Non Raceday Inquiry – RIU v JL Waddell – 24 Janaury 2012 – Decision

hearingid: 8046df995dc5689973119d5fd89cecc6

informantnumber: A2206

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 02/02/2012

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - RIU v JL Waddell - 24 Janaury 2012 - Decision

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

NZ RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) v JASON WADDELL
HEARD AT TE RAPA RACECOURSE, HAMILTON
TUESDAY 24 JANUARY 2012
NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Mr Murray McKechnie, Chairman and Mr Richard Seabrook

PRESENT Mr Jason Waddell, Licensed Jockey, Mr Bruce Harvey, Advocate for Mr Waddell, Mr Bryan Oliver, Assistant Investigator for RIU
Mr Rod Carmichael, Registrar

DECISION OF NON-RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

1. Introduction

1.1 The licensed jockey Mr Jason Waddell faces a charge of misconduct laid under Rule 340 of the Rules of Racing. It is said that on the 27 December last at Rotorua he misconducted himself in a manner relating to the conduct of racing. It is alleged that he addressed to the apprentice jockey Henry Wong the words “go back to your f****** rice-eating country” or words similar and that this occurred on a number of occasions. These events are said to have occurred immediately following Race 6 in the jockey’s room. Mr Wong had been riding the horse Fireside and Mr Waddell the horse Sure Trick.

1.2 At the commencement of the hearing today Mr Waddell, who was assisted by Mr Bruce Harvey, admitted the charge of misconduct.

1.3 Mr Oliver on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) put before the hearing and made available to Mr Harvey and to Mr Waddell a summary of the alleged events together with submissions on penalty. In the summary of facts put forward it is said that in the course of the race Mr Waddell had said to Mr Wong “just steer the f****** horse”. This because Mr Waddell had believed that Mr Wong had knocked his horse on a number of occasions and that Mr Wong had not responded. When asked about this Mr Harvey and Mr Waddell put before the Committee the stipendiary steward’s report in relation to Race 6 on 27 December 2011. This makes clear that there was some contact between the horses Fireside and Sure Trick on a number of occasions passing the 800 metres. It is recorded that this took place when Fireside was looking to shift out to obtain clear running. Mr Waddell was questioned by the stipendiary stewards about the poor performance of Sure Trick and he is recorded as having told the stipendiary stewards that the mare had appeared to go off stride towards the end of the back straight and had received some pressure from the runner on his inside and that he (Mr Waddell) had felt that the mare had switched off. This stipendiary steward’s report plainly confirmed that there was some incident involving the horses Fireside and Sure Trick. Mr Wong was not charged with any breach of the rules as a result of the events just referred to.

1.4 In further mitigation of Mr Waddell’s conduct Mr Harvey drew attention to other occasions where he said Mr Wong’s riding technique and skills had been called into question. It is not necessary to go into those incidents but it is clear from the material put before this Committee that Mr Wong is an inexperienced apprentice jockey and that his riding has come to the attention of the stipendiary stewards on a number of occasions in recent times.

1.5 Further in mitigation of penalty Mr Harvey related an incident which he said had occurred before the commencement of racing on 27 December last. We were told that Mr Wong had the locker next to Mr Waddell in the jockey’s room. Apparently Mr Wong had inadvertently spilled a glass or bottle of fruit juice and the contents had finished up in Mr Waddell’s helmet. This, we were told, had caused irritation and some words had been exchanged between the parties.

1.6 We were advised and accept that within some ten (10) minutes of the incident a complaint had been made to the stipendiary stewards by Mr Andrew Scott, the trainer by whom Mr Wong is employed. It is not in dispute that soon after the next race where Mr Waddell rode the winner he, Mr Waddell, of his own volition approached the stewards on duty. The chief steward that day was Mr John Oatham and Mr Oliver was also present. Mr Waddell explained to them something of what had happened and asked “how do I fix the problem”? We were told by Mr Oliver that by this time the complaint was being acted upon and a number of persons had been interviewed. Later that day Mr Waddell was himself interviewed and he was spoken to again a few days later at a race meeting at Ellerslie. Mr Oliver’s summary of facts records that Mr Waddell acknowledged that his behaviour was bullying in character. The summary goes on to record that Mr Waddell had said that he had picked on Mr Wong knowing that he (Mr Wong) was vulnerable. Mr Waddell does not accept that this is a correct construction of what he said. It is his position that he told Mr Oliver at interview that he knew it was wrong to behave in a bullying way to Mr Wong because, on reflection, he knew that Mr Wong was vulnerable. This, Mr Waddell said, was a reference to Mr Wong’s comparative youth and inexperience. Mr Waddell did tell the Committee that Mr Wong has significant English language skills. In the event Mr Waddell was in due course charged with the breach of Rule 340.

1.7 Mr Waddell approached Mr Andrew Scott and apologised for his conduct and asked Mr Scott if he should speak to Mr Wong. We were told that it was agreed that it would be best if that were not done and Mr Scott, we were told, said he would pass on Mr Waddell’s apology to Mr Wong. Mr Waddell for his part told us that since the events of the 27 December last he has been in Mr Wong’s company on a number of occasions on raceday and nothing has been said about this incident by either of them.

2. The Position of RIU
2.1 Mr Oliver drew attention to Mr Waddell’s record of misconduct. It is frankly most unattractive. Mr Waddell has been charged with misconduct on four (4) previous occasions in New Zealand and earlier, in 2005, on two (2) occasions in Singapore. The most recent of these misconduct charges arose from events which occurred on the 17 October 2009. By chance those events also took place at Arawa Park Race Course in Rotorua. On that occasion Mr Waddell addressed abusive remarks to the then President of the Rotorua Racing Club. It was Mr Oliver’s submission that the conduct on this occasion was not as serious a breach of the misconduct rule as had occurred in October 2009. On that occasion the Judicial Committee presided over by Mr Seabrook imposed a six (6) week suspension.

2.2 More recently in June of 2010 Mr Waddell was disqualified for a period of fourteen (14) months having tested positive for a prohibited Class A drug. The circumstances of that offending and the reasons for the penalty being fixed at that level are well known to the members of this Judicial Committee. That offending, while serious, is of a different character from that which is before us today.

2.3 In categorising the conduct of Mr Waddell Mr Oliver said that it was at the lower end of the scale. He submitted that it was appropriate that a suspension be imposed nevertheless given Mr Waddell’s frequent previous appearances on misconduct charges. We note in particular that in addition to October 2009 there was a misconduct charge involving offensive language directed to a clerk of the course which occurred in December 2007.

3. Mr Waddell's Position
3.1 Mr Harvey and his wife own and operate Ascot Farm at Cambridge. Mr Harvey told us that following Mr Waddell’s disqualification on the prohibited drug use charge in June 2010 they had, to use his expression, “taken Jason under our wing”. Mr Waddell had moved into a cottage on the property. At that time his weight was 70kg. He told us that Mr Waddell committed himself to reducing his weight and getting fit so as to resume riding at the conclusion of the disqualification. That plan was interrupted to some degree by a broken leg Mr Waddell suffered while playing soccer. We were told that Mr Waddell had undertaken counselling for depression and had worked hard to reduce his weight. The Committee knows of its own knowledge that Mr Waddell resumed riding following that period of disqualification and that he has, since that time, enjoyed considerable success. Indeed on the day in question at Rotorua he rode four (4) winners.

3.2 Mr Waddell for his part told the Committee that in the period leading up to these events he had been riding well and things were going successfully. He said that he had made “a huge step forward in his personal life”.

3.3 Mr Harvey urged the imposition of a suspended sentence. He emphasised the consequences of suspension or disqualification particularly if it were at the level of six (6) to eight (8) weeks as submitted by the RIU. There are significant race meetings both here at Te Rapa and at Ellerslie in the next two (2) months, the latter of course being the New Zealand Derby and Auckland Cup Carnival.

4. Discussion
4.1 Mr Waddell’s conduct was entirely unacceptable. The racial abuse was not however directed at the personality of Mr Wong. It was overheard by a number of persons who were present in the jockey’s room. We were told it was heard by other jockeys and a trainer. How many people may have heard the abuse is of little relevance as the conduct is unacceptable whether heard by a smaller or larger audience.

4.2 In Mr Waddell’s favour he raised the matter himself with the stewards and acknowledged in discussion with them that his behaviour had been inappropriate.

4.3 While Mr Harvey drew attention to what had occurred during Race 6 that cannot provide any justification for the outburst which occurred. It does however provide some explanation for Mr Waddell’s upset at the time. So far as the fruit juice and the helmet is concerned we regard that of little moment. By Race 6 Mr Waddell should have well and truly got over what had occurred before racing started on that day.

4.4 Mr Oliver acknowledged that Mr Waddell was remorseful and – to use his expression – “up front” when spoken to. As to the question of whether Mr Waddell said that he had picked on Mr Wong because he knew he was vulnerable we are uncertain as to precisely what was said or what was intended to be conveyed by Mr Waddell. Mr Oliver conducted that interview and it was recorded. As noted earlier there were two (2) interviews – a short interview at Rotorua and a longer interview on the occasion at Ellerslie. Neither of those interviews was played to us. We cannot determine the correct meaning to be placed upon what Mr Waddell said. In those circumstances we must give him the benefit of the uncertainty on this point and therefore proceed on the basis that he acknowledged when interviewed that he should not have acted in a bullying way, the more so when, as he sought to convey, Mr Wong was in a vulnerable situation.

4.5 Mr Harvey told us that Mr Waddell together with his partner, a young Swedish woman, had been working hard at Ascot Farm and that Mr Waddell was continuing to seek professional assistance for his depression and to deal with issues of nutrition and his riding weight. He spoke in glowing terms of Mr Waddell’s commitment to put his life back on track post the disqualification for the unlawful drug use.

5. Result
5.1 We have thought it useful to consider how we would have approached this offending had Mr Waddell not previously appeared on a charge of this character. While the conduct was unacceptable and carried racist overtones we are of the view that had a licensed jockey come before us in similar circumstances with no previous offending of this character then a modest fine would have been appropriate.

5.2 The difficult circumstances here, as Mr Oliver rightly points out, are Mr Waddell’s previous appearances on charges of a similar character. Three (3) at least involve verbal abuse and one (1), that on the 18 April 2006, had to do with what appears to be unacceptable conduct towards another jockey. It is this previous offending which Mr Oliver relies upon in seeking a period of suspension.

5.3 Mr Waddell for his part urged a two (2) month suspended sentence; the suspension to be for twelve (12) months. Mr Waddell also undertook to the Committee that he would continue with the professional counselling assistance which he is receiving and asked the Committee to make an order in that regard. The Committee does not have the power to order a license holder to undertake professional medical treatment. We nonetheless clearly note Mr Waddell’s undertaking that he will continue with that and this record will be available to other Judicial Committees in the event that this issue or Mr Waddell’s general conduct should come to notice at any time in the reasonably foreseeable future.

5.4 It is some time since October 2009 when the last misconduct occurred. That too was abusive language. Here the significant difference is that what was said was immediately following the race in circumstances where there were events which may have caused Mr Waddell to be upset. Such events occur frequently on the race course and jockeys must learn a measure of self discipline. It would seem clear that Mr Waddell is conscious that this is an issue which he must continue to address.

5.5 It is our judgment that what occurred can be adequately dealt with by way of a monetary penalty. Mr Waddell has some outstanding costs and expenses payable in relation to an appeal which did not proceed in December last. He assured the Committee that he was in a position to meet the orders made at that hearing when he withdrew his appeal. He told us further that he would be in a position to pay a significant fine on this occasion.

5.6 The fine must be meaningful particularly when regard is had to the record of previous offending. When Mr Waddell appeared before the Judicial Committee on the 26 October 2009 he was told that any further breaches of the rule would lead to a period of disqualification. Certainly a breach at that same level as October 2009 would in our judgment have justified a period of suspension and/or disqualification. Because we take the view that the offending on this occasion is less serious than on that occasion we are not going to suspend or disqualify. We also think it particularly significant that on this occasion Mr Waddell recognised that he had behaved inappropriately and he went to the stewards and “put his hand up” before he was spoken to on this subject.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

5.7 For the reasons set out above there will be a fine imposed together with costs orders. The fine will be in the sum of $3,000.00. Mr Waddell will pay costs to the RIU of $500.00 and costs to the JCA of $750.00.

5.8 Mr Waddell is currently suspended following riding in Australia at the Magic Millions in Queensland. That suspension, we are told, ends on 10 February 2012. That suspension had to do with riding in a race in Queensland and is of no relevance to the events which we have had to consider today.

5.9 We thank all those who appeared today for their assistance.

___________________________________
Signed pursuant to Rule 920(5)
Murray McKechnie
Chairman
 

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 340

Informant: Mr B Oliver - Racing Integrity Unit Assistant Investigator

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr Bruce Harvey - Advocate for Mr Waddell, Mr R Carmichael - Registrar

Respondent: Mr JL Waddell - Licensed Jockey

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: