Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J Collett 2 June 2012 – Decision dated 4 June 2012

hearingid: bca8e715206f6f1da5678e52018c2a2b

informantnumber: A2607

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 24/05/2012

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J Collett 2 June 2012 - Decision dated 4 June 2012

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY

HELD AT ELLERSLIE RACECOURSE on SATURDAY, 2 JUNE 2012

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing

BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Informant

AND MR J COLLETT – Licensed Apprentice Rider
Defendant

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Mr A Dooley (Chairman) - Mrs N Moffatt (Committee Member)

Charge:

The informant, Mr C George, Chief Stipendiary Steward, alleged that Mr J Collett breached Rule 709(1) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules of Racing in that when he rode at Whangarei Racing Club on 2nd May 2012, he had placed a bet via his TAB account on himself to win the Jockey Challenge at the said meeting.

Rule 709(1) provides: NO BETTING ON JOCKEY CHALLENGE. A rider may not bet or have another person bet on their behalf on a Jockey Challenge.

Mr J Collett acknowledged he had received a copy of the charge and the relevant rules. He told the committee that he understood them.

Evidence:

Mr Oatham, acting on behalf of Mr George, informed the committee that records obtained through the RIU Betting Analyst had identified that Mr J. Collett had placed a bet on himself to win the Jockey Challenge on 2 May 2012. The investment was for $190 at odds of $1.70 to return $323 if he was successful.

Mr Oatham confirmed that Mr J Collett had placed his bet on his mobile phone and therefore had committed a breach of this rule. He advised the committee that Mr J Collett on the day, dead heated with another rider in the Jockey Challenge. He stated this rule had the potential to become a stronger integrity issue if a Jockey became unwell during a raceday.

Mr J Collett informed the committee that at the time he placed the bet on himself to win the Jockey Challenge he believed there was no difference to him betting on himself to win a race.

In response to a question from the committee, Mr J Collett said that at the time he placed the bet on the Jockey Challenge he was unaware of the rule that was in place. This was confirmed by his surprise manner when confronted by Mr Coles, Stipendiary Steward.

Mr Oatham, when asked by the committee, advised us that this rule had been in place since October 2009 and in consultation with the Jockey's Association.

Mr Lucock informed the committee he believed it to be a straight forward case.

Decision:

As Mr J Collett admitted the breach we find the charge proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Oatham produced Mr J Collett’s record which showed he had a clear record under this rule. Mr Oatham referred to 2 other cases involving jockeys betting; however he did concede they were under a different rule. He said that there was nothing sinister in Mr J Collett’s actions and was comfortable that he did not understand the rule at the time he placed the bet. He submitted a monetary penalty in the $500 to $700 range would be an appropriate penalty.

Mr J Collett, when asked for his submissions on penalty, said he was fine with the submissions of Mr Oatham.

Reasons for Penalty:

The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The mitigating factors are Mr J Collett’s admission of the breach and his clear record under this rule. We accept that Mr J Collett was unaware at the time he was unable to back himself to win the Jockey Challenge based on the fact that he can back himself to win a race. We believe Mr J Collett placed the bet in good faith and there was nothing sinister in his actions. However, the committee is mindful that there are nonetheless restrictions and conditions under the Rules of Racing that must be complied with in the course of such bets being placed. These restrictions and conditions were in place to ensure protection of the integrity of racing, which was paramount for the public to have confidence in racing and the administration of racing.

The committee had no precedent case to refer to under this rule. We believe after deliberation an appropriate penalty for this breach is a $500 fine.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

Accordingly, we impose a fine of $500.

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 709(1)

Informant: Mr C George - Chief Stipendiary Steward

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Lucock -Trainer assisting Mr Collett

Respondent: Mr J Collett - Licensed Apprentice Rider

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: