Archive Decision

This decision has been migrated from the JCA website. Information is accurate but formatting may differ from contemporary decisions. Please contact us for any further enquiries.

Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J Gordon – Decision dated 20 December 2020 – Chair, Prof G Hall

ID: JCA18171

Hearing Type:
Non-race day

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF

THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing

BETWEEN-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Informant

AND-MS JOANNE GORDON

Licensed trainer

Respondent

Information: ----A11754

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman

Appearing: -Mr M Davidson, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant

The Respondent in person

Date of hearing and decision:-20 December 2020

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1]-An Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr Davidson against Ms Gordon, alleging a breach of r 616(4) of the NZ Thoroughbred Racing Rules of Racing in that on 12 December 2020 at a race meeting conducted by Southland Racing Club at Invercargill in Races 6 and 8, she raced NOPELE (Race 6) and RIPNROLL (Race 8) in gear that was not notified namely, visor blinkers.

[2]-Rule 616(4) reads:

When permission has been obtained in accordance with sub-Rule (2) of this Rule 616 for the use of an item or items of Notifiable Gear on a horse, such item or items of Notifiable Gear will continue to be used without variation on the horse concerned in consecutive subsequent Races unless permission has been obtained from a Stipendiary Steward before the horse is accepted or is deemed to be accepted for a subsequent Race, or the Trainer is otherwise approved or instructed by a Stipendiary Steward to change or adjust the Notifiable Gear that is to be used for that horse.

[3]-The charge was heard as a non-raceday hearing at the Tapanui Racing Club’s meeting at Gore on 20 December 2020. Mr Davidson produced the necessary authorisation for the charge to be heard.

[4]-Mr Davidson stated that the two horses in question both raced in visor blinkers rather than the blinkers that had been declared. Both types of blinkers were notifiable.

[5]-Mr Davidson said the issue did not come to the attention of the Stewards until after the horses had raced. This was the reason it was a non-raceday hearing. Otherwise the matter would have been dealt with by way of a minor infringement notice.

[6]-Ms Gordon said she had just put the sets of blinkers in the gear bag and had not realised there was a difference between blinkers and vizor blinkers. She added she thought the slits in blinkers were home-made. She did not believe the vizor blinkers were the reason for the improved performances of the two horses and she thought they may have raced in the vizor blinkers before as she simply had not distinguished between the two sets of blinkers.

Decision as to breach

[7]-As Ms Gordon has admitted the breach it is found to be proved.

Penalty submissions

[8]-Mr Davidson produced Ms Gordon’s record which he described as very good. He believed the Stewards may have warned the Respondent concerning gear matters in the past but there was nothing on her record. He stated the Respondent had co-operated fully with the Stewards when they inquired into the matter.

[9]-Mr Davidson submitted a minimum fine of between $100 and $150 was appropriate.

[10]-Ms Gordon said she had been training for about 30 years, first in partnership with her father and then on her own account. She was very contrite.

Decision as to penalty

[11]-The admitted breach is low level. It was due to a misunderstanding on Ms Gordon’s part. However, there is a clear difference between the two sets of blinkers. Each is notifiable and this should have been apparent to her.

[12]-Ms Gordon has an excellent record and is clearly remorseful.

[13]-A penalty at the top end of the range submitted by the Informant is appropriate.

[14]-Ms Gordon is fined the sum of $150 and is reminded of her obligations with respect to gear matters.

Dated at Gore this 20th day of December 2020.

Geoff Hall, Chairman

Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

Decision Date: 21/12/2020

Publish Date: 21/12/2020

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: f6024a37ac500b7343a67249ad2f58d5


informantnumber:


horsename:


hearing_racingtype:


startdate: no date provided


newcharge:


plea:


penaltyrequired:


decisiondate: 21/12/2020


hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J Gordon - Decision dated 20 December 2020 - Chair, Prof G Hall


charge:


facts:


appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION


isappeal:


submissionsfordecision:


reasonsfordecision:


Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF

THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing

BETWEEN-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Informant

AND-MS JOANNE GORDON

Licensed trainer

Respondent

Information: ----A11754

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman

Appearing: -Mr M Davidson, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant

The Respondent in person

Date of hearing and decision:-20 December 2020

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1]-An Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr Davidson against Ms Gordon, alleging a breach of r 616(4) of the NZ Thoroughbred Racing Rules of Racing in that on 12 December 2020 at a race meeting conducted by Southland Racing Club at Invercargill in Races 6 and 8, she raced NOPELE (Race 6) and RIPNROLL (Race 8) in gear that was not notified namely, visor blinkers.

[2]-Rule 616(4) reads:

When permission has been obtained in accordance with sub-Rule (2) of this Rule 616 for the use of an item or items of Notifiable Gear on a horse, such item or items of Notifiable Gear will continue to be used without variation on the horse concerned in consecutive subsequent Races unless permission has been obtained from a Stipendiary Steward before the horse is accepted or is deemed to be accepted for a subsequent Race, or the Trainer is otherwise approved or instructed by a Stipendiary Steward to change or adjust the Notifiable Gear that is to be used for that horse.

[3]-The charge was heard as a non-raceday hearing at the Tapanui Racing Club’s meeting at Gore on 20 December 2020. Mr Davidson produced the necessary authorisation for the charge to be heard.

[4]-Mr Davidson stated that the two horses in question both raced in visor blinkers rather than the blinkers that had been declared. Both types of blinkers were notifiable.

[5]-Mr Davidson said the issue did not come to the attention of the Stewards until after the horses had raced. This was the reason it was a non-raceday hearing. Otherwise the matter would have been dealt with by way of a minor infringement notice.

[6]-Ms Gordon said she had just put the sets of blinkers in the gear bag and had not realised there was a difference between blinkers and vizor blinkers. She added she thought the slits in blinkers were home-made. She did not believe the vizor blinkers were the reason for the improved performances of the two horses and she thought they may have raced in the vizor blinkers before as she simply had not distinguished between the two sets of blinkers.

Decision as to breach

[7]-As Ms Gordon has admitted the breach it is found to be proved.

Penalty submissions

[8]-Mr Davidson produced Ms Gordon’s record which he described as very good. He believed the Stewards may have warned the Respondent concerning gear matters in the past but there was nothing on her record. He stated the Respondent had co-operated fully with the Stewards when they inquired into the matter.

[9]-Mr Davidson submitted a minimum fine of between $100 and $150 was appropriate.

[10]-Ms Gordon said she had been training for about 30 years, first in partnership with her father and then on her own account. She was very contrite.

Decision as to penalty

[11]-The admitted breach is low level. It was due to a misunderstanding on Ms Gordon’s part. However, there is a clear difference between the two sets of blinkers. Each is notifiable and this should have been apparent to her.

[12]-Ms Gordon has an excellent record and is clearly remorseful.

[13]-A penalty at the top end of the range submitted by the Informant is appropriate.

[14]-Ms Gordon is fined the sum of $150 and is reminded of her obligations with respect to gear matters.

Dated at Gore this 20th day of December 2020.

Geoff Hall, Chairman


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: