Non Raceday Inquiry – RIU v J Dickie 26 June 2012 – Decision dated 1 July 2012

hearingid: b1081cbc2c8beb38b164527da5b87c3b

informantnumber: A2461

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 04/07/2012

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - RIU v J Dickie 26 June 2012 - Decision dated 1 July 2012

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Rule:
868(2)

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

HELD AT AUCKLAND

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing

BETWEEN Mr JM Muirhead – Stipendiary Steward

Informant

AND Mr JI Dickie – Junior Horseman

Defendant

Information No: A2461

Venue: Alexandra Park

Judicial Committee: Mr AJ Dooley (Chairman), Mr N McCutcheon (Committee)

Appearing: Mr JM Muirhead, Mr JI Dickie, Mr NM Ydgren – Stipendiary Steward, Mr R Lawson – Representing Mr JI Dickie

Plea: Not admitted

Date of Hearing: 26 June 2012

Non Raceday Inquiry - Decision of Judicial Committee

Charge:

A charge was brought against the Defendant, Junior Horseman Mr JI Dickie in that he committed a breach of Rule 868(2). The informant, Mr JM Muirhead alleged that “Mr Dickie failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures between the 1200m and the 1000m marks in the Streamline Freight Mobile Pace on the 11th May 2012 to ensure that MOTU LIVING GEM was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position when he eased his horse back allowing SKY FALCON (driven by Junior Horseman Z Butcher) to improve inward in front of MOTU LIVING GEM, from a 3 wide position into a more favourable position in the “one – one” position, disadvantaging his own horse”.

Mr Dickie acknowledged that he had received a copy of the charge and the relevant documents.

Rule – 868(2) reads: “ Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.”

The Informant, Mr JM Muirhead served an information on Mr JI Dickie on the 5th June 2012. He alleged that Mr Dickie breached Rule 868(2) whilst driving MOTU LIVING GEM in Race 4 at the Auckland Trotting Club on the 11th May 2012.

The charge was denied and subsequently heard as a Non Raceday Inquiry on the 26th June 2012 at Alexandra Park.

Stipendiary Stewards, Mr J Muirhead and Mr N Ydgren were present and presented evidence on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit Ltd.

Mr Dickie, Junior Horseman was represented at the hearing by Mr R Lawson – Trainer/Lay Advocate.

Mr Muirhead read the rule and Mr Dickie acknowledged that he understood it. He confirmed to the committee he was denying the charge.

Evidence for Informant:

Mr Muirhead informed the committee that he has been employed as a Stipendiary Steward for 29 years. His brief detailing the sequence of events is as follows:

On 11 May 2012, I attended the Auckland Trotting Club’s meeting in the role of Chairman of Stewards. I witnessed Race 4, the “Streamline Freight Mobile Pace” over a distance of 2200m from the Stewards’ viewing area opposite the winning post, approximately 5 stories above the track.

This race had a total of nine runners - the three stable mate runners from Mr B Purdon’s stable had all drawn beside each other in behind the mobile barrier. MOTU LIVING GEM (J Dickie) drew barrier position 5; LOS AMANTE (B Mangos) drew barrier position 6; and SKY FAL-CON (Z Butcher) drew barrier position 7.

The favourite SKY FALCON was 1/2 in the betting. The second favourite MOTU LIVING GEM was 2/1 in the betting.

After the start, MOTU LIVING GEM from barrier 5 attempted to move forward but was beaten for speed by the horses drawn inside it, and rather than being caught 3 wide, was eased back to settle three back one out or fourth last, with LOS AMANTE, SKY FALCON, and JIMMY MACELROY all behind it racing one off the running line rounding the first bend into the back straight.

Prior to reaching the “mile” marker, MOTU LIVING GEM was improved forward three wide to reach the “parked” position one out without cover, a length back on the outside of the leader ANGEL DELIGHT, driven by F Cooney, with about 1450m to run.

With approx. 1350m to run, LOS AMANTE was improved 3 wide with SKY FALCON fol-lowing it.

Junior Horseman Mr Dickie looked back on two occasions passing the 1250m and 1200m, as Horseman Mr Mangos improved LOS AMANTE.

From inside the 1200m, Mr Dickie eased MOTU LIVING GEM, allowing LOS AMANTE to improve in front of him, but surprisingly continued to ease back and allow SKY FALCON to improve inward from a three wide position into the “one–one” position at the 1000m.

This surprised me as I believe Mr Dickie should have “clicked up“or urged, or at least attempt to urge, or show some vigour to keep his horse on the back of LOS AMANTE, in order to maintain his horse in the best possible position in the “one-one” position and keeping another competitor and the favourite for the race, SKY FALCON, 3 wide making it work harder.

Approaching 900m, Mr Mangos driving LOS AMANTE, quickened the pace by having a look at the leader ANGEL DELIGHT. As a result, both horsemen, Mr Butcher (SKY FAL-CON) and Mr Dickie (MOTU LIVING GEM) reacted straight away to keep their horses trail-ing up, in Mr Dickie’s case he even struck the horse with his whip to urge it forward even though he was rounding the bend.

From inside the 400m, Mr Dickie shifted MOTU LIVING GEM outward to 3 wide, SKY FALCON improved 3 wide in front of MOTU LIVING GEM and finished well to win the race. MOTU LIVING GEM ran home well, finishing 6th hard up on the back of the winner, (officially 1.5 lengths from the winner).

The sectionals for the race were: 2200m - 2.48.66, Lead in Time – 44.5, Last mile - 2:04.1, mile to 800m 65.0, Last 800m - 59.1, Last 400m – 28.7. From examination of the individual horse sectionals over the last 800m, as provided by Pure Direction Tracking Technology, for the winner SKY FALCON and the sixth placed MOTU LIVING GEM are almost identical.

Following the race, Club Veterinarian Mr P O’Sullivan, vetted MOTU LIVING GEM and re-ported no physical abnormalities.

Mr Dickie was interviewed on two occasions during the currency of the race meeting, with the assistance of Senior Horseman Mr A Herlihy, his employer. The transcripts of the inter-views are provided.

Essentially, Mr Dickie said that as Mr Mangos’ horse LOS AMANTE improved past and in-ward in front of his horse, MOTU LIVING GEM has “sort of knocked off a little bit” in the first interview and his horse “was a bit green and he couldn’t really go with them” in the sec-ond interview. This allowed the favourite and stable mate SKY FALCON, driven by Mr Butcher, to improve inward from three wide into the “one – one” position in front of him. He consistently said his horse could not keep up.

After exhaustively examining the video of the race, including 8 times magnification of the video coverage, I have difficulty accepting this explanation.

His posture seated in the sulky and the position of his hands and arms in controlling the reins of his horse, are all consistent with him continuously restraining MOTU LIVING GEM until both LOS AMANTE and SKY FALCON obtained positions in the 2 wide line in front of him.

At no time has he attempted to urge his horse forward to stay on the back of Mr Mangos.

His hands clearly shift relaxing the pressure of restraint on the reins of MOTU LIVING GEM, after SKY FALCON had completed its manoeuvre in front of him.

Shortly after approaching the 900m, the pace quickened and Mr Dickie used his reins and whip to encourage his horse to stay on SKY FALCON’s back in complete contrast to what had occurred shortly prior to this.

Mr Dickie is the holder of a Junior Horseman’s license and has had considerable success. This is his fourth season driving and to date he has driven in 1,175 races for 118 wins, 110 seconds, and 102 thirds. He is a very competent horseman. In this race incident I believe he has shown bad judgement.

Evidence by Mr N Ydgren:

Mr Ydgren has been employed as a Stipendiary Steward for approximately six and a half years. His brief detailing the sequence of events is as follows:

I was officiating at Alexandra Park as a Panel Steward on the night of the 11th of May 2012. I viewed race four from the Stewards’ room on the television monitors. In this race, Mr Dickie was the driver of MOTU LIVING GEM.

Following this race, it was requested that Mr Dickie please make himself available at some stage through the night to come and speak with us.

Mr Muirhead and I viewed the race several times, with particular reference to the portion be-tween the 1200m and the 800m. At this point of the race, Mr Dickie who was positioned in the “one – one” and driving MOTU LIVING GEM, lost that position to an improving horse on the outside. This horse was SKY FALCON which was driven by Mr Z Butcher.

After watching the film, Mr Muirhead and I felt that Mr Dickie should be questioned to ex-plain how he came to lose his position at this stage, and whether he could have made some discernible attempt to maintain that position. Mr Dickie arrived at the Stipendiary Stewards’ room soon after with his employer, Mr AG Herlihy.

Stewards attempted to outline their concerns to Mr Dickie and Mr Herlihy, however were un-able to gain a satisfactory explanation from either Mr Dickie or Mr Herlihy.

During the course of this investigation, it was put to Mr Dickie and Mr Herlihy, whether the horse was simply unable to maintain its position behind Mr Mangos, or whether Mr Dickie had restrained the horse to allow Mr Butcher to shift down the track from a three wide to a two wide position. The response was that Mr Dickie’s horse could not keep up. When it was put to Mr Dickie, if the reason he had allowed Mr Butcher to shift down ahead of him was be-cause he had felt that Mr Mangos would improve to the front and he had simply wanted to re-gain some cover from SKY FALCON, it was replied that his horse was simply unable to keep up. Should that be the case, then it is entirely reasonable of Stewards to expect that Mr Dickie should be able to be seen to be employing some action that is both demonstrable and discerni-ble to encourage his horse to hold that position. This is not evident on the film. The only time that Mr Dickie does show any vigour to hold his position, is about 100m later when he is at risk of being shifted wider on the track by inside runners. At that point, Mr Dickie demon-strates reasonable vigour to hold his position. This form of urging is what the Stewards would have expected 100m earlier if MOTU LIVING GEM could not keep up.

MOTU LIVING GEM was sent to undergo a post-race Veterinary examination to ascertain whether the horse was suffering from any physical ailments which would prevent Mr Dickie being able to urge the horse. This examination failed to detect anything amiss with the horse.

After considering the limited explanation tendered and viewing the films, I am of the opinion that Mr Dickie, at this stage, should have made a greater effort to hold his position. The effect of this would have had two benefits for Mr Dickie and his horse. Firstly, he would have main-tained a position to the back of Mr Mangos in the “one-one” as opposed to being one position further back at the top of the straight. Secondly, had Mr Dickie held that position to the back of Mr Mangos, it would have meant that SKY FALCON and Z Butcher would have raced three wide for a greater period. SKY FALCON was 1/2 in the betting and the market expecta-tion was that this horse was more expected to win this race. It is my opinion that Mr Dickie should have made some discernible effort to hold his position behind Mr Mangos. As men-tioned earlier, the benefits would have been twofold. Firstly, he would have been closer to the leaders turning for home and secondly, he would have caused SKY FALCON, which the mar-ket suggest was his main competitor, to work significantly harder in the final lap. The Stew-ards have taken the view that it should have been obvious to any reasonable driver, that this action denied his horse every opportunity to win and to obtain the best possible place in the field. Due to this, we say that Mr Dickie has clearly fallen short of a reasonable standard.

Stewards say that at that stage of the race, any reasonably minded person would have ex-pected Mr Dickie to make an attempt to hold that position when it was entirely permissible to do so.

At the completion of the informant’s evidence, Mr Lawson, when offered to cross examine, de-clined. However, he did inform the committee that he did not agree with the informant’s interpreta-tion of the video films.

Evidence for Defendant:

Mr Lawson, on behalf of Mr Dickie, said Mr Dickie denies vehemently any suggestion that he did not drive MOTU LIVING GEM to give the horse its full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible finishing position.

Mr Lawson opened with a discussion on the rule and its interpretation.

Mr Lawson then went into the discussion on the Charge:
The potential breach was investigated on racenight (May 11th 2012)
It is fair to state that, on that night and subsequent to that evening, a full and thorough explanation of the drive was not given to Stipendiary Control.
Hence, it was not therefore unexpected to receive a charge. It is reasonable for the Stipendiary Control to receive a detailed explanation of the drive.

The following is a statement of explanation of the drive by Mr Dickie (Junior Horseman).

I drew barrier number 5 and he came out fairly. I let him find his feet and he settled 3 back one out off the fence.

After approximately 600m, I moved around three wide to get the parked out position- I got there with approximately 1450m to run.

With 1250m to go, LOS AMANTE (B Mangos) came around three wide, to go past me and give me cover, which I was happy about. SKY FALCON (Z Butcher) was on his back also three wide. Brent got past me at approximately the 1140m mark. My horse was reacting somewhat greenly to me, restraining him and did shy inwards at this point on to the cart of the horse on my inside and I was doing my best to concentrate on keeping him straight, (off the horse on my inside).

At the 1100m, Mr Mangos vigorously encouraged his horse having a serious crack at the lead. He had his whip out and is a very aggressive driver so I thought he would most likely obtain the lead. At that point I was not concerned, as Mr Butcher was also coming around on SKY FALCON and if Mr Mangos made the lead, then Mr Butcher would be parked out and I would be in the “one – one” again. Whilst this was happening, I was not trailing up hard behind Mr Mangos because I was reasonably sure he would get the lead (he usually does) and I would be in the “one – one”. I would have left enough room for 7/8ths of a horse and cart to get in there - not a whole horse and cart I felt. Within some 20 metres, Mr Mangos ceased his challenge for the lead, Mr Butcher spotted an opportunity to drive into the 7/8ths gap which was a very slick piece of driving and I was forced then (because he had his horse, not all of the cart) to pull in behind him to ensure my own horse’s safety and those of others behind us. I was then back to three back on the outer. Again, a position I was not unhappy with. It was not as good as being in the “one – one” but I was a victim of split second circumstances changing, and the greenness of my horse contributed also to where I was.

Some 100 metres later, my horse ran greenly again and dropped the bit and I was concerned that the horse 3 back on the inner would try to push me out (there certainly was an opportunity) so I had to whip my horse to get it concentrating again and on the back of the horse in front of me. Fortunately the 3 back horse did not try to push me out because he could have easily done so.

I stayed in that position until 250m from the finish, when I pulled out to commence the run home. The horse ran on well without threatening the leaders and kept on running to the line for a reasonable 6th.

I was quite happy with the effort of the horse. He felt very green and inexperienced and I am sure he would derive great benefit from the run in terms of ringcraft and experience. For a first ever race, it was a pleasing effort and I also felt that I had driven the horse more than adequately, and that it had been given every chance to finish in the best possible position.

At no time did I consider that my drive had breached, or in fact had the potential to breach, the rules of Harness Racing.

Mr Lawson then placed emphasis on the films making reference to three drivers – but one at a time:

Firstly Mr Dickie – driving MOTU LIVING GEM:

• 600m move around to go three wide to the parked out position – there at approx 1450m.
•  with 1250m to go LOS AMANTE (B Mangos) comes around to give cover - SKY FALCON following him. LOS AMANTE goes past at 1140 mark.
• Horse is reacting greenly to restraint and shies inwards and doing my best to keep him off the horse inside me.
• At the same time Mr Mangos has a serious crack at the lead. Felt that he would get the lead – he is an aggressive driver and usually gets it when he goes for it.
• Mr Butcher is coming around on SKY FALCON and he is likely at this point to give me the “one – one” again. Mr Butcher was not trailing up but was not deliberately easing either.
• He was concentrating on his horse driving straight for one as it was causing him difficulties. He could see what was happening as far as Mr Mangos was concerned. The gap left between Mr Dickie and Mr Mangos was not a full horse and cart length. It was about 7/8ths of one. Mr Mangos then eased his challenge for the lead (unexpectedly), and Mr Butcher saw an opportunity and he took it. It was a very slick piece of driving from Mr Butcher. Mr Dickie was forced to allow him in because he was three quarters in anyway and any pushing up by Mr Dickie would have put his horse in a dangerous position and could have impacted the safety of the rest of the field. He was back to three back one out. Sure not as good as the one-one but split second circumstances dictated that.
• Some 100 metres, later you can see this horse struggling around the bend and dropping the bit, at which time it looked likely to be pushed out by the three back on the inner horse, fortunately that did not happen and after some encouragement the horse got back up on the bit.
• He stayed there until 250m from the finish when he pulled out – note prior to when SKY FALCON did, and commenced the run home. The horse ran on well without threatening. He kept running to the line for an adequate 6th.

Secondly Mr Mangos - driving LOS AMANTE:

• He goes around to the parked out position at the 1140 metre mark and some 40 metres later has a decent go for the lead. He probably attacks for some 40 metres and then relents, continuing to sit parked. At the time he does that, Mr Butcher and SKY FALCON are coming and Mr Mangos obviously thought that Mr Butcher would go around him and give him cover. So Mr Mangos had Plan A (an attempt for the lead) and Plan B (hand up and get the “one – one”).
• Plan A was stifled by the leader not relenting and Plan B was stifled by Mr Butcher pulling in behind Mr Mangos.

Thirdly Mr Butcher - driving SKY FALCON:

• Mr Butcher follows Mr Mangos around and sees him have a crack for the lead and so Mr Butcher eases slightly. He is up on Mr Mangos’ wheel, therefore he is likely to go forward and end up parked. He does, however, see an opportunity inside him and decides to ease into a very tight gap and get the one-one behind Mr Mangos.

At the completion of the defendant’s evidence, Mr Muirhead cross examined Mr Dickie.

Under cross examination, Mr Muirhead asked Mr Dickie if the “one – one” position was better than 3 back. Mr Dickie acknowledged the “one – one” was a better position.

Under cross examination, Mr Muirhead asked Mr Dickie why he continuously restrained his horse. Mr Dickie responded that he thought Mr Mangos would go to the front and his horse had shied inwards.

Under cross examination, Mr Muirhead asked Mr Dickie to demonstrate on the films where MOTU LIVING GEM shies inwards. Mr Dickie responded by demonstrating to Mr Muirhead on the head on film. Mr Muirhead did not accept that MOTU LIVING GEM did shy.

Under cross examination, Mr Muirhead asked Mr Dickie as to why he was not trailing up behind Mr Mangos. Mr Dickie responded, stating that the way MOTU LIVING GEM was racing came into account.

Finally, under cross examination, Mr Muirhead asked Mr Dickie how did Mr Butcher so easily obtain the “one – one” position. Mr Dickie replied that it was a slick piece of driving by Mr Butcher as he was 7/8ths in the position and he was forced to pull back.

Summary / Submissions for Informant

In summing up, Mr Muirhead said Mr Dickie’s decision to ease back on MOTU LIVING GEM and allow SKY FALCON the “one –one” position prior to the 1000m, significantly affected the out-come of this race and MOTU LIVING GEM’s opportunity to win the race.

He said Mr Dickie failed to competitively keep the favourite for the race, SKY FALCON, 3 wide at a crucial stage of the race, by conceding the best possible position to that horse.

Finally, he disadvantaged his horse, MOTU LIVING GEM, by failing to maintain the best possible position.

Summary / Submissions by Defendant

Mr Lawson submitted that a lot was going on in this race between the 1200 and 1000 metres.

He submitted that Mr Dickie was trying to take advantage of the change in positions, but is stifled by the greenness of MOTU LIVING GEM.

He submitted the shy in towards the rail, effectively curtails the opportunity of being tight on Mr Mangos’ back, and that is perpetuated by the manners of MOTU LIVING GEM whilst the race speeds up for a period.

He said also weighing on Mr Dickie’s mind, is that with what is going on up ahead, he is going to end up in the same position anyway. For that reason and the greenness of his horse, there is a window of opportunity for Mr Butcher. Mr Dickie did not ease to deliberately allow Mr Butcher in - far from it.

Finally, Mr Lawson asked the committee to take into account the following:

• The greenness of MOTU LIVING GEM
• It was MOTU LIVING GEM’s first start
• The ever changing aspects of the race at the point in issue
• That Mr Mangos does usually get the lead when he attacks for it
• That Mr Dickie is a Junior Driver
• That if he had stayed on Mr Mangos’ back he would have still been 3 back on the outer
• That this all occurred over 1000 metres from the finish of the race

In response to a question from the committee, Mr Muirhead said in his experienced opinion, MOTU LIVING GEM was pacing fine prior to being restrained and was of the view that MOTU LIVING GEM did not shy inwards.

In response to a question from the committee, Mr Dickie and Mr Lawson acknowledged that they had nothing further to add.

Reasons for Decision

The committee carefully listened to, and independently assessed, the evidence of both parties and reviewed the video films several times, concentrating on the points that were highlighted by each party.

From our observations we were satisfied of the following:

1. MOTU LIVING GEM paces smoothly and well within itself, up to and including, the time it was being firmly restrained, firstly to let Mr Mangos move across and in front of him, which we accept.
2. However, then Mr Dickie clearly made a poor error of judgement in continuously restraining MOTU LIVING GEM for at least 40 metres. This allowed SKY FALCON to comfortably slot into the “one – one” position. Mr Dickie failed to stay on the back of Mr Mangos when clearly it was reasonable and permissible for him to do so.
3. This resulted in MOTU LIVING GEM going from the “one – one” position to 3 back on the outer, clearly disadvantaging his chances and improving the chances of the favourite SKY FALCON.
4. The committee accepts that there was no suggestion of team driving in the manoeuvres that took place from the 1200m to the 1000m mark.
5. The assertion by the defendant, that MOTU LIVING GEM shied and this resulted in the horse’s head shifting about, we do not accept. We reviewed the section of the race in question several times, and we find that the reason MOTU LIVING GEM’S head was shifting about, was due to the firm restraint it was placed under at that section of the race. There is no video evidence of MOTU LIVING GEM shying.
6. The general racing conduct of Mr Dickie did not enhance the image of Harness Racing, and we concur with the Stewards’ concern of the appearance of non-competitive conduct and the damage it can do, if unchecked, to the image of the industry.
7. Clearly, discernible and demonstrable actions by the driver to enhance his horse's chances, would support this contention.
8. We therefore find Mr Dickie, by his own actions, failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to give MOTU LIVING GEM full opportunity to win the race, or to obtain the best possible position from the 1200m to the 1000m section of the race.
9. We note over the final 400 metres of the race, MOTU LIVING GEM was following the eventual winner of the race, SKY FALCON. The films showed that Mr Dickie peeled off the back of SKY FALCON prior to the turn, and when driven with vigour in the final straight, MOTU LIVING GEM closed well to finish a respectable 6th placing, 1.5 lengths from the winner.

Decision:

The committee was satisfied that Mr Dickie failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures between the 1200m and 1000m, to ensure that MOTU LIVING GEM was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position. It is clearly visible on the films, that Mr Dickie made a poor error of judgement when easing MOTU LIVING GEM back, allowing SKY FALCON to comfortably obtain the “one – one position”, disadvantaging his own horse.

Accordingly, we find the charge proved.

Submissions For Penalty:

Mr Muirhead submitted the committee should have regard for the following points:

• The gravity of the offence, including the charge, the importance and outcome of the race, and whether race goers were affected by the offence
• The personal circumstances of the defendant, including experience, previous offences
• The need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Harness Racing
• Penalties imposed for comparable offences
• MOTU LIVING GEM was beaten 1.5 lengths. Total stakes were $9,000 with $5,535 for the winner
• The failure of the defendant to use all reasonable and permissible measures may well have affected the outcome, and certainly would have been perceived as having done so
• The defendant did not admit the charge. In these circumstances, the defendant is not entitled to a discount for a plea of guilty
• The defendant has driven 397 times in the season to date and drove 386 times in 2010-11 season
• The defendant is a holder of a Junior Horseman’s license
• His ‘lifetime’ total of drives, commencing from 2007 is 1,175. The records of HRNZ show 118 wins, 110 seconds, and 102 thirds. The defendant’s record contains no sig-nificant previous offences
• The Racing Integrity Unit Ltd considers that a failure to use all reasonable and permis-sible measures strikes at the heart of the image of Harness Racing. The requirement to drive competitively throughout is a ‘paramount duty’ and the observance of the Rule, vital to maintaining public confidence in the integrity in the sport.
• It follows that the Judicial Committee should clearly signal its disapproval of non-competitive driving in the penalty imposed
• In cases under this Rule, it is necessary for the Judicial Committee to balance the pe-riod of suspension against the desirability of ma

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

The informant, when asked for submissions on costs, advised the committee of the cost to produce the transcript and Mr Ydgren’s flight from Christchurch.

The committee deliberated briefly and ruled that Mr Dickie should not be responsible for the Racing Integrity Unit costs on this occasion.

Accordingly, we order Mr Dickie is to pay a fine of $750 as well as $300 costs to the Judicial Control Authority.

AJ Dooley        N McCutcheon
Chairman        Committee Member

1 July 2012

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 868(2)

Informant: Mr JM Muirhead - Stipediary Steward

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr R Lawson - Representing Mr Dickie, Mr N Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward

Respondent: Mr JI Dickie - Junior Horseman

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: