Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v SS Houston – Decision dated 3 June 2015

hearingid: d38ee032322f5ff49cfbb13b57c8e5cf

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 03/06/2015

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v SS Houston - Decision dated 3 June 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 J Oatham – Senior Stipendiary Steward (RIU)

Informant

AND Miss SS Houston – Class A Trainer

Respondent

Date of Hearing: 1 June 2015

Information No: A6900

Venue: Ellerslie Racecourse

Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman – Mr B Scott, Committee Member

Present: Miss S Houston – Class A Trainer

Registrar: Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward

Plea: Admitted

Date of Decision: 3 June 2015

Charge

The Informant Mr Oatham, (Senior Stipendiary Steward) alleged that Miss Houston, Licensed Trainer breached Rule 650(1) (b).

The particulars of the charge are: after accepting with the horse SWEET REASON in Race 2 the Vero Insurance 3YO at the Racing Tauranga race meeting on Wednesday 22 April 2015 Miss Houston failed to report to the Stipendiary Stewards that the filly had been suffering from a respiratory complaint which may have affected the running of the horse in that race and that you are thereby liable to any penalty or penalties that may be imposed upon you pursuant to Rule 803(1).

Miss Houston acknowledged that she understood the nature of the charge, and the Rule and admitted the breach. Miss Houston acknowledged that all the relevant documents from the RIU had been disclosed to her. Miss Houston said she accepted the contents of the documents and consented to them being admitted as evidence.

The proposed procedure for the hearing was explained to Miss Houston and she had no concerns or objections.

Mr Oatham produced a letter 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 650(1) (b) states: The Trainer or any other person in charge of a horse that is to be brought to the Racecourse or is at the Racecourse to start in a Race must:

(b) report to the Stipendiary Stewards as soon as possible, and in any event no later than one hour before the starting time of that Race, being the time determined by NZRB (as amended by NZTR from time to time), any condition or occurrence that may affect the running of the horse in that Race unless the condition or occurrence is first noticed by the Trainer or other such person or brought to their notice after such time.

Submissions by the Informant

Shelley Houston is the holder of a Class A Trainers Licence and is based in Cambridge.

Miss Houston is the trainer of the 3yo filly SWEET REASON which was accepted for races two and four at the race meeting conducted by Racing Tauranga on Wednesday 22 April 2015.

SWEET REASON which had not previously competed at a totalisator meeting was subsequently scratched from Race 4 and started in Race 2 being the Vero Insurance 3YO, a race for maiden 3yo’s over the distance of 1200 metres.

SWEET REASON went on to finish 10.4 lengths from the winner in sixth placing out of seven runners from a field which originally contained sixteen acceptors. The starting win price of SWEET REASON in the race was $7.10.

It was subsequently brought to Mr Oatham’s attention some considerable time after this race meeting that a Veterinary Certificate had been faxed to New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing from Cambridge Veterinary Services on Monday 20 April 2015 which was marked as being for the purpose of a scratching certificate.

This Veterinary Certificate stated “The horse mentioned above (SWEET REASON) will be scratched for a minimum of 7 days starting on the 20th April 2015 due to respiratory disease”. Mr Oatham produced the Veterinarian Certificate at the hearing.

When questioned regarding the matter Miss Houston advised that she had not been aware of this Veterinary Certificate being issued and sent to NZTR but acknowledged the visit to her stables by Veterinarian Ms B A Heil due to concerns with the health of SWEET REASON.

Miss Houston advised that she normally used the services of a different Veterinarian from the practice who had not been available and she may have misunderstood the advice given by Ms Heil.

Miss Houston further advised that she had felt under some pressure from the owner of SWEET REASON to start the filly.

Veterinarian Ms Heil has also been spoken to regarding the matter and although acknowledging that Miss Houston was not given a copy of the scratching certificate she believed that she had been very clear in her advice that she should not start SWEET REASON at the Tauranga meeting.

Mr Oatham added that it was a little bit disappointing that upon receiving the fax NZTR did not bring it to anyone’s attention at the time.

Submissions by the Respondent

Miss Houston submitted that Mr Oatham’s summary of facts was basically correct.

Miss Houston submitted that SWEET REASON had a cold which was causing her some concern and she had been treating her horse but had been unable to improve her condition. She said SWEET REASON was coughing a lot after being worked and she contacted the Veterinarian practice to have SWEET REASON scoped on the 20th of April 2015. Miss Houston witnessed the scope and in her opinion the result showed that “it was not as bad as prior”.

Miss Houston told the Committee that she advised the Owner not to start SWEET REASON because the horse’s health was a priority. She said that the Owner had placed her under pressure to race as the filly had been in work for a long time. Miss Houston stated SWEET REASON “went a lot worse than I thought” but said she pulled up without coughing.

Miss Houston conceded that there was a massive breakdown between her and the Veterinarian. She admitted that it completely slipped her mind to inform the Stewards of SWEET REASON’S condition.

Decision

As Miss Houston admitted the breach we find the charge proved.

Submissions on Penalty by Informant

Mr Oatham submitted that Miss Houston is in her 4th season as a Class A Trainer. He said he had some sympathy for Miss Houston receiving pressure from her Owner.

Mr Oatham submitted that Miss Houston was fully co –operative with the RIU during their investigations and in mitigation also said she is a young Trainer with an impeccable record. He said the RIU had checked Miss Houston’s treatment records and they were in compliance.

He advised that the Rule was there to protect the Integrity of Racing and the interest of the punters whose confidence is paramount. He said this Rule has not always been there and some Trainers are ignorant of the Rule and they all need to be aware of their obligations.

Mr Oatham informed the Committee that there was no precedent for this Rule.

Mr Oatham believed that this case would be a good learning curve for Miss Houston. He said the Stewards’ view was that a lenient monetary fine in the $300 to $500 range would be an appropriate penalty.

Submissions on Penalty by Respondent

Miss Houston submitted that the incident would be a learning curve for her and had nothing further to add.

Reasons for Penalty

The Committee carefully considered the evidence and submissions presented. The mitigating factors are Miss Houston’s admission of the breach, her clear record under this Rule, her honesty and co-operation with the officials during their investigations.

The significant aggravating fact is that Miss Houston was well aware that SWEET REASON was “sick” and recovering from the cold. Miss Houston exercised poor judgement in not notifying the Stewards about SWEET REASON’S condition or any matter that may affect the running of the horse in that Race. The betting public were clearly affected by the horse running in the race with an illness and we note SWEET REASON was unplaced and finished 10 lengths from the winner.

This particular case should put all Trainers on notice as to the importance of, and their obligations under this Rule. The Committee notes that the Veterinary Certificate was faxed 2 days before the race meeting to NZTR and it is unfortunate that this was not notified to the race day Stewards until quite some time after the meeting.

There is no precedent for this type of breach in the JCA listing of penalties. The JCA Penalty Guide for this Rule recommended starting point is a $750 fine.

After taking into account all the above and giving Miss Houston credit for the mitigating factors on this occasion we consider an appropriate penalty is a $550 fine.

Penalty

Miss Houston is fined the sum of $550.

Costs

The RIU did not seek costs and accordingly there are no order as to costs.

As the matter was heard on a raceday there will be no order for JCA costs.

Adrian Dooley                  Bryan Scott

Chairman                         Committee Member

3 June 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: