Non Raceday Inquiry – NZTR v JS Bullard 9 April 2011 – Decision
ID: JCA15746
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand
Rules of Racing
BETWEEN New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing
Informant
AND Jamie Shane BULLARD Licensed Jockey
Defendant
DATE OF HEARING: 9 April 2010
VENUE: Judicial Room, Riccarton Racecourse.
PRESENT: Mr R. D. Scott (Racing Investigator) for Racing Integrity Unit, Mr J. S. Bullard (defendant), Mr D. J. Lloyd (representing Mr Bullard),
Mr M. R. Davidson (Registrar)
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: J. M. Phelan (Chairman), R. G. McKenzie (Committee Member)
DATE OF DECISION:
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE’S DECISION ON PENALTY AND COSTS
[1] Information No. 61912 has been filed by Racing Investigator Mr R. D. Scott, and alleges a breach of Rule 656(3) of the Rules of Racing by the defendant, Licensed Jockey Mr J. S. Bullard. The charge reads as follows.
“I, the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of Rule 656(3) IN THAT on Wednesday 16 February 2011 at the Riccarton Race Course, that Jamie Shane BULLARD, being a rider, who having been requested by a Racing Investigator to supply a sample of his urine which was found upon analysis, to contain the diuretic drug Frusemide, committed a breach of Rule 656(3) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing AND THAT you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to the provisions of Rule 803(1) of the said Rules.”
Rule 656(3) provides as follows.
“(3) A rider who, having been required by a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator to supply a sample of his blood, breath, urine, saliva or sweat (or more than one thereof) in accordance with this Rule must not have blood, breath, urine, saliva or sweat (whichever is the subject of the applicable sample) which is found upon analysis to contain any controlled drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 or other illicit substance or diuretic and/or its metabolites, artifacts or isomers.”
[2] Mr D. J. Lloyd attended this hearing to represent Mr Bullard.
[3] Mr Bullard advised that this breach of the Rules was admitted, and he also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
[4] Mr Scott produced an authority to prosecute from the Chief Executive of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.
[5] Mr Scott also presented and read a “Summary of Facts” relating to this charge. Mr Bullard attended the Canterbury Racing Club’s race meeting at the Riccarton Racecourse on 16 February 2011. A “Drug Testing Notification Form” was served on Mr Bullard, under the provisions of Rule 656(1), requiring Mr Bullard to provide a urine sample, which he did at 3-40pm that day.
[6] The sample was sent to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) for analysis and on 22 February 2011 they advised that this sample had tested positive to the diuretic drug Frusemide. ESR provided a certificate to this effect, and this was produced at the hearing.
[7] When spoken to about this matter Mr Bullard stated that he had not taken any Frusemide prior to racing on 16 February 2011, but that he had taken a herbal tablet (“Optislim”) in an effort to lose weight. A tablet of “Optislim” was later analysed and tested negative to Frusemide.
[8] Mr Lloyd explained that Mr Bullard had been prescribed Frusemide by his doctor, and that he had taken a tablet on 11 February 2011 in the belief that it would be out of his system in 4 -5 days, and before racing on 16 February 2011. It was only after the positive test had been advised that Mr Bullard was able to ascertain that Frusemide takes something like seven days to exit the system. After becoming aware of these facts Mr Bullard decided to admit this breach, and had he been aware of the ramifications he would not have taken the tablet.
[9] Mr Lloyd said that Mr Bullard has had weight problems for quite some time, and had taken various substances to keep his weight down. He had difficulty in riding at under 56 kilograms. He was a leading jockey and had not previously been convicted of any breach of the Rules of this nature.
Submissions on Penalty:
[10] Mr Scott presented and read submissions on penalty. He said that NZTR has an illicit drug free policy in terms of all riders whether they ride in races, trials or in track work. The Rules were amended as from 1 January 2007 to include the diuretic drug Frusemide, and the change came about for reasons of health and safety, and after consultation with the Jockey’s Association.
[11] Mr Scott produced a list of eight previous prosecutions relating to Frusemide. Two related to cases where there had been previous breaches, and the penalties imposed in those cases were not helpful. Of the other six cases, the first prosecution in 2007 had resulted in a fine of $1000-00. The other five (more recent) cases had resulted in four jockeys being fined $500-00, and one being fined $750-00.
[12] On behalf of NZTR Mr Scott submitted that on this occasion a fine between $500-00 and
$750-00 would be appropriate for a senior rider who offends for the first time in regards to diuretic drugs.
[13] On behalf of Mr Bullard, Mr Lloyd listed the following matters which should be considered by us relating to penalty.
a) This is Mr Bullard’s first offence of this nature.
b) He has been co-operative during this enquiry.
c) The Frusemide pill had been prescribed by his own doctor.
d) Frusemide is not an illegal drug under New Zealand laws, and it was only taken in an effort to get his weight down.
e) The Frusemide was taken in ignorance of the true withholding period, and there was no intent to deceive.
Penalty:
[14] The penalties for a breach of Rule 656(3) are set out in Rule 803(1), which, so far as it is relevant, provides as follows.
“(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.”
[15] We were satisfied that Mr Bullard has a very good record, with no previous convictions in relation to the drug rules. We were also satisfied that Mr Bullard admitted the breach as soon as he became aware of the true withholding time.
[16] On the other hand Mr Bullard knew he was taking a diuretic drug which was contrary to the Rules of Racing. He said he thought it would clear his body system in 4 – 5 days, which was incorrect. When deciding to use Frusemide Mr Bullard could easily have established the actual time it took to clear his system, and in this respect he was negligent.
[17] Taking all the above matters into account we were satisfied that a fine of $750-00 was appropriate in this case, and accordingly Mr Bullard is fined the sum of $750-00.
Costs:
[18] Mr Scott advised that no costs were being sought by NZTR. There will however be an order that Mr Bullard pay costs of $225-00 to the JCA.
_________________ __________________
J. M. Phelan R. G. McKenzie
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 14/04/2011
Publish Date: 14/04/2011
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: caec40617b0d7e45315ad399e3447532
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 14/04/2011
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - NZTR v JS Bullard 9 April 2011 - Decision
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand
Rules of Racing
BETWEEN New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing
Informant
AND Jamie Shane BULLARD Licensed Jockey
Defendant
DATE OF HEARING: 9 April 2010
VENUE: Judicial Room, Riccarton Racecourse.
PRESENT: Mr R. D. Scott (Racing Investigator) for Racing Integrity Unit, Mr J. S. Bullard (defendant), Mr D. J. Lloyd (representing Mr Bullard),
Mr M. R. Davidson (Registrar)
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: J. M. Phelan (Chairman), R. G. McKenzie (Committee Member)
DATE OF DECISION:
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE’S DECISION ON PENALTY AND COSTS
[1] Information No. 61912 has been filed by Racing Investigator Mr R. D. Scott, and alleges a breach of Rule 656(3) of the Rules of Racing by the defendant, Licensed Jockey Mr J. S. Bullard. The charge reads as follows.
“I, the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of Rule 656(3) IN THAT on Wednesday 16 February 2011 at the Riccarton Race Course, that Jamie Shane BULLARD, being a rider, who having been requested by a Racing Investigator to supply a sample of his urine which was found upon analysis, to contain the diuretic drug Frusemide, committed a breach of Rule 656(3) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing AND THAT you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to the provisions of Rule 803(1) of the said Rules.”
Rule 656(3) provides as follows.
“(3) A rider who, having been required by a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator to supply a sample of his blood, breath, urine, saliva or sweat (or more than one thereof) in accordance with this Rule must not have blood, breath, urine, saliva or sweat (whichever is the subject of the applicable sample) which is found upon analysis to contain any controlled drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 or other illicit substance or diuretic and/or its metabolites, artifacts or isomers.”
[2] Mr D. J. Lloyd attended this hearing to represent Mr Bullard.
[3] Mr Bullard advised that this breach of the Rules was admitted, and he also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
[4] Mr Scott produced an authority to prosecute from the Chief Executive of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.
[5] Mr Scott also presented and read a “Summary of Facts” relating to this charge. Mr Bullard attended the Canterbury Racing Club’s race meeting at the Riccarton Racecourse on 16 February 2011. A “Drug Testing Notification Form” was served on Mr Bullard, under the provisions of Rule 656(1), requiring Mr Bullard to provide a urine sample, which he did at 3-40pm that day.
[6] The sample was sent to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) for analysis and on 22 February 2011 they advised that this sample had tested positive to the diuretic drug Frusemide. ESR provided a certificate to this effect, and this was produced at the hearing.
[7] When spoken to about this matter Mr Bullard stated that he had not taken any Frusemide prior to racing on 16 February 2011, but that he had taken a herbal tablet (“Optislim”) in an effort to lose weight. A tablet of “Optislim” was later analysed and tested negative to Frusemide.
[8] Mr Lloyd explained that Mr Bullard had been prescribed Frusemide by his doctor, and that he had taken a tablet on 11 February 2011 in the belief that it would be out of his system in 4 -5 days, and before racing on 16 February 2011. It was only after the positive test had been advised that Mr Bullard was able to ascertain that Frusemide takes something like seven days to exit the system. After becoming aware of these facts Mr Bullard decided to admit this breach, and had he been aware of the ramifications he would not have taken the tablet.
[9] Mr Lloyd said that Mr Bullard has had weight problems for quite some time, and had taken various substances to keep his weight down. He had difficulty in riding at under 56 kilograms. He was a leading jockey and had not previously been convicted of any breach of the Rules of this nature.
Submissions on Penalty:
[10] Mr Scott presented and read submissions on penalty. He said that NZTR has an illicit drug free policy in terms of all riders whether they ride in races, trials or in track work. The Rules were amended as from 1 January 2007 to include the diuretic drug Frusemide, and the change came about for reasons of health and safety, and after consultation with the Jockey’s Association.
[11] Mr Scott produced a list of eight previous prosecutions relating to Frusemide. Two related to cases where there had been previous breaches, and the penalties imposed in those cases were not helpful. Of the other six cases, the first prosecution in 2007 had resulted in a fine of $1000-00. The other five (more recent) cases had resulted in four jockeys being fined $500-00, and one being fined $750-00.
[12] On behalf of NZTR Mr Scott submitted that on this occasion a fine between $500-00 and
$750-00 would be appropriate for a senior rider who offends for the first time in regards to diuretic drugs.
[13] On behalf of Mr Bullard, Mr Lloyd listed the following matters which should be considered by us relating to penalty.
a) This is Mr Bullard’s first offence of this nature.
b) He has been co-operative during this enquiry.
c) The Frusemide pill had been prescribed by his own doctor.
d) Frusemide is not an illegal drug under New Zealand laws, and it was only taken in an effort to get his weight down.
e) The Frusemide was taken in ignorance of the true withholding period, and there was no intent to deceive.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
[14] The penalties for a breach of Rule 656(3) are set out in Rule 803(1), which, so far as it is relevant, provides as follows.
“(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.”
[15] We were satisfied that Mr Bullard has a very good record, with no previous convictions in relation to the drug rules. We were also satisfied that Mr Bullard admitted the breach as soon as he became aware of the true withholding time.
[16] On the other hand Mr Bullard knew he was taking a diuretic drug which was contrary to the Rules of Racing. He said he thought it would clear his body system in 4 – 5 days, which was incorrect. When deciding to use Frusemide Mr Bullard could easily have established the actual time it took to clear his system, and in this respect he was negligent.
[17] Taking all the above matters into account we were satisfied that a fine of $750-00 was appropriate in this case, and accordingly Mr Bullard is fined the sum of $750-00.
Costs:
[18] Mr Scott advised that no costs were being sought by NZTR. There will however be an order that Mr Bullard pay costs of $225-00 to the JCA.
_________________ __________________
J. M. Phelan R. G. McKenzie
Chairman Committee Member
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 656(3)
Informant: Mr RD Scott - Racing Inspector
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr DJ Lloyd - representing Mr Bullard, Mr MR Davidson - Registrar
Respondent: Mr JS Bullard - 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: