Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v G P Hope and N M Hope 29 November 2013 – Decision dated 29 November 2013

hearingid: 6957eff4885337571ed260916cf32e77

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 30/11/2013

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v G P Hope and N M Hope 29 November 2013 - Decision dated 29 November 2013

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH

IN THE MATTER of Information No. A1649

BETWEEN N M YDGREN, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND GREGORY PETER HOPE and NINA MARIE HOPE of Woodend Beach, Licensed Public Trainers (Partnership)

Respondents

Date of Hearing: Friday, 29 November 2013

Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - K G Hales, Committee Member

Present: Mr N M Ydgren (the Informant), Mr G P Hope (on behalf of self and N M Hope)

Date of Decision: 29 November 2013

RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON PENALTY

THE CHARGE

[1] Information No. A1649 alleges that the Respondents, Mr & Mrs Hope, committed a breach of Rule 411 (2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness racing as follows:

That on the 6th of November 2013, being the person(s) responsible for the nomination and acceptance of the registered racehorse MOSSDALE EDIE ( a 3 year old brown filly by the sire Courage Under Fire from the dam Mossdale Isabella) an acceptor for Race 2 a 2600 metre standing start qualifying event at a trial being conducted by the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club at Addington Raceway on that day, you in fact presented MOSSDALE MAJOR a 3 year old bay filly racehorse (by the sire Major In Art from the dam Mossdale Kara) for the purpose of competing in such trial as the horse MOSSDALE EDIE.

[2] Mr Ydgren 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).

[3] One of the Respondents, Mr G P Hope, was present at the hearing of the information. The charge was read to him, together with the relevant Rule, and he indicated that the partnership admitted the charge.

[4] The charge was accordingly found proved.

THE RULES

[5] The relevant Rules are as follows:

411 (2) Where a horse has, or is deemed to have been accepted for a race at a particular racecourse no other horse shall be brought to the racecourse for the purpose of racing there as the first-mentioned horse.

(5) A breach of this Rule is declared a serious racing offence.

1001(2) 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

SUMMARY OF FACTS

[6] Mr Ydgren presented the following Summary of Facts:

1. On Tuesday the 6th of November the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club trials were held at Addington Raceway.

2. The programme for the meeting showed that Race 2 on the day was a Qualifying Pace to be held over 2600 metres from a standing start.

3. Horse No.2 in that race was shown to be MOSSDALE EDIE, a three year old bay filly by Courage Under Fire-Mossdale Isabella. The horse was trained by Greg and Nina Hope.

4. The brand for this horse was listed as 10Z – on the top line, and 0649 on the bottom line.

5. Prior to this heat the brand was inspected by Stipendiary Steward Rick Quirk who noticed the brand on the horse’s neck did not match. The brand on the horse’s neck read, on the top line 10Z, and on the bottom line 0700.

6. The horse being inspected was discovered to be another three year old bay filly called MOSSDALE MAJOR which had previously been trained by Greg and Nina Hope.

7. Mr Hope was contacted at this time and informed of the anomaly. He notified that the horses had been dropped at his property together and the two had their identity mistaken from the outset. Both horses were owned by the same owner, Mr A Affleck.

8. The horse was then scratched from its engagement at the trials that day.

9. The horse which Mr & Mrs Hope believed to be MOSSDALE MAJOR had been given away some time ago as a non-racing proposition for some time now.

10. On the 5th of November 2013 Mr & Mrs Hope submitted to Harness Racing New Zealand a Trainer Notification stating that MOSSDALE EDIE was in their care. Included in this is the brand for MOSSDALE MAJOR. Neither Mr or Mrs Hope have made any endeavour to cross check the brand on the horse’s neck with those on the computer.

11. Inquiries made found that Mr & Mrs Hope had unknowingly entered and started MOSSDALE MAJOR as MOSSDALE EDIE on two occasions in learners’ heats at the workouts. The first on the 19th of October and secondly on the 26th October. These results have been rectified in the HRNZ database.

[7] Mr Hope said that he telephoned the RIU Stewards the day before the trials to advise that the Trainer Notification Form had not been sent to HRNZ. He was told that it would be in order to do so within 7 days.

[8] He pointed out to the Committee that this had not happened before. The owner had visited their property about one month beforehand to see the horses training. When they “sacked” one horse, the owner had told them which was which. He had admitted to Mr & Mrs Hope that the confusion had been his fault. He does not sell his fillies but retains them for breeding, so there were no consequences as a result of the horse going to the trials. All his horses had the name “Mossdale”. Three horses belonging to that owner had arrived at the Hopes’ stables at the same time and the owner had told them which horses they were.

[9] Mr Hope acknowledged that they had to accept responsibility for presenting the wrong horse. He had been training for 25 years and had lined up “thousands” of horses. They had not previously committed a similar breach. They did not have the “papers” for these horses and, he said, they would normally check the horses through the papers.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

[10] Mr Ydgren made the following submissions in relation to penalty:

1. Mr & Mrs Hope enjoy a clear penalty record for alleged breaches of this Rule (a copy of their penalty record was produced).

2. Mr & Mrs Hope when spoken to regarding the matter admitted fault immediately. They have been entirely cooperative throughout the proceeding and have conducted themselves in a very professional manner. Both Mr & Mrs Hope have taken full responsibility for their actions.

3. The horse was presented to race in a trial. Whilst this is not a desirable incident it is lessened by the fact that it did not occur at the official races. The horse was scratched prior to it racing.

4. A breach of this Rule is a Serious Racing Offence.

5. The failure to check the brand of the horse at any stage was a basic error and should not have occurred.

6. The horse has started in two workouts under the wrong name as a result of this however these results have been corrected.

7. In recent times breaches of this Rule have brought about a number of penalties. (Mr Ydgren cited five decisions in both codes).

8. Due to the circumstances in this matter being extremely similar in nature to that of the B case (2012) we make the following recommendations.

9. The RIU feel this matter can be dealt with by means of a fine.

10. We submit that a $400.00 fine is appropriate.

[11] Mr Hope submitted that the trainer in the B case trains and races one quarter of the number of horses that he and his wife race. They would take a lot more horses to the trials and races than the trainer in B. He and his wife have a racing team of about twenty, he said.

[12] He repeated that he and his wife had not made such a mistake previously.

PENALTY REASONS

[13] The mitigating factors that the Committee took into account in arriving at penalty were Mr & Mrs Hope’s early and frank admission of the breach, their cooperation during the investigation and their previous excellent record. The Committee accepts that they produce a lot of runners at the workouts, trials and races on an annual basis.

[14] The Committee also took into account that the race for which Mr & Mrs Hope had presented the horse was only a qualifying trial and not a totalisator race. However, there could have been consequences had the horse qualified and the error not been detected. Mr & Mrs Hope should be thankful that, because of the vigilance of the Stipendiary Steward at the trials meeting, the mistaken identity was discovered at that stage.

[15] Aggravating factors are that the wrong horse had competed in two workouts, although the Committee accepts Mr Hope’s submission that there were no financial consequences to any party. We also note that the results have now been rectified in HRNZ’s records.

[16] The Committee accepts that the mistake on Mr & Mrs Hope’s part was an innocent one. However, the fact remains that it was a mistake that ought not to have occurred had they taken the appropriate steps that a prudent trainer would have taken. They let themselves down in that respect.

[17] Mr Ydgren produced to the Committee five other decisions (four of them in the thoroughbred code) for breaches of the Rule or the equivalent Rule. In two of the cases, the fine was $600. In two others, the fine was $500. In the only harness racing case referred to, the fine was $400. The two $600 fines were in respect of cases where the incorrect horse was presented to race in a totalisator race. The Committee accepts that those cases are more serious. The two $500 fines related to an incorrect horse being presented at a trial.

[18] In the only harness racing case, B (2012), the facts were similar to the present case. This Committee is of the view that the fine of $400 in that case was lenient and out of line with the earlier cases. We do not feel bound to follow it, notwithstanding Mr Ydgren’s submission.

PENALTY

[19] Mr & Mrs Hope were fined the sum of $500.00

COSTS

[20] The RIU made no application for costs. Because the hearing took place on a raceday, there will be no order for costs to the Judicial Control Authority.

R G McKENZIE             K G HALES

Chair                          Committee Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules:

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: