Non Raceday Inquiry – AD Scott

Mr AD Scott was charged with two serious racing offences as follows ?

1. THAT on the 7^th day of February 2005 at Matamata, he did commit a serious racing offence within the meaning of Rule 1001(1)(p) of theNew Zealand Rules of Racing IN THAT he did commit a dishonest practice in a matter connected with racing NAMELY that for the purpose of attempting to avoid any penalty being imposed by a Judicial Committee as a result of a charge laid against him by Stipendiary Steward JP Oatham under Rule 868(5) of the said rules on the 5^th of February 2005 at Te Rapa, he was responsible for the creation of a false document NAMELY a letter dated the 7^th October 2004 addressed to Mr J Oatham advising that the horse REALIGN be permitted to race with blinkers on AND THAT he intended that this letter be acted upon as if it were genuine AND THAT he is therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed on him pursuant to Rule 1001(2) of the said Rules.

--

--

2. THAT on the 7^th day of February 2005 at Matamata, he did commit a serious racing offence within the meaning of Rule 1001(1)(k) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing IN THAT he did wilfully direct the supplying of false information by facsimile to Stipendiary Steward JP Oatham NAMELY a false document NAMELY a letter dated the 7^th October 2004 addressed to Mr J Oatham advising that the horse REALIGN be permitted to race in blinkers AND THAT he is therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed on him pursuant to Rule 1001(2) of the said Rules.
--

Mr A Scott and Mr M Moroney were also charged with a breach of Rule 868(5) for failing to gain permission to race the horse REALIGN in blinkers on the 5^th February 2005 at Te Rapa, a matter having been adjourned from the race day.

Mr Galbraith took the charges as read and entered formal pleas of guilty to each charge.

Mr J McKenzie then read to the committee a detailed summary of facts including exhibits and statements referred to herein. (A copy of the Summary of Facts is attached).

Mr Galbraith provided detailed submissions relating to the question of the penalty to be imposed. In particular he put to the committee that the significant issue for determination was whether disqualification ought to be imposed. In essence he stressed that the consequences of disqualification in Mr Scott's case were too harsh a penalty. He provided a number of very complimentary references, which gave evidence of his character, dedication and reputation in the industry.

He also provided a comprehensive list of personal undertakings by Mr Scott. He drew attention to the voluntary handing in of Mr Scott's training licence from the 10^th of February 2005 and undertakings as follows ?

--
--

--

1. "Not to apply for any licence under the NZ Rules of Racing to take effect prior to 1 August 2005.
--
--
--

--

2. Not to undertake any employment or other involvement in racing during that period which requires the issue of a licence.
--
--
--

--

3. Not to reside at Ballymore Stables during that period.
--
--
--

--

4. Not to race any horses in which I hold any interest during that period.
--
--
--

--

5. Not to attend race meetings conducted under the NZ Rules of Racing during that period."
--

Mr JW McKenzie reminded the committee of the principles clearly established in previous racing decisions namely that the purposes of penalty are ?

--
1. - to punish the defendant but not to be retributive.
--
2. - to deter others from similar offending.
--
3. - to mark the disapproval of the authorities of the conduct.
--
4. - to take into consideration the need for rehabilitation for the defendant.
--
5. - to maintain the integrity of the industry.

It was unfortunate, he submitted, for the defendant to be facing these charges as he has proven ability and much to contribute in the future.

It was to his credit that he and his partner have responded swiftly in dealing with the matter as they have.

Even so, there remained a need for the seriousness of the charges to be addressed. Honesty is a fundamental requirement for the integrity of the industry to be maintained. The rules now make it clear that disqualification cannot be ignored where the matter involves a serious breach.

He submitted to the committee a period of disqualification for a minimum of six months ought to be imposed on each of the charges to be served concurrently.

We will deal firstly with the two charges against Andrew David SCOTT contained in the Information No.0805 to which he has pleaded guilty.

We have listened carefully to and taken into account all of the submissions and evidence in this matter and also taken special note of the submissions made by Mr Galbraith, QC, on Mr Scott's behalf.

The only issue for us to decide given Mr Scott's guilty plea is that of penalty. In arriving at our decision we have taken into account ?

--
1. The background circumstances leading up to Mr Scott's actions in committing the offences.
--
2. The serious charges he has pleaded guilty to.
--
3. The need to maintain integrity in racing.
--
4. The principles involved in sentencing.
--
5. Mr Scott's previous judicial record.

We then had to decide whether we should impose a period of disqualification. On balance we do accept Mr McKenzie's submissions and agree disqualification has to be ordered. In fixing the period we do take into account Mr Scott's guilty plea, early admission of guilt, his co-operation and the undertakings he has presented to us in writing. Accordingly, we order that disqualification be imposed from the 22^nd day of February 2005 until the 31^st day of July 2005.

We further order costs of $500 to NZ Thoroughbred Racing, and $400 to the JCA.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Meeting: Waikato Racing Club 5 February 2005

Rule: 868(5)

Race: 6

Defendants: M Moroney/AD Scott

Information adjourned until 22 February 2005 at Te Rapa.

Decision and Reason:

As to Information No.65182 which was adjourned from raceday on the 5 February 2005 at Te Rapa.

This related to Race 6 and was lodged pursuant to Rule 868(5) when Stipendiary Steward Mr JP Oatham alleged that Mr M Moroney/Mr AD Scott had failed to gain permission to race their horse REALIGN in blinkers.

Mr M Moroney/Mr AD Scott pleaded guilty.

Mr Oatham in his submissions on penalty submitted that the committee took into account the status of the race and the uncertainty caused by the issues relating to the charge. He believed a fine of $300 should be imposed on each defendant.

The committee considered these submissions and after balancing these with the need to maintain consistency imposed a fine of $400 on Mr M Moroney and Mr AD Scott jointly.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. On Saturday the 5^th of February 2005, the Waikato Racing Club conducted the first day of their International race meeting at Te Rapa Racecourse. The feature event of the day was the $500,000.00 NZ Bloodstock Classique event for two-year-olds. The official race book for this day is produced as an exhibit. This shows that the horse REALIGN trained by the MD Moroney/AD Scott partnership was No.8 in that race which was race five on the programme.

--

--

2. The usual race book details are indicated alongside that horse. Of relevance to this matter is the fact there is no indication alongside the horse that it was recorded as to be wearing blinkers in this start.
--
--
--

--

3. Rule 868 of the New Zealand Rules of Racing deals with the requirements involved with use of blinkers. To summarise that Rule, before a horse is an acceptor for a race, if the trainer wishes to run that horse in blinkers in that race, permission must firstly be obtained from a Stipendiary Steward. This is usually done verbally or in writing.
--
--
--

--

4. The Stipendiary Steward then notifies NZTR of such permission being granted and that fact becomes part of the horses computerised records and it will show in the race book alongside the horses details that it has blinkers on. The same situation applies in the reverse if the trainer wishes to discontinue the use of blinkers.
--
--
--

--

5. Shortly before the race in question on the 5^th February, when the horses were in the back parade ring, Mr Paul Moroney, the brother of the co-trainer and a person known to officials as a stable spokesman, approached the Stipendiary Steward expressing concern that the book did not record the horse REALIGN as to be wearing blinkers.
--
--
--

--

6. Mr Moroney assured the Stipendiary Stewards that the horse had worn blinkers at its previous two starts. As the stewards attempted to verify Mr Paul Moroneys claim, he further assured the stewards that he had contacted Andrew Scott who was home at the stables and he had assured him, Paul Moroney, of the fact the horse had worn blinkers in its previous two starts.
--
--
--

--

7. The Stipendiary Stewards on course had no record of the horse REALIGN as having been given authority to either have blinkers put on or taken off. In the short amount of time available to the Stewards, it was not possible to confirm by video the claim of the horse having previously started in blinkers nor was a check with the previous race start rider conclusive in that regard. As a result the Stipendiary Steward, John Oatham, made the decision to accept the assurances made by the connections and co-trainer of the horse and they were given permission to run the horse in blinkers.
--

8. The horse then ran in the race wearing blinkers. It was unplaced. The Stipendiary Steward made a decision after the event to file an information against the co-trainers of the horse REALIGN charging them jointly with breach of Rule 868 for failing to obtain permission to race the horse in blinkers. Mr MD Moroney was present on course and he appeared at the hearing and Mr Oatham asked for the matter to be adjourned for further inquiries due to his concern with regards to the overall known circumstances.

--

--

9. On Monday the 7^th February 2005 Mr Oatham made further inquiries into the claims made on race day by the connections of the horse REALIGN with regards to the use of blinkers. He carried out checks on NZTR records. He also obtained video footage of the horses only previous two race day starts. He was able to verify that NZTR records revealed no indication at all that this horse had ever been given permission to use blinkers. Further video footage showed the horse did not wear blinkers in its only two previous race day starts as claimed.
--
--
--

--

10. On the afternoon of Monday the 7^th February 2005, Mr Oatham was in his office when he received a letter by facsimile on Ballymore Stables letterhead. A copy of this letter is produced as an exhibit. This letter is dated the 7^th October 2004 and addressed to Mr Oatham with his phone and fax numbers shown and the content of the letter seeks permission to race the horse REALIGN in blinkers. At the bottom of the letter are the words "Yours faithfully ? AD Scott."
--

--

--

11. Mr Oatham can confirm that this letter is identical in form to all previous numerous written requests from Ballymore Stables for the use of blinkers on their horses. When he received this letter dated the 7^th October 2004, Mr Oatham believed that the clear inference of this letter sent to him from Ballymore Stables training partnership was that he would act upon it, as if it were proof that on that day, the 7^th October 2004, Andrew Scott had applied for permission to race the horse REALIGN in blinkers and therefore had complied with the rules.
--
--
--

--

12. Mr Oatham was not satisfied with the authenticity of this letter. He was able to immediately research his facsimile records and these showed he did not receive any facsimiles from Ballymore on that or surrounding days at that time. In addition, Mr Oatham noted that during 2004, up until December, the blinkers notification letters from Ballymore, all of which he had on file, were all signed off by MD Moroney. This fact further raised his suspicions about the letter in question.
--

13. On the 8^th February 2005, Mr Oatham went with Racecourse Inspector Bryan McKenzie to Matamata. Andrew Scott was spoken to about this matter. When asked by the Inspector about the letter dated the 7^th October 2004 for REALIGN, he made a claim that it had been typed then but may not have been sent. In response to further questioning by the Inspector who detailed aspects of the evidence against him, Andrew Scott then admitted to the Inspector that the letter had been typed the previous day by the office manager at his request and sent to Mr Oatham.

--

--

14. The office manager who was present during this interview confirmed what Andrew Scott told the officials. When asked why he had sent the backdated letter, he told the Inspector he did it to avoid getting fined for not getting permission to use the blinkers. He said he had put the date of the 7^th October 2004 as he had worked that out as being about the time of the Taupo trials when he and Paul Moroney had discussed putting blinkers on the horse.
--
--
--

 

--

 

--

--

15. As he realised the seriousness of the situation he was in as a result of his admission of creating and sending this false document, he became visibly distressed and remorseful at what he had done and concerned at the predicament he was in as a result of his actions.
--

16. A written statement was later prepared with Andrew Scott and this statement has since been signed off through his Counsel Mr Galbraith. It was read and produced as an exhibit.

--
17. The NZTR officials involved in this inquiry are satisfied that Andrew Scott acted on his own and that neither MD Moroney nor PA Moroney had any prior knowledge of, nor any input whatsoever in Andrew Scott's decision to create the false document and have it forwarded to the Stipendiary Steward.
--
18. It can be confirmed that in the days following Andrew Scott's admission as to his wrongdoing, a decision was made by him and his training partner, MD Moroney, that he, Scott, would withdraw his trainers licence and stand aside from the partnership. His trainers licence was withdrawn effective from the 10^th February 2005. NZTR have since been advised Andrew Scott will be employed on an unlicensed horse establishment until this matter is resolved, therefore still being able to work with thoroughbred horses, but not in training, trialing, racing and hence not subject to the rules of racing.

19. Andrew Scott is a single man aged 29 years. He has been licensed as a trainer since 1999. During all of that time he has been involved in the partnership with MD Moroney.