Non Raceday Inquiry – M Siemelink

Rule No. 303 (2) and 1003 (1)

An information lodged by Racecourse Inspector Mr Thomas Rodney Carmichael against Mr Michael Siemelink, horse owner, alleging a breach of the above rule - Misconduct - in that he used abusive and obscene language towards Stipendiary Steward Mr J. Muirhead. Mr Siemelink admitted the breach and was present at the hearing.

Mr Carmichael produced a letter addressed to him by Mr Edward Rennell, General Manager, HRNZ dated 15^th October 2004 authorising the lodging of the information. Mr Carmichael produced to the Committee a copy of a statement made by Mr Muirhead regarding the incident which led to the information being lodged. That statement forms part of this file. Mr Carmichael said that Mr Siemelink had read the statement and agreed with the contents. Mr Muirhead in his statement said that Mr Siemelink came into the Stipendiary Stewards' Room some time after the last race. Mr Siemelink said he was an owner of horses trained by Mr Geoff Small. Mr Siemelink was aggressive and had obviously consumed alcohol. He then proceeded to abuse Mr Muirhead including using obscene language with reference to Mr Muirhead's alleged victimisation of Mr Small. The language was used in front of a female stenographer. Mr Muirhead asked Mr Siemelink to tone his language down without success.

Mr Carmichael said he interviewed Mr Siemelink on the 8^th of October 2004 and Mr Siemelink admitted he had "gone over the top" and had had too much to drink. Mr Siemelink told the Committee he had worked closely with Mr Small for the last three or four years and that he thought the industry had treated Mr Small badly. It was that last matter which caused the incident. He admitted he was affected by alcohol.

Mr Carmichael said this was the first charge of misconduct involving an owner that he was aware of. He said Mr Siemelink had made a voluntary appearance and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and further that he had apologised to Mr Muirhead of his own volition. Mr Carmichael said licence holders had been fined up to $500.00 for misconduct. He suggested a fine in the vicinity of $300.00. Mr Siemelink said he thought HRNZ had more serious matters to worry about other than him at the moment, that he had been involved in the industry for about 20 years, had sponsored a couple of races and that his behaviour was out of character. He suggested a fine of about $100.00.

In imposing penalty the Committee took into account the following matters:

--
1. The guilty plea.
--
2. No previous breaches of the Rules.
--
3. The apology to Mr Muirhead.
--
4. Mr Siemelink's contributions to the industry.
--
5. The submissions made.
--
6. The offending was at the top end of the scale of seriousness.

The Committee viewed Mr Siemelink's conduct as disgraceful at a time when he was obviously affected by alcohol. The language he used in front of a female stenographer was totally unacceptable, as was his personal attack on Mr Muirhead. The Committee did not see that there was any basis to differentiate between licence holders and persons such as owners when imposing penalty for a breach of the Misconduct Rule. The Committee saw the starting point as a fine of $700.00 but taking into account the guilty plea, clear record, apology and Mr Siemelink's contributions to the industry, decided that a discount of $200.00 was appropriate and imposed a fine of $500.00. Mr Siemelink was advised that the penalty rule provided disqualification as an option and further advised Mr Siemelink that any further breaches of the Misconduct Rule could well result in him being diqualified. Mr Siemelink was also advised that there are appropriate channels for making genuine complaints about officials. Finally, as requested by Mr Carmichael, the Committee advises all owners that they are subject to the provisions of the Misconduct Rule.