Non-Raceday Inquiry – J Lynds
ID: JCA21794
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Decision:
This committee has been convened to determine a matter bought before it by the informant in relation to events surrounding Race 4 at the Levin Racing Clubs meeting on Thursday 15th September 2005.
--
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON PENALTY AND COSTS
--This committee has been convened to determine a matter bought before it by the informant in relation to events surrounding Race 4 at the Levin Racing Clubs meeting on Thursday 15th September 2005.
--The defendant has been charged with breaching Rule 411 (2) in "that he presented the incorrect horse for the race".
--The defendant has confirmed to the committee that he admits the breach.
--The informant has presented a summary of facts and they have been confirmed by the defendant as being an accurate account of what has occurred. This summary of facts, briefly put, is that:-
--On Thursday 15th of September 2005 the defendant took the horse Winifred to the Otaki racecourse for the purpose of racing in race four at a meeting being conducted on that day by the Levin Racing Club.
--The defendant was the registered trainer of the horse, and at all times the person in charge in all respects.
--Prior to the horse being presented for its event it was inspected by Mr G Phillips, a person duly authorised to do so, in accordance with the rules of racing.
--It was Mr Phillips responsibility to inspect all runners' brands against records held by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.
--This brand inspection revealed that the horse presented by Mr Lynds as being Winifred did not match the official records supplied. Even though the cipher brands were correct, being "Ft", the numerical brand on the horse read 9/1 where it should have read 8/1
--As a result of these discrepancies the horse was scratched from the event and all investments refunded.
--An investigation was commenced into the matter and this revealed that the horse purported to be Winifred was in fact an unnamed 4-year-old mare by Casual Lies from Frisky Business.
--The registered Winifred, also a 4 year old bay mare, being by Woodborough (USA) from Summer Classic, and also trained by the defendant, was no longer a racing proposition and had been given away.
--It was established that both Winifred and the un-named mare had arrived into the care of the defendant at the same time, some two years previous. Both were the same age, colour, and sex, and the same owner consigned both to the defendant.
--The informant submitted that the mistake in identity occurred at the time the horses entered the care the defendant.
--PENALTY
--When presenting his submissions on penalty the informant has stated that this is a case where the horses had been mistakenly identified some considerable time ago and that as such there was no intent whatsoever with regard to anything untoward.
--The informant has presented a schedule of penalties that have been imposed for four other breaches of Rule 411 (2), and these demonstrate some divergence in penalties applied.
--However the informant has placed particular relevance on the penalty imposed in ?Harris' in October 04. This case also involved two horses being mistaken for one another at an early stage, through to a point where, like in this case, where one ended up being accepted to race when in fact it was the wrong horse.
--The informant further submits that due to the circumstances of this case and ?Harris' being very similar that a similar penalty should be imposed.
--The defendant, when addressing the committee, has made substantive submissions as to the problems he encountered in obtaining information regarding brand details of the horse he had presented to race, and has asked the committee to give these due consideration. These submissions, in essence, are that due to changes made by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing whereby registration papers no longer had to be produced on raceday the task for trainers in identifying horses had, in his view, become significantly more difficult. These changes he submits have been a major factor in him finding himself before this committee today. The situation being exacerbated by the late naming of the horse and the delay in details appearing on the NZTR website.
--We now move to the issue of penalty in this case. We have carefully considered all submissions put to us on penalty, and while we acknowledge the difficulties experienced by the defendant in obtaining information regarding the brands the fact that, in his view, he took all reasonable measures does not in our view, in any way exonerate him from any penalty. And it does not shelter him from the obligations of Rule 411(2).
--There rests with the defendant, as the person in charge, an unequivocal obligation to present the correct horse for all races at all times.
--It has been submitted that this case is very similar in fact to that of ?Harris. We are also inclined to that view and we are also guided by the penalty imposed in that case.
--The committee in?Harris' in our view quite rightly found that a fine of $600.00 was appropriate and we see no reason to vary from this penalty on this occasion.
--We therefore find that Mr Lynds be fined the sum of $600.00 . We have also asked to consider the matter of costs and these are set at $500.00 to be split evenly between Thoroughbred Racing and the Judicial Control Authority.
----
--
--
--
Decision Date: 01/01/2001
Publish Date: 01/01/2001
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: bc561684bc665acb202dd2b3f830b553
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 01/01/2001
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Non-Raceday Inquiry - J Lynds
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
This committee has been convened to determine a matter bought before it by the informant in relation to events surrounding Race 4 at the Levin Racing Clubs meeting on Thursday 15th September 2005.
--
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON PENALTY AND COSTS
--This committee has been convened to determine a matter bought before it by the informant in relation to events surrounding Race 4 at the Levin Racing Clubs meeting on Thursday 15th September 2005.
--The defendant has been charged with breaching Rule 411 (2) in "that he presented the incorrect horse for the race".
--The defendant has confirmed to the committee that he admits the breach.
--The informant has presented a summary of facts and they have been confirmed by the defendant as being an accurate account of what has occurred. This summary of facts, briefly put, is that:-
--On Thursday 15th of September 2005 the defendant took the horse Winifred to the Otaki racecourse for the purpose of racing in race four at a meeting being conducted on that day by the Levin Racing Club.
--The defendant was the registered trainer of the horse, and at all times the person in charge in all respects.
--Prior to the horse being presented for its event it was inspected by Mr G Phillips, a person duly authorised to do so, in accordance with the rules of racing.
--It was Mr Phillips responsibility to inspect all runners' brands against records held by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.
--This brand inspection revealed that the horse presented by Mr Lynds as being Winifred did not match the official records supplied. Even though the cipher brands were correct, being "Ft", the numerical brand on the horse read 9/1 where it should have read 8/1
--As a result of these discrepancies the horse was scratched from the event and all investments refunded.
--An investigation was commenced into the matter and this revealed that the horse purported to be Winifred was in fact an unnamed 4-year-old mare by Casual Lies from Frisky Business.
--The registered Winifred, also a 4 year old bay mare, being by Woodborough (USA) from Summer Classic, and also trained by the defendant, was no longer a racing proposition and had been given away.
--It was established that both Winifred and the un-named mare had arrived into the care of the defendant at the same time, some two years previous. Both were the same age, colour, and sex, and the same owner consigned both to the defendant.
--The informant submitted that the mistake in identity occurred at the time the horses entered the care the defendant.
--PENALTY
--When presenting his submissions on penalty the informant has stated that this is a case where the horses had been mistakenly identified some considerable time ago and that as such there was no intent whatsoever with regard to anything untoward.
--The informant has presented a schedule of penalties that have been imposed for four other breaches of Rule 411 (2), and these demonstrate some divergence in penalties applied.
--However the informant has placed particular relevance on the penalty imposed in ?Harris' in October 04. This case also involved two horses being mistaken for one another at an early stage, through to a point where, like in this case, where one ended up being accepted to race when in fact it was the wrong horse.
--The informant further submits that due to the circumstances of this case and ?Harris' being very similar that a similar penalty should be imposed.
--The defendant, when addressing the committee, has made substantive submissions as to the problems he encountered in obtaining information regarding brand details of the horse he had presented to race, and has asked the committee to give these due consideration. These submissions, in essence, are that due to changes made by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing whereby registration papers no longer had to be produced on raceday the task for trainers in identifying horses had, in his view, become significantly more difficult. These changes he submits have been a major factor in him finding himself before this committee today. The situation being exacerbated by the late naming of the horse and the delay in details appearing on the NZTR website.
--We now move to the issue of penalty in this case. We have carefully considered all submissions put to us on penalty, and while we acknowledge the difficulties experienced by the defendant in obtaining information regarding the brands the fact that, in his view, he took all reasonable measures does not in our view, in any way exonerate him from any penalty. And it does not shelter him from the obligations of Rule 411(2).
--There rests with the defendant, as the person in charge, an unequivocal obligation to present the correct horse for all races at all times.
--It has been submitted that this case is very similar in fact to that of ?Harris. We are also inclined to that view and we are also guided by the penalty imposed in that case.
--The committee in?Harris' in our view quite rightly found that a fine of $600.00 was appropriate and we see no reason to vary from this penalty on this occasion.
--We therefore find that Mr Lynds be fined the sum of $600.00 . We have also asked to consider the matter of costs and these are set at $500.00 to be split evenly between Thoroughbred Racing and the Judicial Control Authority.
----
--
--
--
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 411.2
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: