Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v NB Edge – Decision dated 13 February 2014
ID: JCA16872
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of Information No. A1582
BETWEEN N G McINTYRE, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND NEIL BERT EDGE of Weedons, Holder of Licence to Train
Respondent
Date of Hearing: Thursday, 6 February 2014
Venue: Rangiora Raceway, Rangiora
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chair - K G Hales, Committee Member
Present: Mr N G McIntyre (the Informant)
Date of Decision: 13 February 2014
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON PENALTY
THE CHARGE
[1] Information No.A1582 alleges that the Respondent, Mr Neil Bert Edge, committed a breach of Rule 502A (2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing as follows:
That on Thursday, 19th of December 2013, at a race meeting held by Forbury Park Trotting Club at Forbury Park, [he] incorrectly presented the 3-year-old filly named SIBERIAN ROSE (Brand 10Z0341) instead of REAL SOUTH (Brand 10Z0041) for Race 2, an alleged breach of Rule 502A (2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing AND THAT [he is] thereby liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to the said Rules.
[2] Mr McIntyre produced a letter from Mr M R Godber, Operations Manager for the Racing Integrity Unit, authorising the filing of the information pursuant to Rule 1103 (4) (c).
[3] Mr Edge had signed the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating that he admitted the charge. He had also endorsed on the information form and signed “I do not wish to attend the hearing”.
[4] The charge was accordingly found proved.
THE RULES
[5] The relevant Rules are as follows:
502A (1) The trainer and person in control of the horse at the race meeting shall ensure the correct horse is presented to start in the race in which it is entered.
1001(2) A person who commits a breach of any Rule. . . shall be liable to the following penalties:
(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000; and/or
(b) suspension from holding or obtaining a licence for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or
(c) disqualification for a period not exceeding 12 months.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
[6] Mr McIntyre presented the following summary of facts:
1. Mr Edge correctly entered the 3-year-old filly named REAL SOUTH for Race 2 at the Forbury Park Trotting Club’s meeting on 19 December 2013.
2. The correct brand for REAL SOUTH is 10Z0041.
3. All runners were presented in the birdcage prior to Race 2. Stipendiary Steward, Mr Chris Allison, who was checking the brands identified runner Number 7 as being the 3-year-old filly, SIBERIAN ROSE, brand 10Z0341. (Mr McIntyre pointed out that only one number was different in the two brands. He also produced a photograph of the horse that was presented on the night which showed the brand 10Z0341).
4. REAL SOUTH was subsequently scratched prior to the start of the race.
5. REAL SOUTH (Real Desire – Highlands) and SIBERIAN ROSE (Gotta Go Cullect – Russian Rose) were both purchased at the Alabar Winter Sale. Mr Edge advised that, right from the time the horses arrived on his property, he believed that SIBERIAN ROSE was the Real Desire – Highlands filly.
6. Both fillies are bay with no markings.
7. Trainer N B Edge sent REAL SOUTH to trainer, M P Jones, to be qualified in July 2013.
8. Trainer, M P Jones, lodged a Trainer Notification Form on 12 August 2013 advising he had REAL SOUTH in training. He identified the filly on the form numerically as 0041 as being REAL SOUTH.
9. The filly raced at the Motukarara workouts (prior to the lodging of the Trainer Notification Form) on both the 3rd and 10th of August.
10. REAL SOUTH was presented to the Stewards on 13 August at the Ashburton trials.
11. In Race 3, a Qualifying Pace, REAL SOUTH qualified when finishing 3rd.
12. Trainer, Mr N B Edge, lodged a Trainer Notification Form on 16 December 2013 with Harness Racing New Zealand advising he had REAL SOUTH in training. He identified the filly with the brand symbols with a symbol missing. (The critical second symbol was missing when the Trainer Notification Form was sent to HRNZ. Unfortunately, this was not picked up).
13. Mr McIntyre and Stipendiary Steward, Mr Scott Wallis, identified both fillies on Monday, 23 December 2013 at the property of Mr Edge. The filly, REAL SOUTH, was in big condition with no shoes on and SIBERIAN ROSE (the horse presented at Forbury Park) was in racing condition. (Photographs of the two horses with brands showing were produced).
14. Due to the laboratory being closed for Christmas, DNA samples were not taken until 8 January 2014. The test confirmed the brands to be correct.
15. Mr Jones was questioned at Addington on 23 January 2014. He advised that the two fillies had arrived from Mr Edge around July 2013.
16. Mr Jones stated that the horse that, he believed, he qualified was REAL SOUTH. However, Mr Jones did also add he had only taken the advice of Mr Edge and his Trainer Notification Form was completed from his computer (rather that from the horse’s neck).
17. Following the horse qualifying, both horses were returned to Mr Edge’s property shortly after this.
18. Mr Edge believes that REAL SOUTH was mixed up from the day the fillies arrived and he further advised that the filly, REAL SOUTH, had not left his property. The other filly that Mr Jones had from Mr Edge was by ELSU.
[7] Mr Edge had signed the written Summary of Facts as being “true and correct”.
[8] Mr McIntyre said that the concern that the RIU had was that neither trainer had gone to the horse’s neck and checked that the correct horse was in work. On 13 August 2013 when the horse qualified, Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Zarb, checked the horse as correct. There was also a Trainer Notification Form from Mr Jones showing the horse as correct. However, Mr Edge has advised that the actual REAL SOUTH has never left his property. It could not be categorically said that the wrong horse had run at the Ashburton trials in the light of Mr Jones’ Trainer Notification Form and Mr Zarb’s inspection of the filly, both saying it was the right horse. Mr Edge was taken at his word. It could not be proved that Mr Jones, who advised that he took the details off the computer, had taken the wrong horse to the races.
[9] Mr McIntyre submitted that the situation was “quite confusing” as there is one symbol involved and both horses were purchased at the same time. However, what can be proved is that the wrong horse was taken to Forbury Park to race.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS
[10] Mr McIntyre presented the following written submissions:
1. Mr Edge currently holds a Licence to Train from Harness Racing New Zealand.
2. He has been licensed since 2010 and has started approximately 260 horses.
3. Mr Edge is aware of the requirements in relation to the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing.
4. The failure to present the correct horse was a basic error that should not have occurred. There is no suggestion or evidence to say this was an intentional act by Mr Edge to deceive any parties.
5. Mr Edge has no previous breaches of this Rule and has admitted the breach.
6. Rule 1003 provides for a fine not exceeding $10,000 and/or suspension from holding or obtaining a licence or disqualification for a period of 12 months.
7. The following decisions are considered to be of some assistance to the Committee to determine penalty – HRNZ v E (2007) $1,200 (horse raced), RIU v H (2014) $500 (trials) and RIU v S (2013) - $550 (presented incorrect horse however mistake was able to be fixed and the correct horse raced).
8. When determining penalty, regard should be had to the impact on the Club. The scratching of REAL SOUTH resulted in a 7-horse race. REAL SOUTH was scratched 5 minutes prior the start (a short time-frame for punters to reinvest). At the time of scratching, the horse was 7/7 in the betting (not carrying a large amount of money).
9. The Racing Integrity Unit considers that it is a fundamental requirement of any trainer to present the correct horse to race and this is to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the sport. The message has to be given to licence-holders that full and proper steps have to be taken to ensure that horses are identified correctly and that the horse accepted for the race is indeed the animal they present to race. That should be done by checking the brand off the neck and not the computer.
10. Given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, the RIU submits that a monetary fine be imposed to act as a deterrent. It is the submission of the Informant, based on the previous cases, that a fine in the range of $500 to $1,000 be imposed.
RESPONDENT’S PENALTY SUBMISSIONS
[11] Mr Edge was not present at the hearing and no submissions were filed by him.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
[12] Mr Edge has admitted a charge that he incorrectly presented the 3-year-old filly trained by him, SIBERIAN ROSE, to race in Race 2 at the Forbury Park meeting on 17 December 2013 instead of REAL SOUTH, which had accepted for the race.
[13] The circumstances that led to this are somewhat complex. We do not need to comment further on that. However, what is clear and irrefutable is that the wrong horse was presented at the racetrack to race. Mr Edge has admitted this.
[14] It is fortunate that the error was noticed by a diligent Stipendiary Steward, Mr Allison. The consequences had SIBERIAN ROSE raced in the place of REAL SOUTH were, potentially, very serious. In the event, the worst that happened was that the horse was scratched from its race and the only real loser, if any, was the Club in having to refund investments on the horse. In this respect, it is fortunate that REAL SOUTH was not one of the better-supported runners.
[15] The Committee accepts that there was no intent on the part of Mr Edge to deceive. It seems it was a genuine mistake, albeit a negligent one. Be that as it may, the mistake should not have been made and would not have been made had Mr Edge adopted the prudent course of checking the brand on the horse’s neck. This is a basic precaution and one that is easily taken, but it is of concern that it still happens that trainers do not take this simple step.
[16] The mitigating factors in this case are Mr Edge’s early admission of the breach and his previous good record. It is, in some respects, a mitigating factor that the wrong horse did not actually race – thanks to the attention of the Stipendiary Steward.
[17] In determining penalty, the Committee has taken some guidance from the previous cases that were referred to us by Mr McIntyre in his penalty submissions. We have also noted that, while no penalty is suggested in the current Penalty Guide, the previous guidelines recommended a starting point for a breach of the Rule of a fine of $2,000. We believe that a fine of that amount is appropriate, as a starting point, in a case in which the wrong horse has actually started in the race – as in the case of HRNZ v E in which the wrong horse raced. The Committee in that case took into account, among other things, the trainer’s admission of the breach, his “exemplary record” over a period of 20 years and the fact that the horse was unplaced. The trainer was fined $1,200.
[18] The most recent case is the case of RIU v H (2013) where the trainers presented the wrong horse to race in a qualifying trial. They were fined $500, the principal mitigating factor being that it was a trial rather than a totalisator race.
[19] The case of RIU v S (2013) referred to, where the trainer was fined $550, was different in that, although the wrong horse was presented onto the track, the error was discovered in time and the correct horse was able to compete in the race.
[20] In the Committee’s view, this case sits somewhere between the cases of HRNZ v E and RIU v H. This is in line with the Informant’s submission that a fine of between $500 and $1,000 is appropriate.
[21] The Committee considers that the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Harness Racing can be served by the imposition of a fine in this case of $800, which should also serve as a deterrent to Mr Edge and other trainers. The requirement to present the correct horse at the races is self-evident but one that cannot be stressed too much.
PENALTY
[22] Mr Edge is fined the sum of $800.00
RG MCKENZIE K G HALES
Chair Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 10/02/2014
Publish Date: 10/02/2014
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: ac68fe814ea22d64da57ece9e3893ddd
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 10/02/2014
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v NB Edge - Decision dated 13 February 2014
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of Information No. A1582
BETWEEN N G McINTYRE, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND NEIL BERT EDGE of Weedons, Holder of Licence to Train
Respondent
Date of Hearing: Thursday, 6 February 2014
Venue: Rangiora Raceway, Rangiora
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chair - K G Hales, Committee Member
Present: Mr N G McIntyre (the Informant)
Date of Decision: 13 February 2014
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON PENALTY
THE CHARGE
[1] Information No.A1582 alleges that the Respondent, Mr Neil Bert Edge, committed a breach of Rule 502A (2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing as follows:
That on Thursday, 19th of December 2013, at a race meeting held by Forbury Park Trotting Club at Forbury Park, [he] incorrectly presented the 3-year-old filly named SIBERIAN ROSE (Brand 10Z0341) instead of REAL SOUTH (Brand 10Z0041) for Race 2, an alleged breach of Rule 502A (2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing AND THAT [he is] thereby liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to the said Rules.
[2] Mr McIntyre produced a letter from Mr M R Godber, Operations Manager for the Racing Integrity Unit, authorising the filing of the information pursuant to Rule 1103 (4) (c).
[3] Mr Edge had signed the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating that he admitted the charge. He had also endorsed on the information form and signed “I do not wish to attend the hearing”.
[4] The charge was accordingly found proved.
THE RULES
[5] The relevant Rules are as follows:
502A (1) The trainer and person in control of the horse at the race meeting shall ensure the correct horse is presented to start in the race in which it is entered.
1001(2) A person who commits a breach of any Rule. . . shall be liable to the following penalties:
(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000; and/or
(b) suspension from holding or obtaining a licence for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or
(c) disqualification for a period not exceeding 12 months.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
[6] Mr McIntyre presented the following summary of facts:
1. Mr Edge correctly entered the 3-year-old filly named REAL SOUTH for Race 2 at the Forbury Park Trotting Club’s meeting on 19 December 2013.
2. The correct brand for REAL SOUTH is 10Z0041.
3. All runners were presented in the birdcage prior to Race 2. Stipendiary Steward, Mr Chris Allison, who was checking the brands identified runner Number 7 as being the 3-year-old filly, SIBERIAN ROSE, brand 10Z0341. (Mr McIntyre pointed out that only one number was different in the two brands. He also produced a photograph of the horse that was presented on the night which showed the brand 10Z0341).
4. REAL SOUTH was subsequently scratched prior to the start of the race.
5. REAL SOUTH (Real Desire – Highlands) and SIBERIAN ROSE (Gotta Go Cullect – Russian Rose) were both purchased at the Alabar Winter Sale. Mr Edge advised that, right from the time the horses arrived on his property, he believed that SIBERIAN ROSE was the Real Desire – Highlands filly.
6. Both fillies are bay with no markings.
7. Trainer N B Edge sent REAL SOUTH to trainer, M P Jones, to be qualified in July 2013.
8. Trainer, M P Jones, lodged a Trainer Notification Form on 12 August 2013 advising he had REAL SOUTH in training. He identified the filly on the form numerically as 0041 as being REAL SOUTH.
9. The filly raced at the Motukarara workouts (prior to the lodging of the Trainer Notification Form) on both the 3rd and 10th of August.
10. REAL SOUTH was presented to the Stewards on 13 August at the Ashburton trials.
11. In Race 3, a Qualifying Pace, REAL SOUTH qualified when finishing 3rd.
12. Trainer, Mr N B Edge, lodged a Trainer Notification Form on 16 December 2013 with Harness Racing New Zealand advising he had REAL SOUTH in training. He identified the filly with the brand symbols with a symbol missing. (The critical second symbol was missing when the Trainer Notification Form was sent to HRNZ. Unfortunately, this was not picked up).
13. Mr McIntyre and Stipendiary Steward, Mr Scott Wallis, identified both fillies on Monday, 23 December 2013 at the property of Mr Edge. The filly, REAL SOUTH, was in big condition with no shoes on and SIBERIAN ROSE (the horse presented at Forbury Park) was in racing condition. (Photographs of the two horses with brands showing were produced).
14. Due to the laboratory being closed for Christmas, DNA samples were not taken until 8 January 2014. The test confirmed the brands to be correct.
15. Mr Jones was questioned at Addington on 23 January 2014. He advised that the two fillies had arrived from Mr Edge around July 2013.
16. Mr Jones stated that the horse that, he believed, he qualified was REAL SOUTH. However, Mr Jones did also add he had only taken the advice of Mr Edge and his Trainer Notification Form was completed from his computer (rather that from the horse’s neck).
17. Following the horse qualifying, both horses were returned to Mr Edge’s property shortly after this.
18. Mr Edge believes that REAL SOUTH was mixed up from the day the fillies arrived and he further advised that the filly, REAL SOUTH, had not left his property. The other filly that Mr Jones had from Mr Edge was by ELSU.
[7] Mr Edge had signed the written Summary of Facts as being “true and correct”.
[8] Mr McIntyre said that the concern that the RIU had was that neither trainer had gone to the horse’s neck and checked that the correct horse was in work. On 13 August 2013 when the horse qualified, Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Zarb, checked the horse as correct. There was also a Trainer Notification Form from Mr Jones showing the horse as correct. However, Mr Edge has advised that the actual REAL SOUTH has never left his property. It could not be categorically said that the wrong horse had run at the Ashburton trials in the light of Mr Jones’ Trainer Notification Form and Mr Zarb’s inspection of the filly, both saying it was the right horse. Mr Edge was taken at his word. It could not be proved that Mr Jones, who advised that he took the details off the computer, had taken the wrong horse to the races.
[9] Mr McIntyre submitted that the situation was “quite confusing” as there is one symbol involved and both horses were purchased at the same time. However, what can be proved is that the wrong horse was taken to Forbury Park to race.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS
[10] Mr McIntyre presented the following written submissions:
1. Mr Edge currently holds a Licence to Train from Harness Racing New Zealand.
2. He has been licensed since 2010 and has started approximately 260 horses.
3. Mr Edge is aware of the requirements in relation to the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing.
4. The failure to present the correct horse was a basic error that should not have occurred. There is no suggestion or evidence to say this was an intentional act by Mr Edge to deceive any parties.
5. Mr Edge has no previous breaches of this Rule and has admitted the breach.
6. Rule 1003 provides for a fine not exceeding $10,000 and/or suspension from holding or obtaining a licence or disqualification for a period of 12 months.
7. The following decisions are considered to be of some assistance to the Committee to determine penalty – HRNZ v E (2007) $1,200 (horse raced), RIU v H (2014) $500 (trials) and RIU v S (2013) - $550 (presented incorrect horse however mistake was able to be fixed and the correct horse raced).
8. When determining penalty, regard should be had to the impact on the Club. The scratching of REAL SOUTH resulted in a 7-horse race. REAL SOUTH was scratched 5 minutes prior the start (a short time-frame for punters to reinvest). At the time of scratching, the horse was 7/7 in the betting (not carrying a large amount of money).
9. The Racing Integrity Unit considers that it is a fundamental requirement of any trainer to present the correct horse to race and this is to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the sport. The message has to be given to licence-holders that full and proper steps have to be taken to ensure that horses are identified correctly and that the horse accepted for the race is indeed the animal they present to race. That should be done by checking the brand off the neck and not the computer.
10. Given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, the RIU submits that a monetary fine be imposed to act as a deterrent. It is the submission of the Informant, based on the previous cases, that a fine in the range of $500 to $1,000 be imposed.
RESPONDENT’S PENALTY SUBMISSIONS
[11] Mr Edge was not present at the hearing and no submissions were filed by him.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
[12] Mr Edge has admitted a charge that he incorrectly presented the 3-year-old filly trained by him, SIBERIAN ROSE, to race in Race 2 at the Forbury Park meeting on 17 December 2013 instead of REAL SOUTH, which had accepted for the race.
[13] The circumstances that led to this are somewhat complex. We do not need to comment further on that. However, what is clear and irrefutable is that the wrong horse was presented at the racetrack to race. Mr Edge has admitted this.
[14] It is fortunate that the error was noticed by a diligent Stipendiary Steward, Mr Allison. The consequences had SIBERIAN ROSE raced in the place of REAL SOUTH were, potentially, very serious. In the event, the worst that happened was that the horse was scratched from its race and the only real loser, if any, was the Club in having to refund investments on the horse. In this respect, it is fortunate that REAL SOUTH was not one of the better-supported runners.
[15] The Committee accepts that there was no intent on the part of Mr Edge to deceive. It seems it was a genuine mistake, albeit a negligent one. Be that as it may, the mistake should not have been made and would not have been made had Mr Edge adopted the prudent course of checking the brand on the horse’s neck. This is a basic precaution and one that is easily taken, but it is of concern that it still happens that trainers do not take this simple step.
[16] The mitigating factors in this case are Mr Edge’s early admission of the breach and his previous good record. It is, in some respects, a mitigating factor that the wrong horse did not actually race – thanks to the attention of the Stipendiary Steward.
[17] In determining penalty, the Committee has taken some guidance from the previous cases that were referred to us by Mr McIntyre in his penalty submissions. We have also noted that, while no penalty is suggested in the current Penalty Guide, the previous guidelines recommended a starting point for a breach of the Rule of a fine of $2,000. We believe that a fine of that amount is appropriate, as a starting point, in a case in which the wrong horse has actually started in the race – as in the case of HRNZ v E in which the wrong horse raced. The Committee in that case took into account, among other things, the trainer’s admission of the breach, his “exemplary record” over a period of 20 years and the fact that the horse was unplaced. The trainer was fined $1,200.
[18] The most recent case is the case of RIU v H (2013) where the trainers presented the wrong horse to race in a qualifying trial. They were fined $500, the principal mitigating factor being that it was a trial rather than a totalisator race.
[19] The case of RIU v S (2013) referred to, where the trainer was fined $550, was different in that, although the wrong horse was presented onto the track, the error was discovered in time and the correct horse was able to compete in the race.
[20] In the Committee’s view, this case sits somewhere between the cases of HRNZ v E and RIU v H. This is in line with the Informant’s submission that a fine of between $500 and $1,000 is appropriate.
[21] The Committee considers that the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Harness Racing can be served by the imposition of a fine in this case of $800, which should also serve as a deterrent to Mr Edge and other trainers. The requirement to present the correct horse at the races is self-evident but one that cannot be stressed too much.
PENALTY
[22] Mr Edge is fined the sum of $800.00
RG MCKENZIE K G HALES
Chair 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: