Waikato RC 13 August 2011 – heard at Otaki 23 September 2011

hearingid: d9bbed44aa5692a007ec6039e7ca5856

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 13/08/2011

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Waikato RC 13 August 2011 - heard at Otaki 23 September 2011

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr R Neal, Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Mr M Ward, Licensed Apprentice Jockey
Information No: 755
Meeting: Waikato Racing Club 
Date: 13 August 2011(heard at Otaki 23 September 2011
Venue: Otaki
Race: Adjourned hearing from Te Rapa on 13 August 2011
Rule No: 610(4)
Judicial Committee: T Castles, Chairman – P Williams, Committee Member
Plea: Admitted
Also Present: Mr J Oatham, Stipendiary Steward, Mr G Searle (Licensed Trainer and employer of Mr Ward)

CHARGES
Licensed Apprentice Jockey M Ward, represented by Mr G Searle, admitted a breach of rule 610(4) in that he had in his possession a body protector which had been modified. Mr Ward indicated the breach of the rule was admitted and also that he understood the charge and the rule it was laid under.

FACTS
Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham advised the Committee the charge arose out of an inspection of jockey’s safety vests conducted at the Waikato Racing Club’s meeting on 13 August 2011. He submitted that, although no padding had been removed, the tail piece was not attached when the vest was inspected. He said therefore the vest did not comply with rule 610(4) which states:- “A Rider may not wear of have in their possession a body protector or skull cap that has been modified in any way”.

Mr Ward confirmed the tail piece was not attached to the vest when it was inspected. He said he believed other jockeys tucked the tail piece of their vests up their back when riding and because he felt the tail piece served no useful purpose he had removed it.

Mr Searle said the vest with the tail piece removed had previously been inspected by stewards in the Central Districts and had been passed as OK to use and he was surprised the stewards at Te Rapa had said it did not comply with the rule.

DECISION
As the breach of the rule was admitted the charge was found to be proved.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Mr Neal submitted this was Mr Ward’s second breach of this rule with the previous breach occurring in June 2010. He stressed the importance of ensuring safety vests were not tampered with and said all riders had been repeatedly told not to make any modifications to the vests they ride in. He submitted a fine in the region of $300 was an appropriate penalty given this was Mr Ward’s second breach of the rule.

Mr Ward said he admitted the breach and that both he and Mr Searle believed the vest in question (which was able to be viewed by the Committee) did not breach the rule as it had been passed in a previous inspection. He said he had only been riding for 15 months and understood the important role his safety vest plays in minimising the risk of injury when riding.

REASONS
In coming to our decision to impose a monetary penalty for this breach we have taken into account Mr Ward’s admittance of the breach. We have noted Mr Neal’s submission that a fine at the higher end of the scale be imposed because this is Mr Ward’s second breach of this rule. However, we have taken into consideration that the previous breach was 15 months ago. We have also taken into account that both Mr Oatham and Mr Ward said that no padding had been removed from the vest and that Mr Oatham considered the breach of the rule to be at the low end of the scale. We have also noted with some surprise that the vest as presented to the Committee had been passed as OK to use on at least one previous inspection. Finally we have reviewed the penalties given for other breaches of this rule in the previous 12 months.

PENALTY
The Committee believes the breach of the rule is at the low end of the scale and Mr Ward is fined the sum of $200.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 610(4)

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: