Canterbury JC 7 August 2013 – R 7 (heard on 10 August 2013 at Riccarton)

hearingid: 301ccaaa721a7462ded9d5fb42224dd3

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 07/08/2013

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC 7 August 2013 - R 7 (heard on 10 August 2013 at Riccarton)

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr M Zarb - Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  Mr B R Lammas - Licensed Jockey

Information No:  A4941

Meeting:  Canterbury Jockey Club

Venue:  Riccarton

Date:  7 August 2013 (heard on 10 August 2013 at Riccarton)

Race:  7

Rule No:  649(1) (a)

Judicial Committee:  K Hales, Chairman - S Ching, Committee Member

Plea:  Denied

Charge:  Alleged that B Lammas the rider of HAILES ABBEY changed his riding boots after weighing out.

Evidence:

Mr Lammas was contracted to ride "Hailes Abbey" in Race 7, the "McMillan Equine Feeds Rating 65". His contracted weight was 54.5kg. When he weighed out, his weight was 55kg, but that weight was within the allowable tolerance level.

The Stipendiary Stewards' case was that Mr Lammas was wearing a pair of worn out lightweight boots at the weigh out but that when he weighed in he was wearing a different pair of boots, which boots were in good condition.

Mr Zarb told the hearing that upon Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward R Neal being informed of Mr Wallis's suspicions, that he and Mr Neal then went into the Jockey's room and carried out a search of Mr Lammas' gear. A pair of lightweight boots matching Mr Wallis's description were found concealed under Mr Lammas' gear. These lightweight boots were confiscated by the Stipendiary Stewards and produced to the hearing as an exhibit to the Stipendiary Stewards' case. Mr Lammas confirmed to the hearing that the lightweight boots were his. It was agreed that this type of boots are commonly known as "cheater boots". Mr Lammas also, in response to a question from the Chair, confirmed that he weighed out wearing the lightweight boots.

Evidence in support of this allegation was given by Mr S Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, who said in a written statement:

"Prior to Race 7, I walked up the stairs to obtain my gear list from Mr Rowland (Clerk of the Scales). I was standing next to Mr Rowland when I saw Mr Lammas, who was riding HAILES ABBEY in this race, at the top of the stairs. I looked down and noticed Mr Lammas' riding boots, of particular notice to me was the fact that these were well worn on the outside of both heels with the webbing inside showing through. I was surprised to see this and thought to myself, "They are pretty shabby boots for a professional rider like Mr Lammas".

I didn't give this another thought until I was around at the start for Race 7. Mr Lammas was parading HAILES ABBEY behind the gates towards the inside of the track right in front of me. I noticed Mr Lammas' boots and thought that these were not the boots he was wearing when I saw him at the top of the stairs.

Due to this, I continued to pay particular attention to Mr Lammas' boots while he was walking around. During this time Mr Lammas had his feet out of the irons and I could not see any wear or tear in the heel like the boots I had seen pre-race. The boots worn at this time were of good repair and were certainly not worn out at the heels.

Upon return to the weigh in area, post race I again wanted to confirm in my own mind that the boots worn during the event were not those worn by Mr Lammas when I saw him at the top of the stairs. After looking at these boots again as Mr Lammas walked past me to check in I am certain beyond doubt that the riding boots in Mr Zarb's possession, are NOT the riding boots worn by Mr Lammas when riding HAILES ABBEY in Race 7".

Mr Wallis' written statement was read to the hearing by the Chairman, as Mr Lammas advised that he has difficulty reading. This was done early on in the hearing, so that Mr Lammas would be sure about what was being alleged, and could plan his cross examination.

Mr Wallis was contacted by telephone, which was placed on speaker. The reception on "speaker phone" was clearly audible by all present in the Hearing Room. Mr Wallis confirmed the contents of his written statement. Mr Lammas was invited to cross examine.

He asked if Mr Wallis noticed the tape on the outside of the boots at the weigh out. He responded by saying that he didn't notice the tape. He then asked if he had gone back to the Jockeys' Room and pulled the tape down that the webbing would have been concealed. Mr Wallis was not able to comment on this.

He asked Mr Wallis why if Mr Wallis knew, that he (Lammas) had a weight problem. Mr Wallis agreed that he was aware of that fact. Mr Lammas then asked why Mr Wallis didn't stop him at the weigh in and challenge him about the fact that he appeared to be wearing different boots. Mr Wallis responded by saying that he felt it appropriate to check the situation with Mr Neal before taking any action. Mr Lammas then asked how long it took from the weigh in to the time of the search in in the Jockeys' room. Mr Wallis said that it was a very short space of time - following him informing Mr Neal and Mr Zarb - maybe 2 to 3 minutes. Mr Wallis said in response to series of questions about what he did in relation to reporting the incident and the timing. He said that upon reporting the incident that Mr Neal and Mr Zarb responded quickly. He asked if he noticed the boots at the actual weigh out or when he was checking his weight. Mr Wallis response was that whatever the situation he was 100% certain that the boots at the weigh out were not the boots worn by Mr Lammas at the weigh in. He had being paying particular attention to Mr Lammas' boots from the weigh out, at the start and at the weigh in.

Video evidence was shown of Mr Lammas, riding out in his preliminary, and of him walking around at the start with his feet out of the irons as described by My Wallis. However, in fairness to Mr Lammas, the video evidence was not clear enough for us to reach any firm conclusion as to which boots Mr Lammas was wearing, and as a consequence, the Chairman advised Mr Zarb and Mr Lammas that little or no weight would be afforded to this aspect of the Stipendiary Stewards' case.

Mr Lammas gave evidence. He said that he weighed in at 55 kg, the same as his weigh out weight. He maintained that if he had ridden in the heavier boots that he would have weighed in at a heavier weight. He showed his heavier boots to the hearing and said that if he was wearing the heavier boots it would have showed up at the weigh in. With regard to the search that was carried out in the Jockeys' room, he said that he is not a tidy person and that he had no reason to conceal the lightweight boots. He said that he just placed them under his seat with other gear, as he had finished with those boots for the day. He said that he changed boots, because he wanted to check his weight for an upcoming race and wanted to see if he could have a drink. He challenged the video coverage and said it was not clear enough. He also volunteered the fact that he does have a problem making contracted weights. He also said that the tape on his boots would have concealed the webbing that was showing as described by Mr Wallis.

In summary, Mr Lammas denied the breach and said he weighed out in lightweight boots, rode in them, and weighed in wearing them. He said that Mr Wallis was simply mistaken.

Mr Zarb cross examined. He discussed with Mr Lammas the fact that even though he weighed out and weighed in at 55 kg that the scales would not show a variation in weight of up to "three ticks" over. Mr Lammas said that he would be allowed up to half a kilogram over. He also asked Mr Lammas about his gear bag and asked why the lightweight boots were not placed in the bag. Mr Lammas responded by saying that he always spreads his gear out and that there was no attempt to conceal the lightweight boots. Mr Zarb asked why it was necessary for Mr Lammas to change his boots so quickly, because the race following was a hurdle race and thus he (Lammas) had plenty of time before his next ride. Mr Lammas responded by saying that he wanted to monitor his weight and to determine if he could have a drink. He said that he had been wasting for a race.

Submission for Decision:

Mr Zarb summarised by saying that in the Stipendiary Stewards' view, the evidence was compelling. Mr Wallis' description was consistent throughout. The Stewards believed that Mr Lammas weighed out in lightweight boots in order to cheat and because of his weight problem, had the motivation to cheat.

In response, Mr Lammas said that it was Mr Wallis' word against his. He said that as he weighed in at 55 kg that he should be believed.

Reason for Decision:

We delivered the following oral decision.

"We have given careful consideration to all of the evidence. We have had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the evidence of the witnesses. The issue for us to determine is whether or not Mr Lammas weighed out in one pair of boots and then rode in a different pair. Mr Lammas says that he weighed out in his lightweight boots and rode in them. Mr Wallis says that he weighed out in what appeared to be worn out shabby boots and was at the barrier in boots that appeared to be in good repair, and in which boots he observed Mr Lammas walk to the scales in, at the end of the race. The lightweight boots were produced to the hearing as an exhibit to the Stipendiary Stewards' case. Mr Lammas confirmed that the boots were his.

If it was simply a case of Mr Wallis's word against that of Mr Lammas then our task would have been a lot more difficult.

However, Mr Lammas has a problem. His lightweight boots were found by the Stipendiary Stewards very shortly after the race in what can only be described as a concealed position. Add to that, Mr Lammas' own evidence that he has a weight problem.

From those two aspects, we are entitled to draw the inferences that Mr Lammas had something to hide, and was therefore trying to beat the scales.

Mr Wallis's evidence was clear and unequivocal. Mr Wallis has nothing to gain, whereas Mr Lammas was trying to gain an advantage.

Having drawn these inferences, we accept the Stipendiary Stewards' evidence and reject Mr Lammas' evidence.

We are satisfied that the Stipendiary Stewards have made out their case. For the avoidance of doubt, the Stipendiary Stewards do not have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt - only to a standard that satisfies us. Be that as it may, we are in no doubt that Mr Lammas changed his boots after weighing out."

Decision:

"The charge is found to be proved accordingly."

Submission for Penalty:

Mr Zarb submitted that this was a serious matter. He said that it was an intentional act of cheating. He drew to our attention that Mr Lammas had 6 breaches of Rule 330(3)(c) (failing to make the contracted weight) proved against him in the 2012/2013 racing season. He referred us to a decision dated 17th May 2013 where an apprentice jockey, having his 7th ride admitted a breach of Rule 649(1)(a) and was fined $300. That apprentice jockey also demonstrated remorse for his breach. In that case the apprentice had weighed out in a lightweight safety vest and then changed it for a heavier vest before the race.

He submitted that Mr Lammas should be either fined $1,000 or suspended for a minimum of 5 racing days.

In response, Mr Lammas submitted that his previous breaches of Rule 330(3)(a) were not relevant to penalty and that he should be fined $300 only as was the apprentice on 17th May 2013. He said it should make no difference as to whether a Jockey charged with this breach, had had 7 rides or 700 rides. He said they should be treated the same.

Reasons for Penalty:

We delivered the following oral penalty decision:

"Mr Zarb submitted that this was a serious matter. He said that Mr Lammas had a motive in that he had a weight problem, having incurred 6 breaches of Rule 330(3)(a) in the 2012/2013 season. He said that even though Apprentice Jockey C was fined $300 at the Wairio Jockey Club's meeting on 17th May 2013, that he had admitted the breach at an early stage, demonstrated remorse and was inexperienced, it being his 7th ride at a totalisator meeting. He submitted that Mr Lammas had not demonstrated remorse, was an experienced jockey and had set out to cheat.

In response, Mr Lammas submitted that we should not take cognisance of his breaches of Rule 330(3)(a), and that he should be treated no differently to Apprentice Jockey C. He further said it should make no difference as to whether he had had 7 rides or 700 rides.

We take this view:

• We have found as a fact that Mr Lammas set out to "beat the scales";

• He did so because he has a weight problem;

• The evidence against him was strong;

• The breach was not admitted in the face of rather compelling evidence, and thus Mr Lammas will receive no credit in terms of a discount on our starting point for penalty;

• This case is a serious case and Mr Lammas' actions reflect badly on the integrity of Racing.

They are the aggravating features. We do not find any mitigating features.

The Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees offers little assistance and directs Judicial Committees to impose a penalty "dependent on the facts". There is little in the data base to assist us.

Our starting point for penalty is a suspension. We set that suspension at two weeks.

However, having regard to the aggravating features, as an uplift on penalty, we are also imposing a fine.

Penalty:

Mr Lammas is suspended from race riding for a period of two weeks. He has advised the hearing that he does not wish to apply for a deferment of the coming into effect of suspension. Therefore his suspension commences at the conclusion of racing on Monday 12th August 2013 and will end at the conclusion of racing on Monday 26th August 2013.

Mr Lammas is also fined $300.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: Rule 649(1) A rider must not;, (a) do or permit any wrongful act or omission with respect to weight or weighing;

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: