Non-Raceday Inquiry – NG Wigley

hearingid: 74d78029286277be1b445d3167da595d

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non-Raceday Inquiry - NG Wigley

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Two informations were filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S C Ching, at the meeting of Otago Racing Club held at Wingatui on Sunday, 25 March 2007, against Licensed Owner/Trainer, Mr N G Wigley. Mr Wigley was the trainer of the 4-year-old mare MYSTIFY, which was an acceptor for Race 12, University Book Shop Handicap, at that meeting. The hearing of both informations was adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Two informations were filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S C Ching, at the meeting of Otago Racing Club held at Wingatui on Sunday, 25 March 2007, against Licensed Owner/Trainer, Mr N G Wigley. Mr Wigley was the trainer of the 4-year-old mare MYSTIFY, which was an acceptor for Race 12, University Book Shop Handicap, at that meeting. The hearing of both informations was adjourned to a date to be fixed. The informations were heard as above.

Information No.7325 alleges a breach of Rule 707 (6) (a) as follows:

Following the reading of the charge and the Rule to him, Mr Wigley indicated that he did not admit the breach.

Information No.7326 alleges a breach of Rule 1004 (2C) as follows:

Following the reading of the charge and the Rule to him, Mr Wigley indicated that he admitted the breach. The breach was, accordingly, found to be proved.

Rule 707 (6) (a) provides as follows:

Rule 1004 (2C), which is included under the heading "Prohibited Substance Rule", provides as follows:

Having heard the evidence and statements of Mr Ching and Mr Wigley, the Committee finds the facts to be as follows:

1. MYSTIFY was an acceptor for Race 12 at the meeting of Otago Racing Club held at Wingatui Racecourse on Sunday, 25 March 2007.

2. Mr Wigley arranged for the mare to be transported to the meeting on Saturday, 24 March, by Nationwide Horse Transport. According to Mr Wigley, the trip, which should have taken 5 ? hours, took 7 ? hours when a driver failed to turn up. The horses stood for some considerable time on the float before leaving Rangiora.

3. The horse did not eat well or drink much that evening. The following morning, 9.00am on race morning, Mr Wigley suspected that the mare may have been beginning to dehydrate.

4. At about 9.30am, Mr Wigley phoned his own veterinary surgeon, Mr Hamish Rankin. Mr Wigley was unable to speak to Mr Rankin. He then telephoned the Club's veterinary surgeon, Mr Peter Gillespie, at about 10.00am and arranged to meet him at the course.

5. It was agreed to drench the mare with a saline drench with electrolytes and this was done, by Mr Gillespie, in the presence of Mr Wigley, between 10.30 ? 11.00am. There was no attempt to conceal the procedure and it was done in open view in the presence of others. Mr Gillespie did say to Mr Wigley that "we should not be doing this" but believed that Mr Wigley would inform the Stewards

6. At about 1.30pm, Mr Gillespie telephoned Mr Wigley and advised him that the matter had been reported to the President of the Club. Mr Gillespie advised Mr Wigley to report the matter to the Stewards but Mr Wigley elected to take no action at that stage.

7. Mr Ching was informed at approximately 4.30pm that MYSTIFY had that morning been administered a substance by way of gastric nasal tube. He unsuccessfully attempted to locate Mr Wigley.

8. Mr Ching finally spoke to Mr Wigley in the weighing area about 15 minutes before Race 12, having earlier spoken to Mr Gillespie in the birdcage prior to Race 11. Mr Wigley admitted that the horse had received a saline drench on race morning.

9. The Stipendiary Stewards ordered the late scratching of the mare from the Race at 5.15pm.

In relation to the charge under Rule 707 (6) (a), Mr Ching submitted that, quite clearly, the mare had a condition at 10.30am on race morning when she was attended to by the Club's veterinary surgeon. He stated that the requirements of the Rule are clear ? that a trainer has an obligation to report to the Stewards, as soon as practicable, any condition or occurrence that may affect the running of a horse. He pointed out that the Rule had been in force since January 2005. The requirements of the Rule had been well publicised in the "Thoroughbred Racing Monthly" which is sent to all trainers. The Rule was enacted to protect punters, Mr Ching said.

Mr Ching submitted that there was "no doubt" that the mare had a condition. Mr Wigley had treated the condition, albeit outside the Rules, but regardless of whether Mr Wigley believed he had remedied that condition, it was still his responsibility under the Rule to report it. He stressed the wording of the Rule ? "any condition or occurrence that may affect the running of the horse in the race". Mr Ching submitted that it was for the Stipendiary Stewards to make that determination, in consultation with a veterinary surgeon.

Mr Wigley stated that what he did was out of concern for his horse's health and welfare. He believed that there was nothing "underhand or sinister" in what he did and he had no intention of cheating. He explained that MYSTIFY was probably the most difficult horse he had ever trained, being highly-strung and excitable. Neither does she travel well or settle into new surroundings. For those reasons, he arranged a direct float trip from Rangiora to Dunedin. He referred to the problems that had been encountered with the transport of the mare.

Mr Wigley stated that MYSYIFY was one of the most valuable mares racing in the South Island, having considerable residual value as a broodmare. He referred to having taken a mare named VICKI BUCK to a meeting at Omakau some years ago. The mare did not travel well and was dehydrated on race morning. The mare raced and performed badly. The next day, the mare was required to be put on a saline drip three times and it was four days before she was well enough to travel home.

Mr Wigley acknowledged that he should not have saline drenched MYSTIFY and, in doing so, had a "mental blank". He had used saline drenches for years but, on this occasion, he was not thinking, he said.

In relation to the charge under Rule 707 (6) (a), Mr Wigley said that he believed that he had rectified the problem by saline drenching the mare. She "bounced back" and had a drink of water in the afternoon and, further, he believed that the mare would not have a problem racing. Mr Wigley acknowledged, when asked by the Committee, that he was aware of the requirement to report.

Mr Wigley said that he felt bad about letting down the Club and the punters who had supported the mare and made her favourite for the Race. He submitted that he had been let down by Mr Gillespie whom, he felt, ought to have advised him to have a Stipendiary Steward present at the procedure.

Having heard the submissions and statements of both parties, the hearing was adjourned and, following that adjournment, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:

"Mr Wigley has defended the charge brought by Stipendiary Steward, Mr Ching, that he failed to report to the Stipendiary Stewards a condition or occurrence that may have affected the running of the mare, MYSTIFY, trained by him, in Race 12 at the meeting of the Otago Racing Club at Wingatui on 25 March 2007.

The facts, which are not in dispute between the parties, are that Mr Wigley was concerned on race morning that the mare was dehydrated and, out of concern for her wellbeing, tried unsuccessfully to contact his own vet before having the racecourse vet, Mr Peter Gillespie, administer a saline drench with electrolytes to the mare, this procedure having taken place between 10.30 and 11 am. Mr Wigley acknowledged to this Committee that he had been aware of the requirement to notify.

Mr Wigley has admitted the charge under Rule 1004 (2C) of administering a substance by nasal gastric tube on the day of racing.

We believe that, as far as the charge of failing to notify is concerned, there are three matters that the Informant needs to prove:

1. That there was a failure to notify and Mr Wigley has acknowledged that there was such a failure on this occasion;

2. That the mare had a "condition"; and

3. That that condition may have affected the running of the mare in the Race.

As far as the second matter referred to is concerned, it is clear that on race morning MYSTIFY did have a condition in that she was dehydrated to a degree that Mr Wigley was concerned for her welfare. Mr Wigley told us that he was satisfied that, later in the day and prior to Race 12, the mare had fully recovered and was, in his opinion, in a fit state to race.

We have no evidence before us, other that Mr Wigley's own statement, as to whether or not the mare was, in fact, still suffering from any dehydration. Mr Wigley referred to a previous experience he had had, some years ago, with another mare trained by him where the situation was similar to the present one and he had regretted, he said, running that horse on that occasion. Mr Wigley has conceded, by implication, that dehydration is a condition.

The third matter on which we have to be satisfied is that the condition may have affected the running of MYSTIFY in the Race. As stated previously, the only evidence we have on this is Mr Wigley's own statement that he was satisfied the mare had recovered from the condition and that her performance in the Race would not be affected.

This Committee prefers the view that the performance of the mare, suffering from dehydration on the morning of the Race, may have been affected and, in fact, was likely to have been affected by that condition. Mr Wigley should have realised this and should, therefore, have reported the condition to the Stipendiary Stewards as required by the Rule. We do not believe that Mr Wigley's honest belief provides a defence to the charge as the condition was such that a reasonable trainer would have believed that the horse's performance in the Race may have been affected and, therefore, should be reported to the Stipendiary Stewards.

We believe that a trainer, if in any doubt whatsoever, and Mr Wigley in this case should have had doubts, should report the condition to the Stipendiary Stewards.

We are satisfied that Mr Wigley did, on this occasion, fail to notify the Stipendiary Stewards of a condition that his horse had been suffering from on race morning and, although he may have believed the horse had fully recovered by race time, that he should have reasonably formed the view that her performance may have been affected by that condition. His failure to notify in those circumstances amounts to a breach of Rule 707 (6) (a) and, accordingly, we find the charge to be proved."

Mr Ching informed the Committee that Mr Wigley had a clean record and had not previously appeared before a Judicial Committee.

With reference to the breach of Rule 707(6) (a), Mr Ching submitted that the Rule was in place to protect punters and give transparency to the industry. He was aware of only one previous penalty for a breach of the Rule which was in November 2006 when a training partnership admitted a breach and was fined the sum of $800 in the case of a horse with an obvious cut to its leg which got to the start before the condition was detected. Mr Ching submitted that the fine of $800 was the "bottom line" for a breach of the Rule. He further submitted that, in the present case, the condition had a "hidden element" and was not visible and would have gone undetected but for the particular circumstances.

He said that the Stipendiary Stewards were seeking a fine in the range of $800 to $2,000.

Mr Ching submitted that the charge under Rule 1004 (2C) was the more serious of the two charges. Mr Ching said it was acknowledged that the treatment had been for the welfare of the horse. The horse was a favoured runner. The breach strikes at "the core of racing integrity" and the perception of horses being drenched or tubed on raceday is "quite negative" for the industry from a punter's perspective and other licensed persons who witnessed it. He submitted that the penalty should be a deterrent one. Mr Ching referred to the penalty provision contained in Rule 1004 (3).

Mr Ching informed the Committee that he was not seeking a suspension or disqualification for the breach. He submitted that the Committee should consider a fine in the range of between $2,000 and $5,000.

Mr Wigley submitted that, as a consequence of the late scratching of MYSTIFY, he had already suffered a financial penalty having incurred nomination and acceptance fees, transport costs for himself and the horse and accommodation costs. In addition, he said, the horse was denied the opportunity of starting in the easiest race in which it would have ever started and would probably have collected the winner's stake.

He referred to a 35-year involvement in the industry as an administrator, an owner, a breeder and an owner/trainer. He was a former President of the North Canterbury Racing Club, a member of the District Committee and had been on the Graded Stakes Committee, Mr Wigley said.

Mr Wigley stated that this was the first "mistake" that he had made and it was a "genuine mistake".

The relevant penalty Rules are Rules 1003 (1) and 1004 (3) for breaches of Rules 707 (6) (a) and Rule 1004 (2C) respectively.

These provide:

It is clear from those penalty provisions that the legislators intended that a breach of Rule 1004 (2C) be regarded as a more serious offence than a breach of Rule 707 (6) (a). We agree that the former is the more serious.

We now deal with each breach in turn, dealing first with the less serious ? the breach of failing to report a condition or occurrence to the Stipendiary Stewards. This charge was defended by Mr Wigley so he is not entitled to any credit for an admission. We do, however, take into account that Mr Wigley has not previously breached the Rule and has a previously unblemished record over a 35-year involvement in the industry. What is of concern to the Committee, in this instance, is that Mr Wigley took it upon himself to be the sole judge of the horse's condition and of whether that condition was one that may affect the running of the horse. The Rule is, we believe, intended to take this decision out of the hands of trainers and place it in the hands of the Stipendiary Stewards. We agree with Mr Ching in this regard. A trainer is not always in a position to make a dispassionate judgment call affecting his horse that will necessarily be in the best interests of the betting public, whom the Rule is primarily intended to protect. Mr Wigley referred to the fact that the horse was a clear favourite for the race as something of a mitigating factor. The Committee does not see it that way. On the contrary, we believe that the duty of Mr Wigley to the betting public, who were investing considerable amounts on the horse in good faith, was even higher in those circumstances. It is clear to the Committee that Mr Wigley, as he stated having incurred considerable expense getting MYSTIFY to the meeting and strongly fancying her chances in the Race, was prepared to "risk" the mare rather than inform the Stewards and likely have them order her withdrawal. He was advised by Mr Gillespie as early as 1.30pm to advise the Stewards and Mr Wigley, by his own admission, still elected not to report what had happened. It is clear that, but for the intervention of the Stewards, MYSTIFY would have taken part in Race 12. There is an element of deceptive conduct in Mr Wigley's actions and this is an aggravating factor.

With regard to the breach of Rule 1004 (2C) ? administering a substance by nasal gastric tube during a day of racing - Mr Wigley quite properly admitted the breach. He is entitled to some credit for that and for his previous good record and contribution to the industry. However, while the Committee does accept that the breach arose out of Mr Wigley's undoubted concern for his mare, the breach is a serious one. The substance administered was not, in this instance, one that is prohibited under the New Zealand Rules of Racing. That is the only saving grace. The perception is important and that perception was very detrimental to the integrity of racing. The Committee accepts Mr Wigley's statement that the procedure was carried out in the open in view of others and that there was no subterfuge. However, Mr Wigley should have been aware that it was contrary to the Rules to drench a horse on raceday and the Committee believes that he was so aware. There is really no excuse for what happened as the opportunity to have the procedure overseen by a Stipendiary Steward was available to Mr Wigley and this would not have been detrimental to the welfare of MYSTIFY, although it may have resulted in her being scratched from the Race which ultimately she was in any event. It was completely foolhardy for Mr Wigley to proceed to have his mare drenched on raceday, in a flagrant breach of the Rule, and it does him no credit.

Mr Wigley, in his submissions, asked the Committee to take into account that he has already suffered a financial penalty by virtue of MYSTIFY having been withdrawn from the Race by the Stewards. He referred to the cost of transporting the mare to the meeting and associated costs and the likely loss of the winning stake. The Committee records that it gave no weight to this submission in arriving at penalty.

Two factors that the Committee has taken into account in arriving at penalty on both counts are the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing (Rule 1122 (2) (d)) and the need to deter other persons who may be minded to offend in a similar way. The former is clearly of the utmost importance when determining penalty.

Mr Ching told the Committee that he is not seeking a period of suspension or disqualification against Mr Wigley and the Committee agrees that the breaches can be dealt with by way of monetary penalties. Because of the seriousness of the breaches, the fines will need to be substantial. The Committee is able to get some guidance as to quantum from the previous case referred to under Rule 707 (6) (a) ? in that case the breach was admitted and a fine of $800 was imposed. However, the Committee is not assisted by any similar case or cases of which it is aware under Rule 1004 (2C).

Taking all matters into account, the Committee orders that Mr Wigley be fined the sum of $1,200 in respect of the breach of Rule 707 (6) (a) (Information 7325) and the sum of $4,000 in respect of the breach of Rule 1004 (2C) (Information 7326).

Mr Ching did not seek costs on behalf of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing. However, Mr Wigley is ordered to pay costs in the sum of $250 to the Judicial Control Authority, such payment to be made to New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.

R G McKenzie

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 707.6.a, 1004.2C, 1004.3, 1122.2.d

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: