Oamaru RC 30 June 2011 – heard Waimate 3 July 2011
ID: JCA20945
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Oamaru JC - 30 June 2011
Meet Chair:
GHall
Race Date:
2011/06/30
Race Number:
R 1
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr Davidson - Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Ms C Van Der Werf
Information No: 0974
Meeting: Oamaru Racing Club
Date: 30 June 2011 (heard Waimate 3 July 2011)
Venue: Oamaru
Race: 1
Rule No: 610(4)
Judicial Committee: Mr G Hall, Chairman – Mr P Knowles, Committee Member
Plea: Admitted
Facts:
Mr Davidson, stipendiary steward, alleged that Ms C Van Der Werf had in her possession a safety vest that had been modified.
Submissions:
Mr Davidson stated that all riders at the Oamaru meeting on 30 June last had had their vests checked and a number of riders had vests with small modifications. He said the defendant’s vest had 4 small bottom pads missing. He said it was not a matter of cheating in order to gain a weight advantage but was a health and safety issue.
Decision:
As the breach was admitted we find the charge proved.
Submissions on Penalty:
Mr Pitman spoke on behalf of Ms Van Der Werf. He said that she only took the pads out of the bottom layer after other riders had done so and had had their vests approved when in this state. He said the vests had been approved by the stewards at Cup week. He said it was strange that the vests were okay one week and not the next. He acknowledged fines had been imposed on jockeys in the North Island but they at least had had a warning before being charged. He emphasised no warning had been given to the South Island jockeys, including the defendant. He said it was wrong notification was given to one but not the other. He asked for a finding of guilt and the suspension of any penalty.
Mr Davidson in reply the rule had always “been there” but the jockeys had previously been treated leniently and the stewards were now policing the rule more closely. He acknowledged no oral warning had been given to the South Island jockeys but said notification had been given in the New Zealand Thoroughbred Monthly and on the NZTR website. He said it was not a matter of cheating in order to gain a weight advantage but was a health and safety issue.
Ms Van Der Werf spoke briefly. She said it was unfair in that she had received no warning that her vest was no longer approved. She did not receive the New Zealand Thoroughbred Monthly and not seen anything on the NZTR website.
Reasons for Penalty:
The rule is clear. A jockey is not able to alter the vest even though the stipendiary stewards have not questioned the removal of bottom pads when vests have been inspected on previous occasions. The purpose of the rule is to address health and safety issues. Those matters are relevant to the seriousness of the breach.
We also note as a significant mitigating factor that the stipendiary stewards had previously not charged riders where this bottom layer of padding had been removed. We understand that the Chief Stipendiary steward, Mr George, at a race meeting on Queens Birthday weekend in the North Island (we were not told the exact location) informed the jockeys present on the day (many of whom were jumps jockeys) that no modifications whatsoever of the vests were acceptable. They were also told that the rule was going to be strictly enforced. No such notification was given to South Island riders, including nothing being said at the apprentice school in Canterbury. However we are told there was a statement in the New Zealand Thoroughbred Monthly and on the NZTR website. We accept the defendant’s evidence that she was not aware of this.
We recognise the need for consistency and note that fines of $200 and $150 have been imposed for similar breaches at meetings in the past 2 days. However, these meetings were in the North Island where jockeys had been warned. As we have said, the South Island jockeys were not warned and we believe this is a significant point of difference that justifies the imposition of a lesser penalty.
Penalty:
The defendant is an apprentice rider with an excellent record and has readily admitted the breach. She is fined the sum of $100.
After this decision was reached we heard identical charges against a number of other jockeys. They were very vocal in expressing their views that they had been very unfairly treated by the stipendiary stewards in that they had had no warning that vests previously approved by the stewards at the Cup Meeting at Riccarton as being compliant with the rules, were now no longer viewed to be so. They pointed to a complete lack of communication.
One matter they emphasised and that was not before us when we considered the defendant’s penalty was that she, like the other jockeys, had been required to purchase a new vest with no prior notice. This had cost her some $500, money that she did not readily have at hand. We invited Mr Pitman to make an application on her behalf for a rehearing as to penalty, which he did pursuant to rule 923. At that rehearing we reduced the defendant’s fine to the sum of $50 to avoid disparity with the penalty imposed upon Mr Walters.
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: 82b895a76002b6bde4b037e42ec163b9
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 30/06/2011
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Oamaru RC 30 June 2011 - heard Waimate 3 July 2011
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr Davidson - Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Ms C Van Der Werf
Information No: 0974
Meeting: Oamaru Racing Club
Date: 30 June 2011 (heard Waimate 3 July 2011)
Venue: Oamaru
Race: 1
Rule No: 610(4)
Judicial Committee: Mr G Hall, Chairman – Mr P Knowles, Committee Member
Plea: Admitted
Facts:
Mr Davidson, stipendiary steward, alleged that Ms C Van Der Werf had in her possession a safety vest that had been modified.
Submissions:
Mr Davidson stated that all riders at the Oamaru meeting on 30 June last had had their vests checked and a number of riders had vests with small modifications. He said the defendant’s vest had 4 small bottom pads missing. He said it was not a matter of cheating in order to gain a weight advantage but was a health and safety issue.
Decision:
As the breach was admitted we find the charge proved.
Submissions on Penalty:
Mr Pitman spoke on behalf of Ms Van Der Werf. He said that she only took the pads out of the bottom layer after other riders had done so and had had their vests approved when in this state. He said the vests had been approved by the stewards at Cup week. He said it was strange that the vests were okay one week and not the next. He acknowledged fines had been imposed on jockeys in the North Island but they at least had had a warning before being charged. He emphasised no warning had been given to the South Island jockeys, including the defendant. He said it was wrong notification was given to one but not the other. He asked for a finding of guilt and the suspension of any penalty.
Mr Davidson in reply the rule had always “been there” but the jockeys had previously been treated leniently and the stewards were now policing the rule more closely. He acknowledged no oral warning had been given to the South Island jockeys but said notification had been given in the New Zealand Thoroughbred Monthly and on the NZTR website. He said it was not a matter of cheating in order to gain a weight advantage but was a health and safety issue.
Ms Van Der Werf spoke briefly. She said it was unfair in that she had received no warning that her vest was no longer approved. She did not receive the New Zealand Thoroughbred Monthly and not seen anything on the NZTR website.
Reasons for Penalty:
The rule is clear. A jockey is not able to alter the vest even though the stipendiary stewards have not questioned the removal of bottom pads when vests have been inspected on previous occasions. The purpose of the rule is to address health and safety issues. Those matters are relevant to the seriousness of the breach.
We also note as a significant mitigating factor that the stipendiary stewards had previously not charged riders where this bottom layer of padding had been removed. We understand that the Chief Stipendiary steward, Mr George, at a race meeting on Queens Birthday weekend in the North Island (we were not told the exact location) informed the jockeys present on the day (many of whom were jumps jockeys) that no modifications whatsoever of the vests were acceptable. They were also told that the rule was going to be strictly enforced. No such notification was given to South Island riders, including nothing being said at the apprentice school in Canterbury. However we are told there was a statement in the New Zealand Thoroughbred Monthly and on the NZTR website. We accept the defendant’s evidence that she was not aware of this.
We recognise the need for consistency and note that fines of $200 and $150 have been imposed for similar breaches at meetings in the past 2 days. However, these meetings were in the North Island where jockeys had been warned. As we have said, the South Island jockeys were not warned and we believe this is a significant point of difference that justifies the imposition of a lesser penalty.
Penalty:
The defendant is an apprentice rider with an excellent record and has readily admitted the breach. She is fined the sum of $100.
After this decision was reached we heard identical charges against a number of other jockeys. They were very vocal in expressing their views that they had been very unfairly treated by the stipendiary stewards in that they had had no warning that vests previously approved by the stewards at the Cup Meeting at Riccarton as being compliant with the rules, were now no longer viewed to be so. They pointed to a complete lack of communication.
One matter they emphasised and that was not before us when we considered the defendant’s penalty was that she, like the other jockeys, had been required to purchase a new vest with no prior notice. This had cost her some $500, money that she did not readily have at hand. We invited Mr Pitman to make an application on her behalf for a rehearing as to penalty, which he did pursuant to rule 923. At that rehearing we reduced the defendant’s fine to the sum of $50 to avoid disparity with the penalty imposed upon Mr Walters.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 610(4)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: a7bb42943e61edc6a606bfdf8ba14b01
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: e3a166978ba7786305cced33c9ef67fb
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 30/06/2011
meet_title: Oamaru JC - 30 June 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: oamaru-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Oamaru JC