Canterbury JC – 21 June 2008 –

hearingid: a039d40dc2550eb0ef25dc168b28cde7

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 21/06/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 21 June 2008 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Two charges have been brought against Mr Shankar Muniandy, an Apprentice Jockey. The charges are pursuant to Rule 529 (1)(2) and Rule 871 (1)(4).

Two charges have been brought against Mr Shankar Muniandy, an Apprentice Jockey. The charges are pursuant to Rule 529 (1)(2) and Rule 871 (1)(4).

Mr Shankar Muniandy is an Apprentice Jockey. He is employed by B & S Anderton of Wingatui. He was engaged to ride in Races 1 and 2 at the Canterbury Race meeting held at Riccarton Park on Saturday 21^st June 2008.

Shortly before Race 6, Assistant Stipendiary Steward Mr Jeff McLaughlin noticed Mr Muniandy at a totalisator window at the rear of the Members' Stand at Riccarton Park. Mr McLaughlin enquired of Mr Muniandy if he, (Mr Muniandy) was placing a bet. Mr Muniandy readily admitted that he had placed a $2 place bet on COUP YALDHURST in Race 6.

Further enquiries of Mr Muniandy revealed that he had not obtained the permission of the Stipendiary Steward before leaving the designated jockeys' area. Mr Muniandy was accordingly charged with breaching the appropriate Rules. He admitted both charges which are therefore deemed to be proved.

In mitigation of penalty, Mr Muniandy explained that he had finished his riding engagements for the day and wanted to buy something to eat, only to find that he did not have cash. He went from the jockeys' designated area to the Secretary's office, which is also at the rear of the Members' Stand at the Riccarton Racecourse to use his "Cashflow" card. The practice at Riccarton Park is that when a person uses the "Cashflow" facility, they are given a betting voucher for the amount of cash that they require, and that betting voucher then has to be taken to a totalisator window to be converted to cash. Mr Muniandy explained that when he went to the totalisator window, he felt that he ought to place a modest bet, and did so accordingly.

Mr Anderton told the hearing that Mr Muniandy, as an apprentice, does not have a lot of money, that he is in his first year as an apprentice, and is a good worker around the stables.

PENALTY DECISION

Stipendiary Steward Mr Stewart Ching submitted that on the charge of leaving the jockeys' designated area, a fine of between $100 and $300 ought to be imposed, and on the charge of placing a bet in contravention of the Rule, he felt that a fine of between $800 and $1,200 needed to be imposed, to act as a deterrent. He took the view that for a jockey to be seen placing a bet was not good for the image of racing.

With regard to the charges of leaving the jockeys' area, Mr Ching advised the hearing that up until 21 June, Mr Muniandy had been very good in ensuring that he obtained permission before leaving the jockeys' prescribed area, and that he accepted that it must have been a lapse in concentration on Mr Muniandy's part.

We turn now to deal with the penalties that were imposed on race day in respect of the two charges.

There are numerous reasons for jockeys being required to remain in the prescribed area, and as the Chief Stipendiary Steward pointed out in an article in the November edition of "Thoroughbred Racing Monthly", the primary reasons are for security, safety and the integrity of the jockeys. Furthermore, during the course of a racing day, the Stipendiary Stewards are busy investigating various incidents which take place in the course of a race, and they need to have the jockeys handy for the purposes of their enquiries, without being inconvenienced by having to put out announcements for the jockeys to come to the Stipendiary Stewards Room.

On this occasion, this Committee elected to fine Mr Muniandy $100 on this charge. In setting that fine, which is at the lower end of the scale, it is acknowledged that up until now, Mr Muniandy's record has been exemplary. We also note from previous decisions pursuant to charges brought in relation to this Rule, that the penalties have ranged from warnings to a maximum of $700 on one occasion. In the main, the penalties have been in the region of between $100 and $300 as was submitted by Mr Ching.

Mr Muniandy went to a totalisator window in probably one of the most exposed places at the Riccarton Racecourse, and placed a bet. This part of Riccarton is where people are moving from the stand to the parade ring area, to the carparks, to the stables and from one stand to another. Mr Muniandy was there to be seen by one and all. The fact that he placed a modest $2 place bet is not relevant. The fact of the matter is that a jockey was seen at a tote window.

In setting the penalty, we are cognisant of a number of factors :

--
• Mr Ching requested a fine in the region of $800 to $1,200. --
• There does not seem to have been a charge brought against a jockey pursuant to this Rule, until now. In fact, our research indicates that there has not even been a charge pursuant to the Rule in its previous form. We note that up until 1 November 2007, there was a blanket prohibition on jockeys placing bets at all. The previous Rule read :

"529 (1) - It shall be a breach of these Rules for any rider to :

--

--
• Bet on any horse race; or --
• Share in any bet on any horse race; or --
• Instruct any person to bet on their behalf on any horse race; or --
• Receive knowingly from any person, the proceeds, or any part thereof, of any bet on any horse race.

As I have mentioned, Mr Ching was seeking a penalty of between $800 and $1,200. We have no hesitation in saying that had the defendant in this case been a Licensed Jockey with much more experience than this defendant, that we would have had no hesitation in imposing a fine of that level, and depending on the circumstances of the case, the fine may well have been considerably more than the fine that has been recommended. Again, depending on the amount of the bet imposed, and the individual concerned, and any other circumstances, there is also a possibility that a period of disqualification might also have been considered.

--
• Thus, this Committee wishes to send a very clear message to all jockeys, both Licensed and Apprenticed, that a breach of this Rule is likely to attract significant penalties. --
• In Mr Muniandy's case, however, we appreciate the dilemma that he may have found himself in when he wanted to obtain a modest amount of cash for his personal use, in that the only way in which he could obtain it was to present a voucher to a betting window. With the benefit of hindsight, Mr Muniandy may well have asked an Assistant Stipendiary Steward to monitor the steps that he was taking so that he could demonstrate quite clearly that he was not attempting to breach Rule 529.

Therefore, we are accepting that there is a significant mitigating circumstance with regard to Mr Muniandy's actions on this occasion.

The fine, therefore, to be imposed on Mr Muniandy is $500.

K G Hales

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 529.1.2, 871.1.4, 871.4

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: