Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v G B Bull 23 May 2013 – Decision dated 5 June 2013

hearingid: 5629b295c155b47bff30261b526d89f9

informantnumber: A1556, A1557 and A1558

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 31/05/2013

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v G B Bull 23 May 2013 - Decision dated 5 June 2013

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY

HRNZ v Mr G B Bull

Rule:  505(1), 1001(1)(k) and 868(1)

Held:  Thursday, 23 May 2013 at Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Judicial Committee:  R G McKenzie, Chairman - J M Phelan, Committee Member

Registrar:  Mr M Zarb

Present:  Mr S W Wallis - the Informant, Mr G B Bull - the Respondent, Mr M Zarb - Registrar, Mr N G McIntyre - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward

RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON PENALTY

THE CHARGES:

[1] Mr Bull is charged with three charges as follows:

(i) That on Sunday, 7th April 2013 you as the horseman of KELLYROX in Race 1, The Bishopdale & Bush Inn TABs Amateur Drivers Mobile Pace, at the meeting held by the Rangiora Harness Racing Club placed bets on horses that were entered and raced in the abovementioned race of which you were not driving [sic] – the particulars being that you placed a Treble and Trifecta bet on the said race which included horses of which you were not the driver, thereby committing a breach of Rule 505 (1). (Information No. A1556)

(ii) That on Sunday, 7th April 2013 after placing several bets on Race 1, The Bishopdale & Bush Inn TABs Amateur Drivers Mobile Pace, you gave a false and misleading statement to Stipendiary Stewards when being interviewed regarding a post-race matter – the particulars being that during this interview when asked by Stipendiary Stewards if you had placed a bet on the abovementioned race on your horse KELLYROX you wilfully responded “No” on both occasions thereby committing a breach of Rule 1001 (1) (k). (Information No. A1557); and

(iii) That on Sunday, 7th April 2012 at the Rangiora Harness Racing Club’s meeting you as the horseman of KELLYROX in Race 1, The Bishopdale & Bush Inn TABs Amateur Drivers Mobile Pace, failed to permit the said horse to be run on its merits – the particulars being that between the 200 and 40 metres you intentionally failed to drive KELLYROX out when there was no impediment for you not to do so and as a consequence committed a breach of Rule 868 (1). (Information No. A1558)

[2] Mr Wallis produced a letter from Mr M R Godber, Operations Manager for the Racing Integrity Unit, authorising the filing of the informations pursuant to Rule 1103 (4) (c) (“Exhibit 1”)

[3] Mr Bull was present at the hearing of the informations. Each of the three charges was read to him in turn, together with the relevant Rule, and he indicated that he admitted each of the three charges.

[4] The charges were accordingly found proved.

THE RULES:

[5] The relevant Rules are as follows:

505 (1) A horseman who is driving a horse in a race may only bet on the horse he or she is driving. A breach of this Rule is declared to be a serious racing offence.

1001 (1) Every person commits a serious racing offence within the meaning of these Rules, who, in New Zealand or any other country:-

(k) wilfully supplies any false or misleading information, or makes any false or misleading declaration or statement, respecting any matter connected with racing or otherwise under these Rules to a . . . Stipendiary Steward.

868 (1) No person including a horseman, shall run a horse, or cause or permit a horse to be run other than on its merits.

BACKGROUND:

[6] Mr Bull is the holder of an Advanced Amateur Horseman’s Licence issued by Harness Racing New Zealand.

[7] At the meeting of Rangiora Harness Racing Club held at Rangiora on Sunday, 7th April 2013, Mr Bull was the driver of KELLYROX, owned by him and trained by A D Stuart, in Race 1, The Bishopdale & Bush Inn TAB’s Amateur Drivers’ Mobile Pace.

[8] KELLYROX finished in 3rd placing in the race, the official margins being a nose and a head.

[9] Following the race, the Stewards had concerns over the manner in which Mr Bull drove KELLYROX over the concluding stages, in particular, his lack of discernible vigour over the final 200 metres and, as a consequence, commenced an investigation into the matter.

INFORMATION Nos. A1556 & A1557:

[10] Following the race, Stewards questioned Mr Bull on various aspects of his driving which included questioning him about whether he had placed a bet on the race and/or on his horse, KELLYROX.

[11] From a transcript of the raceday interview (produced as “Exhibit 2”), which Mr Bull confirmed at the hearing as a true and accurate record, it was established that the following conversation took place:

Mr Ydgren (Stipendiary Steward): Did you have a bet in the race?

Mr Bull: Pardon?

Mr Ydgren: Did you have a bet in the race?

Mr Bull: No.

Mr Ydgren: Not at all?

Mr Bull: No.

Mr Ydgren: You didn’t bet on your horse?

Mr Bull: No.

[12] It was subsequently established that Mr Bull had placed bets on Race 1, in which he drove KELLYROX, by means of his TAB telephone betting account, which bets contravened the provisions of Rule 505 (1) in that he invested in both a treble and a trifecta bet in which his horse, KELLYROX, was not selected to win.

[13] Mr Wallis produced a copy of a printout (“Exhibit 3”) from the TAB showing the bets placed by Mr Bull on the race.

[14] That printout showed that Mr Bull had placed a $20 percentage treble bet on Races 1, 2 and 3, in which he had selected IN TANDEM and THE BURNING QUESTION in Race 1, the race in which he was driving KELLYROX.

[15] That printout further showed that he had placed a $20 percentage trifecta bet on Race 1 in which he selected only THE BURNING QUESTION to win, IN TANDEM, THE LUTTS and KELLYROX to finish 2nd and the field to finish 3rd.

[16[ Finally, the printout showed that Mr Bull also placed a $20 fixed odds place bet on KELLYROX at $2.10.

[17] The treble and trifecta bets were in clear breach of Rule 505 (1).

[18] Stewards were, initially, left with no reason to question the truth of Mr Bull’s post-race statements that he had not placed any bet or bets on the race. However, the evidence uncovered by the RIU’s Betting Analyst revealed that Mr Bull’s statements to Stewards on raceday were false or misleading and, therefore, in breach of Rule 1001 (1) (k).

INFORMATION No. 1558:

[20] On the raceday, Stewards charged Mr Bull with a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that he had “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures in the run home to ensure that [his] horse KELLYROX was given every possible opportunity to win the race or obtain the best finishing position”.

[21] Information No. A1558 was subsequently filed (see details above). The charge under Rule 868 (2) was subsequently withdrawn by leave of this Committee upon the application of the Racing Integrity Unit.

[22] Prior to showing the video replay of Race 1 at the Rangiora meeting on 7th April, Mr Wallis informed the Committee that Mr Bull had lost his whip prior to the start of the race.

[23] KELLYROX had started 4/3 in the order of betting, paying $8.40 for a win and $2.40 for a place, and drew barrier position 11 (2 on the 2nd row) in the mobile start 2600 metres race.

[24] The Stewards were concerned over Mr Bull’s drive. He made two efforts to pull the earplugs and made no effort until approximately 40 metres to run when he gave the horse “a couple of slaps” with the reins. Mr Wallis pointed out THE BURNING QUESTION, which had been in the trail behind the leader, racing in the passing lane.

[25] Mr Wallis then showed video replays of several other races in which KELLYROX had started, driven by Mr Bull, since the end of February 2013. Mr Wallis pointed out the contrast in the vigour shown by Mr Bull in each of those races to his drive in question on KELLYROX. One such race, at Motukarara, was one week after the Rangiora race. Mr Wallis said that, had KELLYROX won the Rangiora race, it would have been ineligible for the Motukarara race – the Vacation Cup, a prestigious non-tote race for amateur drivers. Drivers are not permitted to carry whips but, Mr Wallis pointed out, Mr Bull vigorously used his reins for almost the entire length of the 400 metres home straight, the horse finishing in 3rd place.

[26] Mr Wallis produced a veterinary certificate (“Exhibit 4”) by Mr Sam Taylor BVSc of Rangiora Vet Centre which stated:
“[KELLYROX] was examined by myself post racing on Sunday 7th April at the Rangiora Harness Racing. There were no abnormalities detected.”

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT:

[27] Mr Bull referred to the videos of each of the races shown by Mr Wallis and two additional races on 25 April and 19 May. He wished to make the point that KELLYROX had only a short sprint in her races and had to be driven accordingly. This was not contested by Mr Wallis.

[28] Mr Bull explained how he came to place the bets on the Race which form part of the charge under Rule 505 (1). He said that he had noticed on Teletext, on the morning of the race, that THE BURNING QUESTION was paying $1.60 and KELLYROX had not been able to beat THE LUTTS in three starts. He said that he had put the bets on for his wife and that they were not for himself. However, he acknowledged that he had to accept responsibility for the bets, as they were placed on his telephone account. He submitted that the bets were only of a modest amount and were not large bets.

[29] He asserted that he had done his best to win the race with KELLYROX but had elected to admit the charge after having had some time to consider his plea.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:

[30] Mr Wallis submitted that honesty is a fundamental cornerstone of racing. Mr Bull had admitted making a false statement to Stewards concerning his betting activities. It is imperative that, to ensure the efficient running of a raceday and to ensure that the integrity of racing is not compromised, licence holders be transparent and cooperate with Stewards.

[31] Mr Bull had made a statement to Stewards which was, in every respect, false and misleading in order to avoid facing action involving his betting activities and to not draw attention to how he had driven KELLYROX in the race.

[31] Mr Bull’s actions had also had a detrimental effect not only on punters betting on the race but also on any potential punters who will read the Committee’s decision and be turned away by his actions.

[32] As is the case with all drivers, Mr Bull carried with him the weight of public money and the responsibility to uphold the integrity of harness racing. Harness racing is now, well and truly, a global product and its integrity and image cannot be compromised. It is the Stewards’ job to appropriately protect these.

[33] Mr Wallis stressed that, taking all of the circumstances into account, it was paramount that a deterrent penalty be imposed to be seen by the public and all participants in the industry. The penalty should reflect the serious nature of the breaches and, at the same time, serve as a deterrent to any participants who believe that this style of driving and conduct is acceptable.

[34] Mr Bull is facing three very serious charges, two of which, Rule 505 (1) and 1001 (1) (k), are deemed to be “serious racing offences”.

[35] The starting point for a breach of Rule 501 (1) is, according to the Penalty Guide, a $5,000 fine and/or disqualification for 2 years. For a breach of Rule 1001 (1) (k), the starting point is disqualification for 6 months and, for a breach of Rule 868 (1), the starting point is a $2,000 fine and/or disqualification for 3 months, Mr Wallis said. Mr Bull’s offending fell in the high range of all three breaches, he submitted.

[36] Mr Bull had wilfully lied to Stewards and had placed bets on horses that, to be successful, required his own horse to lose. He then failed to drive his horse to the required standard.

[37] Mr Wallis acknowledged that Mr Bull had a clear record and he had admitted all three charges at the first available opportunity.

[38] Mr Wallis submitted that the appropriate penalty was a period of disqualification of not less than 2 years. Stewards had no objection to any periods of disqualification being served concurrently.

RESPONDENT’S PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:

[39] Mr Bull acknowledged that he was aware of the consequences of a disqualification.

[40] Mr Bull produced character references from Mr Mike Maynard, Vice Chairman of the Canterbury Amateur Drivers’ Association, and from Licensed Public Trainer, Mr Andrew Stuart (Exhibits “5” and “6” respectively).

[41] In response to a question from the Committee as to his ability to pay a fine, Mr Bull described himself as “a bit of a battler” and said that he did not have the means to pay a large fine.

COSTS:

[42] No order for costs was sought by the RIU.

THE PENALTY RULES:

[43] The relevant Rule for serious racing offences Rule 1001 (2) which provides as follows:

Every person who commits a serious racing offence shall be liable to the following penalties:

(a) a fine not exceeding $30,000; and/or

(b) suspension from holding or obtaining a licence, for any specific period or for life; and/or

(c) disqualification for a specific period or for life.

[44] Rule 1103 comes under the heading of “General Penalties” and provides as follows:

(1) A person who commits a breach of any Rule shall . . . be liable to the following penalties:

(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000.00; and/or

(b) suspension from holding or obtaining a licence for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or

(c) disqualification for a period not exceeding 12 months.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

[45] Mr Bull has admitted three breaches of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. The charges relating to betting and giving false and misleading information to a Stipendiary Steward are categorised as “serious racing offences” for which the penalties are set out in Rule 1001 (2) above. The penalty for the driving offence is provided for in Rule 1003 (1), also set out above.

[46] During the course of the hearing, Mr Bull, somewhat naively, attempted to resile from his admission of liability in respect of the driving charge. The Committee was not impressed, as the wording of the charge was very specific and, furthermore, Mr Bull had had ample opportunity to consider his plea to the charge and, if he wished, to take advice legal or other advice or assistance.

[47] Furthermore, neither was the Committee impressed by Mr Bull’s explanation that the treble and trifecta bets were placed on behalf of his wife. Frankly, the Committee did not believe that explanation and it did no credit to Mr Bull that he should advance that explanation rather than own up to the charge when the evidence was irrefutable. Similarly, his explanation for lying to the Stewards, when questioned as to whether he had had a bet or bets on the race was disingenuous and unconvincing.

[48] It is difficult to view the driving offence as being completely separate from the other two offences and it is easy to find a link in that, having placed bets on the race on horses other than KELLYROX, which he was driving, to win the race Mr Bull then failed to drive that horse on its merits, seemingly, to ensure that it did not win the race.

[49] It appeared to the Committee that Mr Bull had little remorse for any of his offending and that he did not totally accept blame for any of the breaches. We gained the impression that he did not fully appreciate that the charges he was facing were very serious ones.

[50] Mr Bull is entitled to some credit for his admission of the charges and his previous good record. The two character references produced by him describe him, variously, as “trustworthy”, “of good integrity” and “honest and forthright”. These are the mitigating factors that the Committee took into account.

[51] Rule 1114 (2) (d) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing requires a Judicial Committee, in determining penalty in any case, to have regard to “the need to maintain integrity and public confidence”. This Committee is very conscious of this need, particularly in the case of serious racing offences, as two of the offences are in this case. Serious racing offences, by definition, tend to strike at the very heart of the industry.

[52] The offence of causing or permitting a horse to run other than on its merits might well be described as one of the most serious of all driving-related offences and the Committee is conscious that it is indeed a very serious one.

[53] In considering sentence, the Committee has taken into account the usual purposes of sentencing – that is to say, to hold Mr Bull accountable and promote in him a sense of responsibility, denunciation of his conduct and to deter Mr Bull and other persons.

[54] We have also had regard to the usual principles of sentencing including the gravity of Mr Bull’s offending, the maximum penalties for each breach and Mr Bull’s personal circumstances.

[55] The Committee has obtained considerable guidance from the “Guides for Judicial Committees” which was replaced in 2011 by the “Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees”. The latter does not deal with any of the Rules under which Mr Bull has been charged.

[56] The starting point provided for in the “Guides for Judicial Committees” for penalty for a breach of Rule 505 (1) is a $5,000 fine and/or disqualification for 2 years. For a breach of Rule 1001 (1) (k), the starting point is disqualification for 6 months and for a breach of Rule 868 (1), it is a $2,000 fine and/or disqualification for 3 months.

[57] The charges relating to betting and subsequently supplying false or misleading information to Stewards concerning that betting may fairly be regarded as being connected with one another and arising out of the one course of conduct or activity.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

[58] On that basis, the Committee orders that Mr Bull shall be disqualified for a period of 1 year on the breach of Rules 505 (1) (betting on a rival horse) and for a period of 6 months for the breach of Rule 1001 (1) (k) (supplying false or misleading information), such periods to be served concurrently.

[59] On the charge under Rule 868 (1) (horse not run on its merits), Mr Bull shall be disqualified for a period of 2 months, such period of disqualification to be consecutive with the concurrent period of 1 year for the other two charges.

[60] In fixing the total period of disqualification to be served at 1 year and 2 months, the Committee has taken into account the mitigating factors referred to in paragraph [48] above, the need to balance the total period with deterrence and adequate denunciation of the conduct involved and that Mr Bull is an amateur horseman.

COSTS:

[61] Mr Bull is ordered to pay hearing costs to the Judicial Control Authority in the sum of $350.00.

[62] No order for costs was made in favour of the Informant.

R G McKenzie       J M Phelan
CHAIR                  PANELLIST
 

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 505(1), 1001(1)(k) and 868(1)

Informant: Mr S W Wallis - Stipendiary Steward - Racing Integrity Unit

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr S W Wallis - the Informant, Mr G B Bull - the Respondent, Mr M Zarb - Registrar, Mr N G McIntyre - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward

Respondent: Mr G B Bull - Licensed Advanced Amateur Driver

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: