Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M J McGuire – Decision dated 6 December 2016 – Chair, Mr B Scott

hearingid: 1227c6e4d587f894727560087ad6e44c

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 06/12/2016

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M J McGuire - Decision dated 6 December 2016 - Chair, Mr B Scott

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

IN THE MATTER of the NZ Rules of Harness Racing

BETWEEN:

THE RACING INTEGRITY UNIT ON BEHALF OF HARNESS RACING NZ

(Mr J Muirhead – Senior Stipendiary Steward appearing)

Informant

AND:

MR & MRS M J McGUIRE – AS OWNERS OF HELEN SHAPIRO

Respondent

Information No: A7477

Instigating a Protest

Judicial Committee: BJ Scott (Chairman), AJ Godsalve (Committee Member)

Present: Mr J Muirhead - Senior Stipendiary Steward for the Informant

Mr J Abernethy – Public Trainer representing Mr & Mrs McGuire

Horse Name: HELEN SHAPIRO

Plea: Admitted

Rules: 213(1)(h) & 1003(2)(a)

Venue: Alexandra Park Racecourse

Date of Hearing: 04th November 2016

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

Evidence

[1] This matter commenced by way of the lodgement by Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr J Muirhead of an Information Instigating a Protest against the races (either official races or official trials) that HELEN SHAPIRO started in on the basis that HELEN SHAPIRO was ineligible to be entered into or start in any race or trial.

The horse that raced as HELEN SHAPIRO is owned by Mr & Mrs MJ McGuire but is trained by Mr J Abernethy and Mr Abernethy accepted service of the Information and advised the Committee that he represented Mr & Mrs McGuire and that the breach of the rule is admitted.

[2] Rule 213(1)(h) provides:

“A Stipendiary Steward at any time may scratch from a race or declare ineligible to start in a race until a specific condition is met any horse that is not eligible to enter or start in a race.”

Rule 1003(2)(a) provides:

“Every horse which commits a breach of any rule shall be liable to be disqualified or scratched from any race and/or to be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months.”

[3] This matter has proceeded by way of an Information Instigating a Protest but based on the facts presented to the Committee it may well have been by way of a Request for a Ruling under Rule 1109(3). The Committee in its decision is essentially giving a ruling as to the eligibility or otherwise of HELEN SHAPIRO to race.

[4] At the commencement of the hearing Mr Muirhead presented a signed Authority under Rule 1108(2) from the General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit to proceed with the information against HELEN SHAPIRO.

[5] Mr Muirhead then advised the Committee that HELEN SHAPIRO had had eight race day starts during the period from the 26th of August 2016 to the 21st of October 2016. These starts were at meetings conducted by The Auckland Trotting Club on the 26th of August 2016 and the 2nd of September 2016 and the 16th of September 2016, Harness Racing Waikato on the 8th of September 2016, the 22nd of September 2016 and the 21st of October 2016 and Manawatu Harness Racing Club on the 11th of October 2016 and the 13th of October 2016.

Mr Muirhead presented at the hearing the official results of each of the races that HELEN SHAPIRO started in and he advised the Committee that the horse finished 4th on the 8th of September 2016, 3rd on the 22nd of September 2016 and 2nd on the 13th of October 2016.

[6] Mr Muirhead also presented official results of qualifying trials that HELEN SHAPIRO started in being the 19th of December 2015, the 6th of January 2016 and the 27th of January 2016.

He said that HELEN SHAPIRO had as a result qualified to start at the races.

[7] Mr Muirhead then said that at the Harness Racing Waikato meeting on the 21st of October 2016, Stipendiary Steward Mr van Kan reported to him to say that the last symbol on the brand of HELEN SHAPIRO was a 7. Mr Muirhead said that the HRNZ records show that the last symbol was smudged but he did say that the markings on the horse were identical to those for HELEN SHAPIRO. Mr Muirhead then said that he had a doubt about the brand so he went to have a look. He went to the stables after the race and he said the neck had been shaved hard back so that the brand was quite clearly shown and he could tell that the last symbol was a 7. He then said that he made a decision to take hair samples from the horse and he sent those to Massey University for analysis. The result of that analysis showed that the hair sample was for a horse called THE LAST GAMBLE and not HELEN SHAPIRO.

[8] Mr Muirhead then said that upon further checking he found that both horses HELEN SHAPIRO and THE LAST GAMBLE were owned by Mr & Mrs McGuire and they were broken in by Public Trainer Mr Burrows. After being broken in the horses were spelled and Mr Burrows advised the owners that one horse did not show potential and that horse is now dead. Mr Burrows took the other horse to the trials and Mr Muirhead said that on his Stable Notification to HRNZ Mr Burrows would have written the brand number as it was shown on the HRNZ records and recorded a 9 instead of a 7. He said that trainers are meant to take the brand number off the horse and not from the HRNZ site.

[9] Mr Muirhead said that the horse then trialled and it was checked by Stipendiary Steward Mr Quirke and he (Mr Quirke) noted that the last symbol on the brand was smudged. He also noted that the horse he inspected had a white off hind foot. It would appear that HRNZ updated its information and records to include the white off hind foot and this continued the mistakes into the records of this horse.

[10] Mr Abernethy that said that during its starts the horse known as HELEN SHAPIRO had been blood tested and it would appear to have passed all the checks.

[11] Mr Muirhead said that Mr Abernethy had not checked the brands properly when he got the horse and he relied on the brand showing on the HRNZ records rather than by a full inspection of the brand on the horse.

[12] Mr Muirhead produced to the Committee the following:

(a) HRNZ Branding Slips Z4637 and Z4639 for THE LAST GAMBLE and HELEN SHAPIRO respectively;

(b) Applications for Registration of THE LAST GAMBLE and HELEN SHAPIRO;

(c) Trainer Notification form from P Burrows for HELEN SHAPRIO;

(d) Email from Stipendiary Steward R Quirke to HRNZ following inspection and checking of HELEN SHAPIRO;

(e) Notification to HRNZ of the death of THE LAST GAMBLE;

(f) Trainer Notification from J Abernethy regarding HELEN SHAPIRO;

(g) Various photos showing brand and markings of the horse known as HELEN SHAPIRO.

[13] In answer to a question from the Committee Mr Muirhead said that both horses were owned by the same people, they were born on the same day and they went to Mr Burrows at the same time. He said that Mr Burrows appears to have notified the horses around the wrong way and this was a result of him relying on HRNZ records.

[14] Mr Muirhead said that the owners correctly registered the horses and it was when the horse known as HELEN SHAPIRO first trialled that the mistakes began and those mistakes continued.

[15] Mr Muirhead said that when the horse arrived at Mr Abernethy’s Training Establishment he believed it to be HELEN SHAPIRO when in fact the horse was THE LAST GAMBLE.

Decision

[16] The charge under the Information has been admitted and accordingly is upheld.

Submissions by Mr Muirhead

[17] Mr Muirhead asked that the horse known as HELEN SHAPIRO but in fact is THE LAST GAMBLE is to be disqualified from all 8 race starts and trials and also trial starts and that the horses that finished behind HELEN SHAPIRO particularly in the races should be promoted up a placing as a result of the disqualifications.

Mr Muirhead said that because HELEN SHAPIRO had officially qualified he would like a direction to HRNZ that HELEN SHAPIRO’S qualification be expunged from Stud Book records.

Submissions by Mr Abernethy

[18] Mr Abernethy concurred with everything that Mr Muirhead had presented to the Committee and he is now aware that the horse in his Establishment is THE LAST GAMBLE and not HELEN SHAPIRO. He would like HRNZ to issue a new Certificate of Registration for THE LAST GAMBLE so that he can requalify it.

Reasons

[19] This has been an interesting set of facts which show how the mistake has arisen but also shows not only faults by the trainers concerned in relying on HRNZ records and not a proper inspection of the brand but also on behalf of HRNZ in respect to the inspection of the horse and amendment of HRNZ’s records.

The end result is that there are lessons to be learned by all of the parties involved but having said that this was an unusual set of circumstances. We had two horses (both fillies) bred and owned by the same people, registered at about the same time, and sent to be broken in at the same time to the one trainer.

Clearly the horse named HELEN SHAPIRO was the one that died and the horse known as HELEN SHAPIRO was in fact THE LAST GAMBLE.

[20] It is appropriate therefore to find that the horse known as HELEN SHAPIRO was ineligible to start in official trials and in races and it should be disqualified from all of those.

Decision

[21] This Committee therefore makes the following rulings:

(a) The horse known as HELEN SHAPIRO is disqualified from all race starts.

(b) The Committee directs that any stakes earned are to be repaid at the direction of HRNZ.

(c) All horses finishing in the placings behind HELEN SHAPIRO are to be promoted as a result of the disqualifications and stakes paid accordingly.

(d) HELEN SHAPIRO is to be disqualified from the records of all trials and official work outs and HRNZ is to amend its records accordingly.

(e) The horse known as HELEN SHAPRIO is declared to be THE LAST GAMBLE and it is eligible to be entered into qualifying trials and/or work outs and subject to qualifying then in any races.

(f) HRNZ is to issue a new Certificate of Registration for THE LAST GAMBLE.

Addendum

[22]The Committee is aware that this is an unusual set of circumstances which has given rise to this situation. This however is very clearly not a situation where one horse has been purposely substituted for another. Although careless mistakes have been made by some parties quite clearly Mr & Mrs McGuire were not aware of any of this and there can be no fault attributed to them.

Costs

[23] This matter was heard on a race day and there are no orders as to costs.

Dated this 6th day of December 2016

BJ SCOTT        AJ GODSALVE

Chairman       Committee Member

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: