Non Raceday Inquiries – P Holmes – Decisions dated 30 May 2011
ID: JCA10981
Decision:
ALLEGED:
Information No: 452
“That on Saturday 19 March 2011 you did wilfully provide verbal evidence to the Stipendiary Stewards that was false and misleading regarding the obtaining of a medical certificate.”
Information No: 452
“That on Saturday 19 March 2011 you did wilfully provide verbal evidence to the Stipendiary Stewards that was false and misleading regarding the obtaining of a medical certificate.”
Information No: 474
“That on Wednesday 23 March 2011 you did wilfully provide information to the Stipendiary Stewards that was false and misleading.”
“That on Wednesday 23 March 2011 you did wilfully provide information to the Stipendiary Stewards that was false and misleading.”
Information No: 7672
“That on 23 March 2011 at Pukekohe Racecourse during the conduct of the meeting, following the completion of your riding engagements, you were in possession of New Zealand Totalisator Agency Board betting tickets, which were placed on your behalf.”
“That on 23 March 2011 at Pukekohe Racecourse during the conduct of the meeting, following the completion of your riding engagements, you were in possession of New Zealand Totalisator Agency Board betting tickets, which were placed on your behalf.”
THE FACTS:
Informations 452 & 474 alleging a breach of Rule 801(1)(h) were heard together.
Informations 452 & 474 alleging a breach of Rule 801(1)(h) were heard together.
Rule 801(1)(h) reads as follows:
Serious Racing Offences
801(1) A person commits a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of these rules who:
(h) Wilfully supplies false or misleading information, or makes a false or
misleading declaration or statement, respecting any matter connected with racing or otherwise in connection with these Rules, to a Tribunal, NZTR, or Committee of a Club, a Stipendiary Steward, an investigator or any other body or Tribunal or is knowingly a party to the giving of, false or misleading information or particulars.
Serious Racing Offences
801(1) A person commits a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of these rules who:
(h) Wilfully supplies false or misleading information, or makes a false or
misleading declaration or statement, respecting any matter connected with racing or otherwise in connection with these Rules, to a Tribunal, NZTR, or Committee of a Club, a Stipendiary Steward, an investigator or any other body or Tribunal or is knowingly a party to the giving of, false or misleading information or particulars.
As Mr Holmes has admitted both informations, they are therefore deemed to be proved.
THE FACTS:
Mr George, on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit, presented a summary of facts as follows:
1. Patrick Holmes who was returning to riding after suffering an injury was a declared rider for the Waikato Racing Club’s race meeting on Saturday 19 March 2011 at the Te Rapa Racecourse.
2. When requested to produce a medical clearance Mr Holmes advised that he had obtained one but had left it at home.
3. Mr Holmes was advised that he must produce said clearance at the Counties race meeting to be held on Wednesday 23 March 2011 and confirmed that he would be able to do so. Mr Holmes was then examined by the Doctor on duty at Te Rapa and cleared to ride.
4. When asked at the Counties race meeting Mr Holmes produced a Medical Certificate signed by a Dr Kar-Wai Kuet but dated 22/03/2011. When questioned regarding this date Mr Holmes maintained that he had seen Dr Kar-Wai Kuet the previous week eventually deciding that this had been on Tuesday 15/03/2011. The Medical Certificate produced did show a “Will be fit to return to work on” date of 15/03/2011.
5. When questioned on the location of the Doctor, Mr Holmes was very evasive and was unable to provide an answer other than it having been at a Medical Centre “somewhere” in Cambridge. The only thing that Mr Holmes seemed sure of was that it was not in the area of Cambridge known as Leamington.
6. Stipendiary Steward John Oatham made external inquiries and established that Dr Kar-Wai Kuet works at the Leamington Medical Centre. Upon contacting Dr Kar-Wai Kuet it was confirmed to Oatham that the Medical Certificate provided had been obtained the previous day with the date of 22/03/2011 being correct. For privacy reasons the Doctor was unwilling to provide any further information around the “return to work date” shown on the Certificate.
7. When spoken to again Mr Holmes again changed his story advising that he had obtained a Medical Certificate from Dr Kar-Wai Kuet the previous week but had lost it. When it was put to him that if this was the case a replacement Certificate could easily have been obtained Mr Holmes was unable to offer any further tangible explanation.
In reply, Mr Holmes stated that when he arrived at the race meeting at Te Rapa on 19 March, that he panicked because he did not have a medical certificate. He thought that it would be enough for him to obtain a medical clearance on the day. He told us that he had injured his thumb on 30 January 2011 and not having taken any medical advice prior to Saturday 19 March, he was hopeful that he would get a clearance to ride. He acknowledged that he took a risk in that regard.
At first, Mr Holmes told the hearing that he did not take any medical advice at the time of his injury, but then conceded that he had had his hand x-rayed by “Counties Care”. From there, he was sent to Middlemore Hospital because it was felt that he may have needed an operation on his thumb. However, after further x-rays at Middlemore Hospital, it was determined that the thumb would simply be placed in a splint and to heal in the usual way.
Mr Dooley asked Mr Holmes if he was aware that he had to obtain a medical clearance before resuming work. In response, Mr Holmes said that he did not know. At that point, Mr George, on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit, alleged that Mr Holmes had made a phone call either the day before or on the morning of the meeting of the Te Rapa Racecourse on 19 March 2011 to the doctor who generally works at the Waikato Region meetings. After considering this, Mr Holmes agreed that he had, in fact, made the phone call to the doctor who normally works at such meetings. He told the hearing that he was advised to obtain a clearance on the day from the doctor at the Te Rapa meeting.
BREACH OF RULE 707(4)(a):
THE FACTS
Mr Matthew Williamson, Stipendiary Steward, stated that he was on duty at the Counties Race Meeting on Wednesday 23 March 2011. Prior to Race 7, it was reported to him by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham that he had seen Mr Holmes near to a totalisator window. Mr Williamson said he went to watch the race and after the race asked Mr Holmes to come to the Stewards’ Room. He asked Mr Holmes if he had been placing bets and asked Mr Holmes if he would mind emptying his pockets. Mr Holmes was co-operative and produced three betting slips which showed that he had placed a $20 bet on horse 12 in Race 7, as well as taking a$2 quinella on horses 12 and 5 in the same race. He had also placed a bet on horse 3 in an earlier race of $10 which produced a return of $120 to him. Mr Williamson explained that jockeys are limited in the manner in which they are able to bet on horses, and in particular stated that jockeys were only to place bets by use of a mobile telephone to a TAB account.
THE FACTS
Mr Matthew Williamson, Stipendiary Steward, stated that he was on duty at the Counties Race Meeting on Wednesday 23 March 2011. Prior to Race 7, it was reported to him by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham that he had seen Mr Holmes near to a totalisator window. Mr Williamson said he went to watch the race and after the race asked Mr Holmes to come to the Stewards’ Room. He asked Mr Holmes if he had been placing bets and asked Mr Holmes if he would mind emptying his pockets. Mr Holmes was co-operative and produced three betting slips which showed that he had placed a $20 bet on horse 12 in Race 7, as well as taking a$2 quinella on horses 12 and 5 in the same race. He had also placed a bet on horse 3 in an earlier race of $10 which produced a return of $120 to him. Mr Williamson explained that jockeys are limited in the manner in which they are able to bet on horses, and in particular stated that jockeys were only to place bets by use of a mobile telephone to a TAB account.
By way of explanation, Mr Holmes said that he had finished his riding duties for the day and was unaware that the Rule had been changed. He said that he was riding in Australia at the time of the Rule change, and did not believe that he was doing anything wrong by placing bets after he had finished his riding duties for the day. He said that he did not place the bets personally, but that another person had put the money on horses on his behalf.
As Mr Holmes has admitted the breach of this rule, the charge is therefore deemed to be proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:
Mr George, on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit, said that with regard to the charges relating to the giving of false information that Mr Holmes, by giving such information, helped him to fulfil his riding obligations at the meeting at Te Rapa on 19 March. However, he said that the Stipendiary Stewards place a lot of trust on jockeys giving true information to them when questioned about such issues, or any other issues relating to the Rules of Racing generally.
Mr George, on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit, said that with regard to the charges relating to the giving of false information that Mr Holmes, by giving such information, helped him to fulfil his riding obligations at the meeting at Te Rapa on 19 March. However, he said that the Stipendiary Stewards place a lot of trust on jockeys giving true information to them when questioned about such issues, or any other issues relating to the Rules of Racing generally.
In Mr George’s submission, he said that the provision of medical certificates was a safety sensitive issue because not only did it protect the safety of the individual jockey concerned, but every other jockey and horses in a race. Mr George said that it is imperative that jockeys are deemed to be medically fit to fulfil their engagements.
Mr George also said that it is important for jockeys to obtain a clearance from a doctor prior to a race meeting, and not to chance being cleared by the duty doctor on the day of the meeting. By obtaining a clearance prior to the meeting, Mr George was of the view that a more comprehensive examination is carried out and therefore the safety issue that he referred to was more likely to be addressed, with certainty.
It was also of considerable concern to Mr George that Mr Holmes compounded the problems by lying to the Stewards on 23 March at the Counties meeting at Pukekohe. Had Mr Holmes admitted at the outset on 19 March, at the Te Rapa meeting, that he did not have a medical certificate prior to the meeting, then the situation would not have compounded to the level that it has.
Mr George submitted that a suspension should be imposed in the region of between 2 and 3 months.
With regard to the betting charge, Mr George accepted that the bets were placed on Mr Holmes’ behalf but that his greatest concern was the public perception of jockeys betting in a situation where they could be seen by members of the public.
Mr George submitted that a fine of between $300 and $500 should be imposed, with regard to this charge.
In response, Mr Vance gave character evidence for Mr Holmes. Mr Vance said that up until recent times, Mr Holmes had been staying at his home and that he had no issues with Mr Holmes’ honesty and integrity. He did say, however, that Mr Holmes had a fault of doing things before thinking and certainly did not take into account the consequences of his actions, when spoken to by the Stipendiary Stewards with regard to his medical certificate.
Mr Holmes said that with regard to the betting charge, he did not realise that what he had done was in breach of the rules, and had no hesitation in giving the betting slips that he had on his person to the Stipendiary Stewards.
Mr Holmes said that his financial situation is not good. He said that he has only just come back to riding after the seven week lay off that he had had as a result of his injuries. He said that he has been riding between two and four horses at each meeting, and normally he rides approximately 300 horses on an annual basis. He said that he rides track-work free of charge in order to persuade trainers to give him race day rides.
He said that a suspension of two to three months would affect him financially, and invited the panel to impose a shorter period of suspension.
He told us that he started riding in May 2002. He has ridden overseas and has not appeared before Judicial Panels when riding overseas. His career record shows that Mr Holmes has not been charged in the past with offences which involve dishonesty. Most of the matters that he has appeared before Judicial Committees before, relate to carless riding charges or other minor offences committed in the course of a race.
PENALTY DECISION:
Mr Holmes has pleaded guilty at an early opportunity to two breaches of Rule 801(1)(h) by wilfully supplying false or misleading information to a Stipendiary Steward. These charges are, by definition, serious racing charges in terms of the Rules of Racing.
Mr Holmes has pleaded guilty at an early opportunity to two breaches of Rule 801(1)(h) by wilfully supplying false or misleading information to a Stipendiary Steward. These charges are, by definition, serious racing charges in terms of the Rules of Racing.
He has also pleaded guilty to a charge pursuant to Rule 707(4)(a) which alleged that Mr Holmes had bets placed on his behalf in breach of the betting rules by jockeys generally. This charge does not fall within the category of a serious racing offence.
The maximum penalties that may be imposed pursuant to these Rules are as follows:
Rule 801(2)
“A person who commits a Serious Racing Offence shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for any specific period or for life; and/or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months, if a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
(c) a fine not exceeding $50,000.”
“A person who commits a Serious Racing Offence shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for any specific period or for life; and/or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months, if a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
(c) a fine not exceeding $50,000.”
With regard to the charge pursuant to Rule 707(4) the penalty for this falls within the General Penalty Rule 803(1)
“A person who, or body or other entity which, commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules or any of them for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
(c) a fine not exceeding $20,000.”
“A person who, or body or other entity which, commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules or any of them for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
(c) a fine not exceeding $20,000.”
We have given careful consideration to the penalty submissions made by Mr George in relation to all charges and to the response made by Mr Holmes and also by Mr Vance in support.
In relation to the charge of supplying false or misleading information, Mr George stressed to the hearing, the need for a jockey to be cleared medically because, in his submission, this is a safety sensitive issue. If a jockey is not medically fit, then he or she can compromise the safety, not only of himself or herself, but also that of other riders and horses.
In this case, Mr Holmes was fortunate to have been given a medical clearance by the on duty doctor at the Te Rapa meeting on 19 March 2011. Thus, Mr Holmes did not breach his riding engagements for that day. However, the fact that Mr Holmes took the risk of getting a clearance, is, in our view, an aggravating factor when we come to consider penalty. He took a chance.
As the facts have revealed, Mr Holmes told the Stipendiary Steward lies, with regard to the obtaining of a medical certificate not only on 19 March 2011 at Te Rapa, but also on 23 March at Counties, when he purported to produce a certificate which bore no relevance to when he said he was cleared to ride. Mr Holmes produced a medical certificate dated 22 March 2011 which did not help him at all. That medical certificate can only be seen as yet a further aggravating feature.
It is also of concern to us, but which we cannot and do not take into account in assessing penalty, that Mr Holmes came straight back to race riding after a 44 day lay-off with no real evidence of him being totally race fit. We express this as a matter of concern. In answer to a question from the panel, he said that he had not ridden track work or trials leading up to the meeting on 19 March.
Mr Holmes, has, in our view, taken a rather casual approach to the rules surrounding the providing of a medical certificate. He simply said he did not know the rule. Every jockey needs to be well aware of the rules because of the safety sensitive nature of rider fitness as referred to earlier in this decision. He did not appear to show any remorse for his conduct and that is a further aggravating feature.
It is also of concern to us, to hear that Mr Holmes did not think about the need to have a medical clearance until either the day before, or on the morning of the Te Rapa meeting. Mr Holmes telephoned the Waikato doctor who is frequently on duty at Te Rapa to enquire about a medical clearance, and was told to get one on the day. This was rather a disingenuous approach to his duties as a jockey.
In his submissions to us, Mr George referred to a number of recent decisions involving this rule, including the case involving Jockey C. Mr George submitted that a suspension of between two and three months should be imposed.
With regard to the betting charges, Mr Holmes was obviously co-operative with the Stipendiary Stewards and did not hesitate to produce betting slips when asked. Mr Holmes said he did not know that the rules had been changed. That rule change took place when he was riding in Australia.
Mr George submitted that the betting charges, whilst not, on the face of it, a serious breach of the betting rules, it is the public perception of seeing a jockey at or near to a betting window, even after that jockey has finished his engagements. The public is likely to draw an adverse inference if a jockey is seen placing bets. It is the public perception aspect which is one of the reasons behind the rule being worded in the manner that it is. Mr George had asked for a fine of between $300 and $500 in relation to the betting charge.
Penalty:
Our starting point for the serious racing offence is a suspension of two months. However, after considering what we believe to be the aggravating features which we referred to earlier in this decision, we consider that the period of suspension should be three months. However, in terms of sentencing principles, against that we take into account Mr Holmes’ early admission of the charges and the fact that his race riding career record does not disclose previous charges involving dishonesty. In fact it could be said that it is quite a good record, having regard to the fact that the majority of the charges related to matters involving careless riding. Those mitigating factors enable us to bring the penalty back to our starting point for sentencing of a two month suspension.
In so far as the betting charge is concerned, we are conscious of Mr Holmes’ financial situation. However, we are concerned at the need to maintain the public perception that there are not underhand betting practices going on amongst jockeys.
Thus, instead of imposing a fine, we will impose a short period of suspension of two weeks, which period of suspension will be served concurrently with the period of suspension of the serious racing charge, that is to say a total period of a two month suspension will be served.
Mr Holmes has made application for the coming into effect of the period of suspension to be deferred for a period of seven days. That application is granted.
Thus, Mr Holmes is suspended from the conclusion of racing on Monday 6 June 2011 until the conclusion of racing on Saturday 6 August 2011.
COSTS:
Mr George advised the hearing that the Racing Integrity Unit did not seek an award of costs. However, costs in the sum of $350 are awarded in favour of the Judicial Control Authority for Racing.
Mr George advised the hearing that the Racing Integrity Unit did not seek an award of costs. However, costs in the sum of $350 are awarded in favour of the Judicial Control Authority for Racing.
K Hales A Dooley
CHAIRMAN Panellist
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 25/05/2011
Publish Date: 25/05/2011
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: 097d8bb3051ca19766043ff57a58b254
informantnumber: 452, 474 and 7672
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 25/05/2011
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiries - P Holmes - Decisions dated 30 May 2011
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
ALLEGED:
Information No: 452
“That on Saturday 19 March 2011 you did wilfully provide verbal evidence to the Stipendiary Stewards that was false and misleading regarding the obtaining of a medical certificate.”
Information No: 452
“That on Saturday 19 March 2011 you did wilfully provide verbal evidence to the Stipendiary Stewards that was false and misleading regarding the obtaining of a medical certificate.”
Information No: 474
“That on Wednesday 23 March 2011 you did wilfully provide information to the Stipendiary Stewards that was false and misleading.”
“That on Wednesday 23 March 2011 you did wilfully provide information to the Stipendiary Stewards that was false and misleading.”
Information No: 7672
“That on 23 March 2011 at Pukekohe Racecourse during the conduct of the meeting, following the completion of your riding engagements, you were in possession of New Zealand Totalisator Agency Board betting tickets, which were placed on your behalf.”
“That on 23 March 2011 at Pukekohe Racecourse during the conduct of the meeting, following the completion of your riding engagements, you were in possession of New Zealand Totalisator Agency Board betting tickets, which were placed on your behalf.”
THE FACTS:
Informations 452 & 474 alleging a breach of Rule 801(1)(h) were heard together.
Informations 452 & 474 alleging a breach of Rule 801(1)(h) were heard together.
Rule 801(1)(h) reads as follows:
Serious Racing Offences
801(1) A person commits a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of these rules who:
(h) Wilfully supplies false or misleading information, or makes a false or
misleading declaration or statement, respecting any matter connected with racing or otherwise in connection with these Rules, to a Tribunal, NZTR, or Committee of a Club, a Stipendiary Steward, an investigator or any other body or Tribunal or is knowingly a party to the giving of, false or misleading information or particulars.
Serious Racing Offences
801(1) A person commits a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of these rules who:
(h) Wilfully supplies false or misleading information, or makes a false or
misleading declaration or statement, respecting any matter connected with racing or otherwise in connection with these Rules, to a Tribunal, NZTR, or Committee of a Club, a Stipendiary Steward, an investigator or any other body or Tribunal or is knowingly a party to the giving of, false or misleading information or particulars.
As Mr Holmes has admitted both informations, they are therefore deemed to be proved.
THE FACTS:
Mr George, on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit, presented a summary of facts as follows:
1. Patrick Holmes who was returning to riding after suffering an injury was a declared rider for the Waikato Racing Club’s race meeting on Saturday 19 March 2011 at the Te Rapa Racecourse.
2. When requested to produce a medical clearance Mr Holmes advised that he had obtained one but had left it at home.
3. Mr Holmes was advised that he must produce said clearance at the Counties race meeting to be held on Wednesday 23 March 2011 and confirmed that he would be able to do so. Mr Holmes was then examined by the Doctor on duty at Te Rapa and cleared to ride.
4. When asked at the Counties race meeting Mr Holmes produced a Medical Certificate signed by a Dr Kar-Wai Kuet but dated 22/03/2011. When questioned regarding this date Mr Holmes maintained that he had seen Dr Kar-Wai Kuet the previous week eventually deciding that this had been on Tuesday 15/03/2011. The Medical Certificate produced did show a “Will be fit to return to work on” date of 15/03/2011.
5. When questioned on the location of the Doctor, Mr Holmes was very evasive and was unable to provide an answer other than it having been at a Medical Centre “somewhere” in Cambridge. The only thing that Mr Holmes seemed sure of was that it was not in the area of Cambridge known as Leamington.
6. Stipendiary Steward John Oatham made external inquiries and established that Dr Kar-Wai Kuet works at the Leamington Medical Centre. Upon contacting Dr Kar-Wai Kuet it was confirmed to Oatham that the Medical Certificate provided had been obtained the previous day with the date of 22/03/2011 being correct. For privacy reasons the Doctor was unwilling to provide any further information around the “return to work date” shown on the Certificate.
7. When spoken to again Mr Holmes again changed his story advising that he had obtained a Medical Certificate from Dr Kar-Wai Kuet the previous week but had lost it. When it was put to him that if this was the case a replacement Certificate could easily have been obtained Mr Holmes was unable to offer any further tangible explanation.
In reply, Mr Holmes stated that when he arrived at the race meeting at Te Rapa on 19 March, that he panicked because he did not have a medical certificate. He thought that it would be enough for him to obtain a medical clearance on the day. He told us that he had injured his thumb on 30 January 2011 and not having taken any medical advice prior to Saturday 19 March, he was hopeful that he would get a clearance to ride. He acknowledged that he took a risk in that regard.
At first, Mr Holmes told the hearing that he did not take any medical advice at the time of his injury, but then conceded that he had had his hand x-rayed by “Counties Care”. From there, he was sent to Middlemore Hospital because it was felt that he may have needed an operation on his thumb. However, after further x-rays at Middlemore Hospital, it was determined that the thumb would simply be placed in a splint and to heal in the usual way.
Mr Dooley asked Mr Holmes if he was aware that he had to obtain a medical clearance before resuming work. In response, Mr Holmes said that he did not know. At that point, Mr George, on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit, alleged that Mr Holmes had made a phone call either the day before or on the morning of the meeting of the Te Rapa Racecourse on 19 March 2011 to the doctor who generally works at the Waikato Region meetings. After considering this, Mr Holmes agreed that he had, in fact, made the phone call to the doctor who normally works at such meetings. He told the hearing that he was advised to obtain a clearance on the day from the doctor at the Te Rapa meeting.
BREACH OF RULE 707(4)(a):
THE FACTS
Mr Matthew Williamson, Stipendiary Steward, stated that he was on duty at the Counties Race Meeting on Wednesday 23 March 2011. Prior to Race 7, it was reported to him by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham that he had seen Mr Holmes near to a totalisator window. Mr Williamson said he went to watch the race and after the race asked Mr Holmes to come to the Stewards’ Room. He asked Mr Holmes if he had been placing bets and asked Mr Holmes if he would mind emptying his pockets. Mr Holmes was co-operative and produced three betting slips which showed that he had placed a $20 bet on horse 12 in Race 7, as well as taking a$2 quinella on horses 12 and 5 in the same race. He had also placed a bet on horse 3 in an earlier race of $10 which produced a return of $120 to him. Mr Williamson explained that jockeys are limited in the manner in which they are able to bet on horses, and in particular stated that jockeys were only to place bets by use of a mobile telephone to a TAB account.
THE FACTS
Mr Matthew Williamson, Stipendiary Steward, stated that he was on duty at the Counties Race Meeting on Wednesday 23 March 2011. Prior to Race 7, it was reported to him by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham that he had seen Mr Holmes near to a totalisator window. Mr Williamson said he went to watch the race and after the race asked Mr Holmes to come to the Stewards’ Room. He asked Mr Holmes if he had been placing bets and asked Mr Holmes if he would mind emptying his pockets. Mr Holmes was co-operative and produced three betting slips which showed that he had placed a $20 bet on horse 12 in Race 7, as well as taking a$2 quinella on horses 12 and 5 in the same race. He had also placed a bet on horse 3 in an earlier race of $10 which produced a return of $120 to him. Mr Williamson explained that jockeys are limited in the manner in which they are able to bet on horses, and in particular stated that jockeys were only to place bets by use of a mobile telephone to a TAB account.
By way of explanation, Mr Holmes said that he had finished his riding duties for the day and was unaware that the Rule had been changed. He said that he was riding in Australia at the time of the Rule change, and did not believe that he was doing anything wrong by placing bets after he had finished his riding duties for the day. He said that he did not place the bets personally, but that another person had put the money on horses on his behalf.
As Mr Holmes has admitted the breach of this rule, the charge is therefore deemed to be proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:
Mr George, on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit, said that with regard to the charges relating to the giving of false information that Mr Holmes, by giving such information, helped him to fulfil his riding obligations at the meeting at Te Rapa on 19 March. However, he said that the Stipendiary Stewards place a lot of trust on jockeys giving true information to them when questioned about such issues, or any other issues relating to the Rules of Racing generally.
Mr George, on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit, said that with regard to the charges relating to the giving of false information that Mr Holmes, by giving such information, helped him to fulfil his riding obligations at the meeting at Te Rapa on 19 March. However, he said that the Stipendiary Stewards place a lot of trust on jockeys giving true information to them when questioned about such issues, or any other issues relating to the Rules of Racing generally.
In Mr George’s submission, he said that the provision of medical certificates was a safety sensitive issue because not only did it protect the safety of the individual jockey concerned, but every other jockey and horses in a race. Mr George said that it is imperative that jockeys are deemed to be medically fit to fulfil their engagements.
Mr George also said that it is important for jockeys to obtain a clearance from a doctor prior to a race meeting, and not to chance being cleared by the duty doctor on the day of the meeting. By obtaining a clearance prior to the meeting, Mr George was of the view that a more comprehensive examination is carried out and therefore the safety issue that he referred to was more likely to be addressed, with certainty.
It was also of considerable concern to Mr George that Mr Holmes compounded the problems by lying to the Stewards on 23 March at the Counties meeting at Pukekohe. Had Mr Holmes admitted at the outset on 19 March, at the Te Rapa meeting, that he did not have a medical certificate prior to the meeting, then the situation would not have compounded to the level that it has.
Mr George submitted that a suspension should be imposed in the region of between 2 and 3 months.
With regard to the betting charge, Mr George accepted that the bets were placed on Mr Holmes’ behalf but that his greatest concern was the public perception of jockeys betting in a situation where they could be seen by members of the public.
Mr George submitted that a fine of between $300 and $500 should be imposed, with regard to this charge.
In response, Mr Vance gave character evidence for Mr Holmes. Mr Vance said that up until recent times, Mr Holmes had been staying at his home and that he had no issues with Mr Holmes’ honesty and integrity. He did say, however, that Mr Holmes had a fault of doing things before thinking and certainly did not take into account the consequences of his actions, when spoken to by the Stipendiary Stewards with regard to his medical certificate.
Mr Holmes said that with regard to the betting charge, he did not realise that what he had done was in breach of the rules, and had no hesitation in giving the betting slips that he had on his person to the Stipendiary Stewards.
Mr Holmes said that his financial situation is not good. He said that he has only just come back to riding after the seven week lay off that he had had as a result of his injuries. He said that he has been riding between two and four horses at each meeting, and normally he rides approximately 300 horses on an annual basis. He said that he rides track-work free of charge in order to persuade trainers to give him race day rides.
He said that a suspension of two to three months would affect him financially, and invited the panel to impose a shorter period of suspension.
He told us that he started riding in May 2002. He has ridden overseas and has not appeared before Judicial Panels when riding overseas. His career record shows that Mr Holmes has not been charged in the past with offences which involve dishonesty. Most of the matters that he has appeared before Judicial Committees before, relate to carless riding charges or other minor offences committed in the course of a race.
PENALTY DECISION:
Mr Holmes has pleaded guilty at an early opportunity to two breaches of Rule 801(1)(h) by wilfully supplying false or misleading information to a Stipendiary Steward. These charges are, by definition, serious racing charges in terms of the Rules of Racing.
Mr Holmes has pleaded guilty at an early opportunity to two breaches of Rule 801(1)(h) by wilfully supplying false or misleading information to a Stipendiary Steward. These charges are, by definition, serious racing charges in terms of the Rules of Racing.
He has also pleaded guilty to a charge pursuant to Rule 707(4)(a) which alleged that Mr Holmes had bets placed on his behalf in breach of the betting rules by jockeys generally. This charge does not fall within the category of a serious racing offence.
The maximum penalties that may be imposed pursuant to these Rules are as follows:
Rule 801(2)
“A person who commits a Serious Racing Offence shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for any specific period or for life; and/or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months, if a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
(c) a fine not exceeding $50,000.”
“A person who commits a Serious Racing Offence shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for any specific period or for life; and/or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months, if a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
(c) a fine not exceeding $50,000.”
With regard to the charge pursuant to Rule 707(4) the penalty for this falls within the General Penalty Rule 803(1)
“A person who, or body or other entity which, commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules or any of them for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
(c) a fine not exceeding $20,000.”
“A person who, or body or other entity which, commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules or any of them for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
(c) a fine not exceeding $20,000.”
We have given careful consideration to the penalty submissions made by Mr George in relation to all charges and to the response made by Mr Holmes and also by Mr Vance in support.
In relation to the charge of supplying false or misleading information, Mr George stressed to the hearing, the need for a jockey to be cleared medically because, in his submission, this is a safety sensitive issue. If a jockey is not medically fit, then he or she can compromise the safety, not only of himself or herself, but also that of other riders and horses.
In this case, Mr Holmes was fortunate to have been given a medical clearance by the on duty doctor at the Te Rapa meeting on 19 March 2011. Thus, Mr Holmes did not breach his riding engagements for that day. However, the fact that Mr Holmes took the risk of getting a clearance, is, in our view, an aggravating factor when we come to consider penalty. He took a chance.
As the facts have revealed, Mr Holmes told the Stipendiary Steward lies, with regard to the obtaining of a medical certificate not only on 19 March 2011 at Te Rapa, but also on 23 March at Counties, when he purported to produce a certificate which bore no relevance to when he said he was cleared to ride. Mr Holmes produced a medical certificate dated 22 March 2011 which did not help him at all. That medical certificate can only be seen as yet a further aggravating feature.
It is also of concern to us, but which we cannot and do not take into account in assessing penalty, that Mr Holmes came straight back to race riding after a 44 day lay-off with no real evidence of him being totally race fit. We express this as a matter of concern. In answer to a question from the panel, he said that he had not ridden track work or trials leading up to the meeting on 19 March.
Mr Holmes, has, in our view, taken a rather casual approach to the rules surrounding the providing of a medical certificate. He simply said he did not know the rule. Every jockey needs to be well aware of the rules because of the safety sensitive nature of rider fitness as referred to earlier in this decision. He did not appear to show any remorse for his conduct and that is a further aggravating feature.
It is also of concern to us, to hear that Mr Holmes did not think about the need to have a medical clearance until either the day before, or on the morning of the Te Rapa meeting. Mr Holmes telephoned the Waikato doctor who is frequently on duty at Te Rapa to enquire about a medical clearance, and was told to get one on the day. This was rather a disingenuous approach to his duties as a jockey.
In his submissions to us, Mr George referred to a number of recent decisions involving this rule, including the case involving Jockey C. Mr George submitted that a suspension of between two and three months should be imposed.
With regard to the betting charges, Mr Holmes was obviously co-operative with the Stipendiary Stewards and did not hesitate to produce betting slips when asked. Mr Holmes said he did not know that the rules had been changed. That rule change took place when he was riding in Australia.
Mr George submitted that the betting charges, whilst not, on the face of it, a serious breach of the betting rules, it is the public perception of seeing a jockey at or near to a betting window, even after that jockey has finished his engagements. The public is likely to draw an adverse inference if a jockey is seen placing bets. It is the public perception aspect which is one of the reasons behind the rule being worded in the manner that it is. Mr George had asked for a fine of between $300 and $500 in relation to the betting charge.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
Our starting point for the serious racing offence is a suspension of two months. However, after considering what we believe to be the aggravating features which we referred to earlier in this decision, we consider that the period of suspension should be three months. However, in terms of sentencing principles, against that we take into account Mr Holmes’ early admission of the charges and the fact that his race riding career record does not disclose previous charges involving dishonesty. In fact it could be said that it is quite a good record, having regard to the fact that the majority of the charges related to matters involving careless riding. Those mitigating factors enable us to bring the penalty back to our starting point for sentencing of a two month suspension.
In so far as the betting charge is concerned, we are conscious of Mr Holmes’ financial situation. However, we are concerned at the need to maintain the public perception that there are not underhand betting practices going on amongst jockeys.
Thus, instead of imposing a fine, we will impose a short period of suspension of two weeks, which period of suspension will be served concurrently with the period of suspension of the serious racing charge, that is to say a total period of a two month suspension will be served.
Mr Holmes has made application for the coming into effect of the period of suspension to be deferred for a period of seven days. That application is granted.
Thus, Mr Holmes is suspended from the conclusion of racing on Monday 6 June 2011 until the conclusion of racing on Saturday 6 August 2011.
COSTS:
Mr George advised the hearing that the Racing Integrity Unit did not seek an award of costs. However, costs in the sum of $350 are awarded in favour of the Judicial Control Authority for Racing.
Mr George advised the hearing that the Racing Integrity Unit did not seek an award of costs. However, costs in the sum of $350 are awarded in favour of the Judicial Control Authority for Racing.
K Hales A Dooley
CHAIRMAN Panellist
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules:
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward (Informations 452 and 474), Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward (Information 7672)
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr C George - Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr R A Vance - Licensed Trainer
Respondent: Mr P Holmes - Licensed Jockey
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: