Marlborough HRC – 24 April 2008 –

hearingid: 7a9005244ca99d1d2289548d8b74325f

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 24/04/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Marlborough HRC - 24 April 2008 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following a visit to the racecourse by stipendiary steward Mr Ching earlier in the day, an Information was lodged against trainer, Mr S Marr. The Information alleged a breach of Rule 1002(1)(b), in that Mr Marr rode work at the Blenheim racecourse on the morning of 24 April 2008 without an approved body protector as required

Following a visit to the racecourse by stipendiary steward Mr Ching earlier in the day, an Information was lodged against trainer, Mr S Marr. The Information alleged a breach of Rule 1002(1)(b), in that Mr Marr rode work at the Blenheim racecourse on the morning of 24 April 2008 without an approved body protector as required under Board Direction 158(1)(a). Mr Marr admitted the breach.

Explaining the charge, Mr Ching said that the emphasis was on complying with a direction of NZTR, as referred to in the Information, and Mr Marr indicated that he was familiar with this.

Mr Ching said that he attended track work at the Blenheim racecourse earlier in the day and Mr Marr was one of several riders he spoke with. He had two jackets on but, asked if he had a protective vest on, Mr Marr said he had not. Regarding penalty, Mr Ching recommended a monetary penalty consistent with previous breaches, taking into account Mr Marr’s open admission and his exemplary record.

To the committee, Mr Marr said it was a simple mistake. He said he was in a rush and wanted to get the horses worked early. His vest was in his gearbag but he just inadvertently didn’t put it on. He had no comment in respect to penalty.

In this case, Mr Marr appears on a breach of Rule 1002(1)(b) in that he rode work at the Blenheim racecourse without an approved body protector. He admitted the breach and said it was a simple mistake. This is a safety issue - and we have had other recent cases to consider - where a starting point on penalty may be in the order of $500.00.

Giving credit for Mr Marr’s having openly admitted the breach and, taking into account what was termed his exemplary record, we are satisfied a fine of $350.00 is appropriate, and in keeping with other similar cases, and we so order.

PH Welch                                                 JM Phelan

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 1002.1.b

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: