Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v JS Bullard 31 May 2012 – Decision 3 June 2012
ID: JCA15359
Decision:
NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr RD Scott – Racing Investigator
Defendant: Mr JS Bullard – Licensed Jockey (accompanied by Mr D Lloyd, Lay Advocate)
Information No: A5502
Date: 31st May 2012
Venue: Riccarton Park
Rule No: 656(3)
Judicial Committee: KG Hales, Chairman – J Phelan, Committee Member
Plea: Admitted
Charges::
Alleged: That on Saturday 14th April 2012 at the Riccarton Racecourse, that Jamie Shane Bullard, being a rider, who having been requested by a Racing Investigator to supply a sample of urine which was found upon analysis, to contain the diuretic drug Frusemide, committed a breach of Rule 656(3) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing AND THAT you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to the provisions of Rule 803(1) of the said Rules.
Facts:
On Saturday 14th April 2012, Racing Investigator RD Scott, served a written notice on all Jockeys riding on that day that they were required under the Rules of Racing to provide a urine sample for analysis in order to detect the presence of any Controlled drug or illicit substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, or other illicit substances or diuretic and/or its metabolites.
Mr Bullard was served with the notice and duly complied with the requirement. He provided his sample to Mrs S Ruane, an enrolled nurse, being the person authorized to collect the sample. The bottle containing the sample was duly sealed and identified in accordance with the procedures.
The sample was duly analysed by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), and was found upon analysis to contain the diuretic drug Frusemide.
Mr Bullard was advised of the results of the analysis on Tuesday 1st May 2012 and later served with a copy of the ESR report.
When spoken to, Mr Bullard admitted to taking the diuretic Frusemide prior to the race meeting on 12th April. He stated that he had taken the tablet as he had a light ride on the previous Thursday 12th April.
Mr Scott advised that Mr Bullard was co-operative throughout the investigation.
Defence Submissions:
Mr Bullard, with Mr Lloyd’s assistance told the hearing that he took a Frusemide tablet on the morning of 12th April so he could take a light ride He knew that Frusemide was a banned substance. He further said that he was having trouble keeping his weight down. He said that he is an asthmatic and the drug that he takes for his asthma, namely “Symbicort” has a side effect of causing fluid retention within his body, mainly in the stomach region. His doctor has prescribed Frusemide for him, to help this problem. There was no dispute with the fact that Frusemide is a banned substance, pursuant to the Rules of Racing, and that the Mr Bullard had taken a Frusemide tablet on 12th April to keep his weight down.
Decision:
Having regard to Mr Bullard’s admission of the breach, we find the charge proved.
Submissions:
Mr Scott submitted that drug testing of riders is an important aspect of the NZ Thoroughbred Racing industry, in order to maintain the integrity of the industry and equally important to maintain health and safety standards in the workplace. He also said that the Board of the NZTR has an illicit drugs free policy in terms of all riders whether they are riding in races trials or in track work.
In addition to the integrity and workplace safety aspects, all riders and trainers have a responsibility to the owners of valuable horses to ensure that horses are not placed in danger by having a drug impaired rider on its back.
He said that Mr Bullard had been co-operative in the inquiry.
However, Mr Bullard appeared before a Judicial Committee in February 2011 for a breach of this rule and on that occasion was fined $750.
He submitted that a fine of $1,500 would be appropriate, for a senior rider who offends for the second time, for using diuretics.
Mr Scott also asked for the costs of the ESR analysis of $150.00 together with JCA costs.
In response, Mr Lloyd raised a number of mitigating factors on Mr Bullard’s behalf. He said that Mr Bullard has a weight problem, and has tried conscientiously to keep his weight in control. He said that he had tried all sorts of weight loss remedies, including herbal products and popular slimming diets. He uses a spa pool and a sauna when available. Notwithstanding his efforts in this regard he cannot seem to get his weight below 56.5 kgs.
Mr Lloyd also said that Mr Bullard has a kidney problem in that one of his kidneys functions at about 30% of capacity and that together with drugs that he takes for his asthma, causes fluid retention, and as a consequence, leads to him taking Frusemide, which his doctor has prescribed for him.
Mr Lloyd also asked us
to take cognizance of Mr Bullard’s reputation as a busy and competent senior rider having ridden in excess of 900 winners in his career.
He submitted that the fine should be “nominal”.
Penalty:
We note from the penalty data base, that fines ranging from $450.00 to $1,500.00 have been imposed over the last couple of years for breaches of this rule involving Frusemide. In particular, it was noted that 3 other senior riders, namely Jockeys “T”, “I” & “C” had been fined heavily for breaches of the rule.
In this case, we note that Mr Bullard took the drug prior to a race meeting, knowing that it was a banned substance.
In looking at what is an appropriate penalty, we do not attach any weight to the fines imposed on Jockeys “T”, “I” & “C”.
In looking at what is an appropriate fine in this case, we note that approximately 15 months ago, Mr Bullard was fined $750 for a breach of this rule. That is an aggravating factor. The level of the fine that was imposed on that occasion was to recognize that that Mr Bullard was a senior rider, as a number of apprentices were fined $500.
We are not unsympathetic to the problems that Mr Bullard has with his weight, and what causes him to have fluid retention within his body. But the fact of the matter is that Mr Bullard took the drug for the purposes of weight reduction, and Mr Bullard must have known that if the drug was detected in his system, that he would be in breach of the rules, as indeed has turned out to be the case.
The Racing Integrity Unit submits that a fine of $1,500 should be imposed, for a senior rider who offends for a second time.
We adopt a fine of $1,500 as a starting point. We must then take into account, the mitigating circumstances that have been put to us by Mr Lloyd, which we accept. We do not accept that a “nominal” fine should be imposed. Such a submission is quite unrealistic.
Thus we afford Mr Bullard a discount on our starting point, which discount we assess at $400.Mr Bullard is fined $1,100.00. He is also
ordered to pay the ESR fee of $150.00 and to make a contribution to JCA costs in the sum of $100.
KG Hales
Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 24/05/2012
Publish Date: 24/05/2012
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: 89077b70a7d245cdea28cab33cc901d1
informantnumber: A5502
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 24/05/2012
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v JS Bullard 31 May 2012 - Decision 3 June 2012
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr RD Scott – Racing Investigator
Defendant: Mr JS Bullard – Licensed Jockey (accompanied by Mr D Lloyd, Lay Advocate)
Information No: A5502
Date: 31st May 2012
Venue: Riccarton Park
Rule No: 656(3)
Judicial Committee: KG Hales, Chairman – J Phelan, Committee Member
Plea: Admitted
Charges::
Alleged: That on Saturday 14th April 2012 at the Riccarton Racecourse, that Jamie Shane Bullard, being a rider, who having been requested by a Racing Investigator to supply a sample of urine which was found upon analysis, to contain the diuretic drug Frusemide, committed a breach of Rule 656(3) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing AND THAT you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to the provisions of Rule 803(1) of the said Rules.
Facts:
On Saturday 14th April 2012, Racing Investigator RD Scott, served a written notice on all Jockeys riding on that day that they were required under the Rules of Racing to provide a urine sample for analysis in order to detect the presence of any Controlled drug or illicit substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, or other illicit substances or diuretic and/or its metabolites.
Mr Bullard was served with the notice and duly complied with the requirement. He provided his sample to Mrs S Ruane, an enrolled nurse, being the person authorized to collect the sample. The bottle containing the sample was duly sealed and identified in accordance with the procedures.
The sample was duly analysed by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), and was found upon analysis to contain the diuretic drug Frusemide.
Mr Bullard was advised of the results of the analysis on Tuesday 1st May 2012 and later served with a copy of the ESR report.
When spoken to, Mr Bullard admitted to taking the diuretic Frusemide prior to the race meeting on 12th April. He stated that he had taken the tablet as he had a light ride on the previous Thursday 12th April.
Mr Scott advised that Mr Bullard was co-operative throughout the investigation.
Defence Submissions:
Mr Bullard, with Mr Lloyd’s assistance told the hearing that he took a Frusemide tablet on the morning of 12th April so he could take a light ride He knew that Frusemide was a banned substance. He further said that he was having trouble keeping his weight down. He said that he is an asthmatic and the drug that he takes for his asthma, namely “Symbicort” has a side effect of causing fluid retention within his body, mainly in the stomach region. His doctor has prescribed Frusemide for him, to help this problem. There was no dispute with the fact that Frusemide is a banned substance, pursuant to the Rules of Racing, and that the Mr Bullard had taken a Frusemide tablet on 12th April to keep his weight down.
Decision:
Having regard to Mr Bullard’s admission of the breach, we find the charge proved.
Submissions:
Mr Scott submitted that drug testing of riders is an important aspect of the NZ Thoroughbred Racing industry, in order to maintain the integrity of the industry and equally important to maintain health and safety standards in the workplace. He also said that the Board of the NZTR has an illicit drugs free policy in terms of all riders whether they are riding in races trials or in track work.
In addition to the integrity and workplace safety aspects, all riders and trainers have a responsibility to the owners of valuable horses to ensure that horses are not placed in danger by having a drug impaired rider on its back.
He said that Mr Bullard had been co-operative in the inquiry.
However, Mr Bullard appeared before a Judicial Committee in February 2011 for a breach of this rule and on that occasion was fined $750.
He submitted that a fine of $1,500 would be appropriate, for a senior rider who offends for the second time, for using diuretics.
Mr Scott also asked for the costs of the ESR analysis of $150.00 together with JCA costs.
In response, Mr Lloyd raised a number of mitigating factors on Mr Bullard’s behalf. He said that Mr Bullard has a weight problem, and has tried conscientiously to keep his weight in control. He said that he had tried all sorts of weight loss remedies, including herbal products and popular slimming diets. He uses a spa pool and a sauna when available. Notwithstanding his efforts in this regard he cannot seem to get his weight below 56.5 kgs.
Mr Lloyd also said that Mr Bullard has a kidney problem in that one of his kidneys functions at about 30% of capacity and that together with drugs that he takes for his asthma, causes fluid retention, and as a consequence, leads to him taking Frusemide, which his doctor has prescribed for him.
Mr Lloyd also asked us
to take cognizance of Mr Bullard’s reputation as a busy and competent senior rider having ridden in excess of 900 winners in his career.
He submitted that the fine should be “nominal”.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
We note from the penalty data base, that fines ranging from $450.00 to $1,500.00 have been imposed over the last couple of years for breaches of this rule involving Frusemide. In particular, it was noted that 3 other senior riders, namely Jockeys “T”, “I” & “C” had been fined heavily for breaches of the rule.
In this case, we note that Mr Bullard took the drug prior to a race meeting, knowing that it was a banned substance.
In looking at what is an appropriate penalty, we do not attach any weight to the fines imposed on Jockeys “T”, “I” & “C”.
In looking at what is an appropriate fine in this case, we note that approximately 15 months ago, Mr Bullard was fined $750 for a breach of this rule. That is an aggravating factor. The level of the fine that was imposed on that occasion was to recognize that that Mr Bullard was a senior rider, as a number of apprentices were fined $500.
We are not unsympathetic to the problems that Mr Bullard has with his weight, and what causes him to have fluid retention within his body. But the fact of the matter is that Mr Bullard took the drug for the purposes of weight reduction, and Mr Bullard must have known that if the drug was detected in his system, that he would be in breach of the rules, as indeed has turned out to be the case.
The Racing Integrity Unit submits that a fine of $1,500 should be imposed, for a senior rider who offends for a second time.
We adopt a fine of $1,500 as a starting point. We must then take into account, the mitigating circumstances that have been put to us by Mr Lloyd, which we accept. We do not accept that a “nominal” fine should be imposed. Such a submission is quite unrealistic.
Thus we afford Mr Bullard a discount on our starting point, which discount we assess at $400.Mr Bullard is fined $1,100.00. He is also
ordered to pay the ESR fee of $150.00 and to make a contribution to JCA costs in the sum of $100.
KG Hales
Chairman
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 656(3)
Informant: Mr RD Scott - Racing Investigator
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr D Lloyd - Lay Advocate for Mr Bullard
Respondent: Mr JS Bullard - 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: