Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v S Muniandy 22 April 2012 – Decision dated 27 April 2012

hearingid: 222427b1f6fd30983a32195c47252311

informantnumber: A2605 and A 2606

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 18/04/2012

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v S Muniandy 22 April 2012 - Decision dated 27 April 2012

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of

BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Informant

AND SHANKAR MUNIANDY
Apprentice Jockey
Respondent

INFORMATION NOS. A2605 and A2606

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Prof G Hall (Chairman) - Mr P Knowles (Committee Member)

APPEARING: Mr A Ray for the RIU, Mr B Anderton on behalf of the respondent
DATE OF HEARING: 22 April 2012
DATE OF ORAL DECISION: 22 April 2012
DATE OF WRITTEN DECISION: 27 April 2012

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] The informant, the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU), alleges that Mr S Muniandy breached r 707(1) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules of Racing in that when he rode JACOBS RIVER in Race 8 at the Southland Racing Club meeting on 18 March 2012, he had placed a bet via his TAB Account by mobile telephone on another horse in that race, namely the winner AMIGO. And secondly, that being the rider of VILLA RICA in Race 4 at the Canterbury Racing Club meeting on 8 March 2012 he placed two bets on other horses in that race, namely, ASAVANT and SCARLET TIGER.

[2] The respondent has admitted the two charges. We thus find the charges proved.

[3] Rule 707(1) provides:
Subject to Rules 708 and 709, a Rider may only bet on a race and/or sports event (including but not limited to a Race) in New Zealand or in any other jurisdiction provided that where he is betting on a Race and he is riding a horse in that Race he may only bet on the horse he is riding and only where:
(a) he is the or an Owner or lessee (as the case may be) of that horse; or
(b) in any other case through or with the permission of the Owner or lessee (as the case may be) of that horse or the Racing Manager of such Owner or lessee (as the case may be),

And where the Rider is on a Racecourse in New Zealand he may only bet in accordance with this Rule 707 where he uses his mobile phone to place such a bet through his account with an Authorised Wagering Operator.

Facts:
[4] Mr Ray stated that Racing Integrity Stewards had become aware that the respondent had placed bets on rival runners in races in which he had ridden.

[5] Mr Muniandy was the rider of VILLA RICA in Race 4 at the Canterbury Racing Club meeting on Thursday 8 March 2012. The race was a Maiden held over 2000 metres for a stake of $7000. There were 12 runners. VILLA RICA was the least fancied runner being 12/12 in the betting and paying, at the close of betting, $114.50. VILLA RICA finished 8th being beaten by 7.2 lengths. Subsequent to the meeting, the Stewards became aware that Mr Muniandy had placed a $50 win bet on the winner of the race, ASAVANT and further he had placed a $20 bet on SCARLET TIGER, which finished 4th.

[6] Mr. Muniandy was the rider of JACOBS RIVER in Race 8 at the Southland Racing Club meeting on Sunday 18 March 2012. The race was restricted to horses with a rating of 65 or below and was run over a distance of 2000 metres for a stake of $8,000. There were 10 starters in the event. JACOBS RIVER was the 2nd least fancied runner being 9/9 in the betting and paying, at the close of betting, $23.10. JACOBS RIVER finished 7th being beaten by 19.9 lengths. Subsequent to the meeting, the Stewards became aware that Mr Muniandy had placed a $22 bet on the winner of the race, AMIGO.

[7] The Stewards interviewed the respondent in the presence of his employer Mr Brian Anderton. He admitted placing the alleged bets.

[8] On 30 March 2012 Mr Muniandy was charged with breaching r 707(1) for the wager placed on AMIGO in Race 8 at the Southland Racing Club meeting held on 18 March 2012. On 18 April he was charged with breaching the same rule for the wager placed on both ASAVANT and SCARLET TIGER in Race 4 at the Canterbury Racing Club meeting held on 8 March 2012.

Submissions:
[9] Mr Ray submitted that when considering the seriousness of this breach the New Zealand Rules of Racing clearly forbid jockeys from betting on any horse in any race other than the one that they are riding. And, notwithstanding that riders are permitted to bet on their own mounts, there are nonetheless restrictions and conditions that must be complied with in the course of such bets being placed. These restrictions and conditions were in place to ensure protection of the integrity of racing, which was essential for the public to have confidence in racing and the administration of racing.

[10] The informant emphasised that the respondent’s actions were detrimental and damaging to the image of racing and as such had the potential to bring the industry into disrepute. It was their position that a severe penalty was warranted to deter the respondent, and other jockeys who might be disposed to betting in a similar manner on races in New Zealand.

[11] In previous years the Stipendiary Stewards had proposed to the governing body that riders should not bet at all given the potential hazards to the industry. That had been declined by the Board at the time. Riders were trusted to carry out betting activity within the parameters of the rule.

[12] The RIU believed the respondent’s actions were a very serious breach of the rule because of the trust given to the riders not to breach it. New Zealand was one of only a few racing jurisdictions in the world that allowed riders to bet and breaches were to be met with severe penalties.

[13] It was the informant’s position that the appropriate penalty was a term of suspension, as notwithstanding that the respondent had not deliberately set out to compromise the integrity of the race in which he was riding, he had, by his actions, potentially achieved this outcome through wagering on a horse other than his own. This breach of the rules therefore raised issues of the respondent’s fitness to hold a licence to ride in races for a period of time.

[14] The informant submitted that in the circumstances of this particular case a suspension of three months was both appropriate and justified having regard to the seriousness of the case and to serve both as a specific and general deterrent. In addition to a suspension, the RIU sought a fine of $500.

[15] The RIU requested that it be placed on record that their position was that if another rider was found to be in breach of the rules of racing relating to betting then their penalty could be greater depending on the circumstances of the case.

[16] Mr Anderton, spoke on behalf of Mr Muniandy, and emphasised that this was simply an act of stupidity on the part of the respondent. He described Mr Muniandy’s actions as being “two moments of madness”. There was no sinister aspect to the breach and there was no involvement of others, such as betting syndicate. He said the respondent had backed hot favourites and the opportunity for financial gain was thus very limited.

[17] He asked us to consider as a mitigating factor that the respondent has difficulties with the English language and gets easily confused with words, often interpreting them incorrectly. He used the example of the respondent confusing the meaning of “come” and “go”.

[18] Mr Anderton stated he had no issues whatsoever with the respondent’s honesty and trustworthiness. He said he treated him as a member of his family and gave the example of permitting him to have access to his wallet for the purpose of getting his (Mr Anderton’s) credit card to obtain petrol for the car.

[19] He said Mr Muniandy was of excellent character and had let himself down badly on this occasion. He indicated he had given him “a good stir up”. He accepted a suspension was appropriate, but believed three months, as submitted by the informant, was clearly excessive. He emphasised this breach was at the low end of the scale. He submitted that a suspension would cost the respondent, by way of loss of income, some $1500 a week.

[20] Finally, he asked to take into account when setting the term of suspension, that an arrangement had been made with Gai Waterhouse for the respondent to be attached to her stable for a number of weeks in June and July of this year.

[21] Mr Ray, in reply, agreed that there was no sinister aspect to the respondent’s betting, stating that had this not been the case, the RIU would have submitted that a higher penalty was appropriate. He stated that each of the respondent’s rides had been closely scrutinised by the Stewards and there were no issues whatsoever with respect to these. He accepted it appeared to be simply an act of stupidity by the respondent. However, penalties for a breach of this rule had to be substantial.

Decision:
[22] This is a breach of a rule that strikes at the core of the integrity of racing. In that regard, we can only view the breach as serious. However, this particular breach does not have sinister overtones and is correctly described as being an “act of stupidity” on the part of the respondent. There is no evidence whatsoever of any deception by the respondent.

[23] There is no doubt that the breach has to be met with a suspension. The more difficult issue is: What is the appropriate length of that suspension? We have been informed there have been no beaches of this rule since the Judicial Control Authority was established and thus we have no guidance from decisions of other judicial committees.

[24] There is a need to balance the seriousness of the conduct proscribed by this rule with the fact that this is a breach that is accepted to be at the bottom end of the scale for this particular rule, which can encompass the full ambit of gambling permutations and behaviour. The only significant aggravating feature of the respondent’s actions is that the breach occurred not on one but two occasions, and that the earlier breach involved investing on two horses in the one race.

[25] We do not accept the fact that the respondent has language difficulties is a mitigating factor. There has been no evidence placed before us to suggest Mr Muniandy was other than fully conversant with the rule. In other words, we are satisfied that he knew he was not allowed to bet against a horse that he was riding.

[26] A significant mitigating factor is that there is no suggestion that the respondent rode his mounts in either race on anything other than their merits. We do not believe the fact that neither horse was favoured in the betting to be a factor that carries a great deal of weight, although no doubt the respondent believed on each occasion he was most unlikely to be in the placings. The running of each race has subsequently proved this to be correct with one horse finishing 8th and the other 7th. Nonetheless, the mere fact of a jockey placing a bet on another horse in a race in which he or she is riding clearly raises the possibility that that person is not trying their hardest, whether or not the reality of that perception is false. The statement that “it does not look good” is clearly apt.

[27] We have to denounce the respondent’s actions and deter him and others from similar actions in the future. We have regard to the need for integrity. On the other hand, we accept Mr Anderton’s submission that Mr Muniandy has learned a hard lesson and he has told us that the respondent has cancelled his TAB account. Any future temptation to breach the rule is clearly reduced by this action.

[28] We accept where there is any suggestion of gross impropriety that a suspension in months, many months, will be appropriate. However, that is not this case. Mr Muniandy has simply been stupid, indeed very stupid. We adopt the figure of 3 months, identified by the RIU in their submissions, as our starting point. We believe this is a fair reflection of the gravity of the breach in the particular circumstances of this case. We then turn to consider the respondent’s personal circumstances.

[29] Mr Muniandy is a young apprentice creating a most favourable impression amongst those in the racing fraternity. We cannot but note the irony in that fact that we come to sentence him on the very day he rides his 100th winner and when a presentation has been made in the birdcage in recognition of this feat.

[30] The mitigating factors are the respondent’s full co-operation in the stewards’ inquiry from the outset, his open and ready admission of the breach, his clear remorse, which was evident by his demeanour before us, the fact he is a promising young apprentice, his excellent character, and that this is his first breach of this rule.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

[31] We need to mark the folly of his actions but at the same time encourage him to continue his riding career. We believe that a 6 week suspension, which entails a loss of potential earnings in excess of $8000 (based on 7 rides a meeting, and without factoring in percentages) is sufficient to denounce the respondent’s actions and to deter others who are minded to bet against the horse they are riding, yet recognises the breach is at the bottom end of the scale and gives credit for his good character and undoubted potential. We do not believe that a fine in addition to this period of suspension is necessary to satisfy any of the purposes of sentencing.

[32] Mr Muniandy is suspended from the end of riding today (22 April) up to and including 2 June. This penalty is imposed concurrently with respect to informations A2605 and A2606.

Geoff Hall, Chairman           Paul Knowles, Committee Member

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 707(1)

Informant: Mr A Ray - Stipendiary Steward

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr B Anderton on behalf of Mr Muniandy

Respondent: Mr S Muniandy - Apprentice 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: