Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v JW Bridge – decision dated 7 April 2015

hearingid: 308c947d01445e4a72a2d003a7e11e78

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 02/04/2015

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v JW Bridge - decision dated 7 April 2015

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

HELD AT ELLERSLIE

IN THE MATTER of New Zealand Rules of Racing

BETWEEN Mr M Williamson – Stipendiary Steward (RIU)

Informant

AND Mr JW Bridge – Licensed Trainer

Respondent

Date of Hearing: 6 April 2015

Information No: A3577

Venue: Ellerslie Racecourse

Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman – Mr R Seabrook, Committee Member

Present: Mr J Bridge – Licensed Trainer

Registrar: Mr A Coles Stipendiary Steward

Plea: Admitted

Date of Decision: 7 April 2015

Charge

The Informant Mr Williamson alleged that on 14 March 2015, Mr J Bridge, Licensed Trainer, committed a racing offence within the meaning of Rule 340 in that he misconducted himself, by being the holder of a Class A Trainer’s licence he:

1. Failed to attend the Waikato Racing Club, or provide adequate representation to ensure POKURU ASIF was presented to race in Race 2, the ‘Allied Securities R85 1200’ in accordance with the entry accepted by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.

2. Failed to provide due care for POKURU ASIF after the horse had arrived on course.

Mr Bridge acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and admitted the breach. Mr Bridge acknowledged that all the relevant documents from the RIU had been disclosed to him. Mr Bridge said he accepted the contents of the documents and consented to them being admitted as evidence.

The proposed procedure for the hearing was explained to Mr Bridge and he had no concerns or objections.

Mr Williamson produced a letter dated 19 March 2015 from Mr M R Godber, Operations Manager for the Racing Integrity Unit, authorising the filing of the Information pursuant to Rule 903 (2) (d).

Rule 340 states: A Licensed Person, Owner, lessee, Racing Manager, Official or other person bound by these Rules must not misconduct himself in any matter relating to the conduct of Races or racing.

Submissions by the Informant

1. Mr J Bridge is licensed by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing as a trainer (class A) for the current racing season which concludes, July 31st 2015.

2. On Saturday 14th March 2015 at Waikato Racing Club, the Respondent Mr J Bridge was the trainer of POKURU ASIF entered in Race 2 the ALLIED SECURITIES R85 1200.

3. Apprentice Rider L Magorrian was engaged to ride POKURU ASIF.

4. After weighing out for Race 2 Apprentice Rider L Magorrian alerted Stipendiary Stewards that the saddle had not been collected and he had not had any recent contact from Mr J Bridge.

5. Several attempts to contact Mr J Bridge by cell phone, along with his associates and family proved to be unsuccessful. Stipendiary Stewards collected the saddle and took it down to the ‘tie up’ stalls in an endeavour to find Mr J Bridge and POKURU ASIF.

6. Mr J Bridge could not be found or contacted, nor could anyone representing Mr J Bridge and consequently POKURU ASIF was declared a late scratching by Stipendiary Stewards at 1.14pm (5 minutes prior to the advertised race start time).

7. It was established that POKURU ASIF had been transported to Waikato Racing Club by Premier Horse Transport (driver Alan Smith) without anyone being placed in supervision of the horse. Alan Smith was contacted and advised Stipendiary Stewards he had left the course to tend to other duties for Premier Horse Transport.

8. POKURU ASIF was then located in the ‘tie up’ stalls unattended.

9. Mr J Bridge later contacted Stipendiary Stewards on the day in question to advise that the reason for his nonattendance was the he had been at a function the day prior in Taupo and had ‘slept in’.

10. The outcome of the Stewards’ investigation was that Mr Bridge would be charged with a breach of Rule 340. An Information was subsequently lodged with the Judicial Control Authority on Friday 20th March 2015.

11. Mr J Bridge had failed in his obligations as a trainer to provide due care for POKURU ASIF on the day in question, as POKURU ASIF was unattended after being transported to Waikato Racing Club.

12. Actions such as these raise questions regarding the welfare of POKURU ASIF after the horse’s arrival.

13. Mr J Bridge’s failure to attend the race meeting, or provide adequate representation to ensure POKURU ASIF was presented to race in accordance with the entry accepted by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, is of serious consequence.

14. In summary the Stewards conclude that the lack of actions by Mr Bridge to provide adequate care for POKURU ASIF fell below what is expected of any license holder, and Mr Bridge’s failure to present POKURU ASIF to race, has let down not only that horse’s connections, but the betting public and the racing industry in general.

15. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Williamson advised that the race had 6 starters and with POKURU ASIF being declared a late scratching the field was reduced to 5 horses. Mr Williamson advised us that Mr Smith had hosed down POKURU ASIF upon arrival on course and placed the horse in the tie up stalls situated beside the Clerk of the Course horses. He confirmed Mr Bridge had arranged with the float company for his gear bag to be taken to the races.

Submissions by the Respondent

16. Mr Bridge submitted that he admitted the breach but did not accept that he failed to provide care of POKURU ASIF. He said this was because he had instructed the float driver to look after the horse on its arrival and until he was present on course. He conceded that he made a big mistake in this instance by not attending the race meeting and due to financial pressure he did not send any staff member to the races with POKURU ASIF. He advised the Committee that he attended 4 weddings in the last 4 weeks and following a late night at Taupo he simply slept in. Mr Bridge conceded that he over committed himself and had been working long hours. He added that his phone was on silent and the repercussions of his actions have been huge. He advised the Committee that he has since agreed to reimburse the owner of POKURU ASIF costs associated with the race day.

17. Mr Bridge produced a letter to the Committee from Licensed Trainer Mr J Bell. After reading the letter the Committee acknowledges that Mr Bell took over the responsibility of POKURU ASIF once he became aware of Mr Bridge’s absence. According to the letter this was when Mr Bell came across Mr Coles with the saddle for POKURU ASIF shortly before the start of race 2.

18. Mr Bell’s letter stated that he and his staff looked after the welfare of POKURU ASIF and the horse was offered water on 3 occasions. He noted the horse slept most of the time.

19. Mr Bridge confirmed that POKURU ASIF was a calm laid back type of horse and his staff took care of the horse when it arrived back at his stables.

20. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Williamson did acknowledge that POKURU ASIF was taken care of by Mr Bell at a later stage in the day.

Decision

As Mr Bridge admitted the breach we find the charge proved.

Submissions on Penalty by Informant

21. Stewards submit that Mr Bridge must be penalised for his actions in order to protect and maintain the standards set by racing authorities in relation to animal welfare and the professionalism shown by license holders.

22. In support of these submissions the Stewards refer to RIU v McDonald in November 2011 where the brief particulars were that Trainer McDonald had failed to present his runner on course. In this case the horse had not made it on-course, nor had the trainer, and subsequently the horse was scratched. On that occasion Trainer McDonald was fined $350.

23. There are no recent cases with the facts being of a similar nature where the horse has in fact arrived on course and been left unattended.

24. The Stewards submit that this offence could be dealt with by way of monetary penalty, with a fine of no less than $750.

Submissions on Penalty by Respondent

Mr Bridge submitted that a penalty slightly in excess of that imposed on Mr McDonald would be mildly acceptable and had nothing further to add.

Reasons for Penalty

The Committee carefully considered the evidence and submissions presented. The mitigating factors are Mr Bridge’s admission of the breach, his clear record under this Rule, the genuine remorse he showed at the hearing, his honesty and co-operation with the officials during their investigations. It is relevant that Mr Bridge did arrange for the horse to be cared for on arrival at the course in the initial stages by the float driver. However, when it was discovered that Mr Bridge had not arrived at the course and the Stewards had located POKURU ASIF unattended the Committee is satisfied that the welfare of the horse was taken care of from that point on. This is supported by a letter produced at the hearing by Mr Bridge from Licensed Trainer Mr J Bell who looked after the welfare of POKURU ASIF.

However, none of this absolves Mr Bridge from his responsibility as a Licensed Trainer to fulfil his obligations on race day. Mr Bridge has clearly exercised poor judgement in finding himself in this position. Mr Bridge was very fortunate that once Mr Bell became aware of the situation he was able to ensure POKURU ASIF was not neglected in any way. There is no precedent for this type of breach in the JCA listing of penalties. We also note that Mr McDonald was charged under a different rule.

The JCA Penalty Guide for this rule is fact dependent but we are aware that the recommended starting point for a horse scratched after deadline is a $400 fine.

The Committee notes that no horse was denied a start through the late scratching of POKURU ASIF. After taking into account all the above and giving Mr Bridge credit for the mitigating factors on this occasion we consider an appropriate penalty is a $600 fine.

Penalty

Mr Bridge is fined the sum of $600.

Costs

The RIU sought no costs.

Due to this matter being scheduled to be heard on a race day there will be no order for JCA costs.

Adrian Dooley               Richard Seabrook

Chairman                      Committee Member

7 April 2015

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: