply with such a requirement.  Any Rider acting in contravention of this Rule shall be reported to NZTR by the Stipendiary Steward or Investigator dealing with the breach and NZTR shall consider whether, in addition to any penalty which may be imposed by the Judicial Committee, such person’s Licence should be cancelled under Rule 322(1) of these Rules.”

803(2)(b)         “Where a horse or its Rider commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules or of any of them and a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules for that breach:

                        (b)        a Rider committing the breach, or a person who in the

opinion of the Judicial Committee was in charge of the horse at any material time may:

                                    (i)         be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12

months; and/or;

(ii)        be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months.  If a Licence expires and is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or

                                    (iii)       be fined a sum not exceeding $20,000, unless the

breach is:

(A)       a riding breach;

(B)       a breach related to wagering; or

(C)       a breach related to drugs, alcohol or a

Prohibited Substance,

in which event such person shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or the amount of the fee and share of stakes payable to the Rider or Trainer concerned for the relevant Race (whichever is the greater amount) and to a period of disqualification not exceeding five years.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:

Mr McKenzie submitted that the defendant was appearing on a charge which can only be described as a serious breach of the Rules of Racing.  Since 1995, drug testing has been carried out by NZTR on race days and also at training tracks.

Mr McKenzie noted that the rules, policies and protocols have been legally tested to the highest level in our judicial system, namely in the Supreme Court, in the case of N.Z.T.R. v C.

The drug testing regime was put in place in an effort to ensure the safety of riders and horses by protecting them from the dangers of being under the influence of illicit drugs when riding horses.  The rules are also aimed at preserving the integrity of the thoroughbred racing industry.  Of particular concern to NZTR is the advent of the Class A drug, methamphetamine, commonly known as “P” and Mr McKenzie referred to three high profile cases which involved this drug. 

Mr McKenzie referred us to a number of prior decisions where suspensions had been imposed, as well as disqualifications.  Mr McKenzie submitted that the defendant, by his refusal, should be treated and penalised on the basis as if he were a licensed professional rider facing the most serious penalty.  He also said that NZTR believed that a period of disqualification  had to be imposed, because among other things, his refusal also left open the inference that there was evidence of illicit drugs in his system.  He said that a disqualification was required because otherwise, it would enable those persons who had Class A drugs in their system to refuse, thinking that they would be treated on the same basis as somebody who had cannabis in their system, and thereby receive a lesser penalty.

Insofar as penalty was concerned, Mr Thornton told us that if he was disqualified, he would have to seek employment outside of the racing industry.  Currently, he has been working on the starting gates at race days and at trials, as well as having ridden track work for three different trainers at Riccarton.  He said that his finances were limited at the present time. 

PENALTY DECISION:

Having given careful consideration to the matters submitted to us by Mr McKenzie, and to Mr Thornton’s response, we are obliged to treat this matter seriously.  A refusal to supply a urine sample for drug testing leaves open the inference that Mr Thornton had illicit drugs in his system and as to what those drugs were, is a matter of speculation but suffice it to say that at a minimum, it must have been cannabis, because Mr Thornton admitted to this hearing that he uses cannabis, and that had he been tested on the day of the hearing, it was likely that there would have been traces of cannabis in his system.  Equally, however, we can also draw the inference that there may well have been other drugs in his system.

We find as a fact that there is no substance to Mr Thornton’s submission that he was making a protest because no notice had been given of the fact that random tests were to be carried out at Riccarton.  The Rules of Racing in this regard are clear.

Having considered all matters carefully, we agree that a disqualification must be imposed. 

Accordingly, Mr Thornton is disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence from NZTR for a period of six months.  We note that Mr Thornton’s licence was suspended on 7 May 2010 until the commencement of this hearing today, and thus the period of six months will run as from 7 May 2010.

In addition, Mr Thornton is ordered to pay costs of $200 to NZTR and a contribution of the Judicial Control Authority’s costs in the sum of $225.

………………………………                        ……………………………….

KG Hales                                                         JM Phelan

CHAIRMAN                                                     Committee Member

Information 10/45

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

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: