NZ Metro TC 20 February 2020 (heard on 4 November 2020) – Decision dated 4 November 2020 – Chair, Mr R G McKenzie

hearingid: 2eb0d8c1409c8e5eea6d97383aaf6c53

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 20/02/2020

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 20 February 2020 (heard on 4 November 2020) - Decision dated 4 November 2020 - Chair, Mr R G McKenzie

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

AT CHRISTCHURCH

-IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand - Rules of Harness - - Racing

IN THE MATTER of Information No. A12374

BETWEEN N M YDGREN, Chief Stipendiary Steward (Harness Racing) for the Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND-GREGORY PETER HOPE of Woodend Beach, Public Trainer (Partnership)

Respondent

Judicial Committee:-Mr R G McKenzie (Chairman)

Mr D J Anderson (Member)

Date of Decision:- 4 November 2020

PENALTY DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

Background

[1]-Information No. A12374, filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N M Ydgren, alleges that the Respondent, Licensed Public Trainer (In Partnership), Gregory Peter Hope, on 20 February 2020 at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan TC held at Addington Raceway, “misconducted himself in the Stewards’ Room by using and directing abusive language to a Steward”, an alleged breach of Rule 303(2).

[2]-The Information was filed with the Judicial Committee on racenight and adjourned sine die.

[3]-The Information was subsequently served on Mr Hope. He has signed the Statement by the Respondent on the Information form indicating, firstly, that he acknowledged service of the Information and, secondly, that he admits the breach of the Rule.

[4]-The charge of misconduct is, accordingly, found proved and this Committee is to impose penalty pursuant to clause 25.1(c) of the Rules and Practice and Procedure for the Judicial Committee contained in the Fifth Schedule to the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing.

[5]-It has been agreed between the parties, and the Committee is satisfied, that it is appropriate for the matter to be heard “on the papers” – that is to say, solely on the basis of the documents and evidence filed by the parties without the need for an oral hearing (clause 21.1 of the abovementioned Rules).

[6]-The Informant has now filed a Summary of Facts, an audio copy and a written transcript of the racenight interview with the Respondent and Penalty Submissions. Mr Hope has also filed a written Submission.

The Rule

[7]-Rule 303 provides as follows:

(2)-No person or body who holds a permit or licence under these Rules and no owner, trainer, breeder, stablehand, unlicensed apprentice or racing manager shall misconduct himself or fail to comply with any request, direction, or instruction of ant Stipendiary Steward, Racing Investigator or Starter.

The Facts

[8]-Following the running of Race 9 at the race meeting at Addington on 20 February 2020, Stewards lodged a protest against 1st placing being awarded to LUELLA, driven by Mr Hope’s son, Ben, alleging interference to MINI MINE YET, driven by Junior Driver, Sarah O’Reilly, in the final 100 metres. After the protest hearing, LUELLA was relegated to 2nd placing.

[9]-Following the protest hearing, Stewards decided to lodge an associated charge of careless driving against Mr B Hope. Mr Ben Hope attended the Stewards’ Room after Race 10, initially with Open Driver, Mr J R Dunn, until the Respondent arrived in the room, at which point Mr Dunn departed.

[10]-The video replays of the incident in ace 9 were shown to the Respondent. He commented that both drivers were able to drive their horse all the way up the straight. It was pointed out to the Respondent that the two drivers had locked wheels over the final stages. The Respondent then became “very agitated” and accused the Stewards of picking on his son. Mr Ben Hope attempted to calm the Respondent down, but the Respondent persisted in accusing the Stewards, and Stipendiary Steward, Mr Renault, in particular, of targeting his son. He made reference to recent penalties imposed on Ben for breaches of the Use of the Whip Regulations – three times in the 3-month period from 24 October 2019 to 25 January 2020. The Respondent said that the Stewards were “pin pricking” and Ben had been “losing all his f.....g drives”.

[11]-Mr Ydgren then tried to calm the Respondent down and told him that his comments and language were not helping his son and, further, the way he was speaking to Mr Renault, who was present, was unacceptable.

[12]-Ben Hope then asked the Respondent to explain what it was that Mr Renault had done that he was particularly upset about. The Respondent then explained that, at a Junior Drivers’ education day, Mr Renault had showed a video of a trial in which Ben Hope had driven a trotter which had gone into a pace and which he had been unable to return to its correct gait. The Respondent, using offensive language, said that it was only “a f.....g trial” and Mr Renault’s actions had “belittled Ben in front of his peers”.

[13]-The Respondent then became more aggressive in his body language towards Mr Renault and refused, when asked, to leave the room.

[14]-Several attempts to placate the Respondent and to focus on the issue of the careless driving charge followed. The Respondent continued to be aggressive towards the Stewards but did concede that his actions had probably embarrassed Ben.

[15]-The Respondent was informed that he would be spoken to in coming days concerning how he had conducted himself. The Respondent said that he did not apologise for what he had said, adding that he does not tell “f....g lies”. At that point, the interview was terminated after it was agreed that the charge against Ben would be heard at the meeting of Ashburton TC on 22 February.

[16]-The Committee had the benefit of a full written transcript of the interview, together with an audio recording. Two observations that we would make in relation to those are, firstly, that the Respondent used the f*** word on at least six occasions and, secondly, that he spoke at times with a very raised voice. In addition, we note from the transcript that the Respondent was asked on numerous occasions to desist in the use of obscene language and to tone down his behaviour and demeanour, as they were not acceptable.

Submissions of the Respondent

[17]-Mr Hope filed the following written submissions:

The cause of my outburst on Thursday 20th February was not due to the relegation of Luella to 2nd place in Race 9 but was brought on through my frustration of my belief that Ben was being continually targeted by Shane Renault at race meetings and me feeling absolutely frustrated that I could not do anything about it as this would only cause more targeting of Ben.

My behaviour that night was created from a build-up of continual pin pricking from Shane Renault towards Ben. This really was blatantly obvious at a cadet meeting where Ben was ridiculed in front of his peers by Shane. A video was shown of an early race drive by Ben when he drove a converted pacer pacing in a trotting race. This video was shown to all in the room without Ben’s prior knowledge or consent. It was a cadet meeting where several bad drives were shown to the cadets by Mr Renault. Ben was the only cadet present who had a drive shown. All other ‘bad drives’ shown that night were of older drivers not part of the cadets. A blatant form of workplace bullying. This matter was not taken further by Ben or myself as Ben believed it would make matters worse as Shane was in a position of power and would be out to get him on the track if he complained about this. This targeting behaviour of Mr Renault towards Ben kept continuing throughout the following months. Ben had also been dealing with some online abuse and on the night of 20th February it all came to a head for me.

It is my belief without a doubt Mr Renault had targeted Ben for a period of time. There were some situations on racedays when other Stipes working with Mr Renault on the day did not want to charge but Mr Renault would push for it. Another incident was a whip use charge in Invercargill when Ben was charged for 11 hits when the camera angle was very marginal to make a correct count however Mr Renault still charged Ben while the other Stipe on the day spoke to Ben after and said he would fight the charge if he was Ben.

Young drivers should be encouraged, tutored and advised by the Stipendiary Stewards, not be made to feel intimidated, incompetent and not confident to speak up if they feel treated unfairly in some incidents for fear of retribution.

I totally agree my language and behaviour on that night was inappropriate and not the way to deal with the situation however it came from a deep frustration and feeling of helplessness of a continued treatment of Ben by Shane Renault.

Penalty Submissions of the Informant

[18]-Mr Ydgren filed the following submissions in relation to penalty:

(i)-Mr G Hope has been a Licensed Trainer since 2001 and, at the time of this offence, had had over 4,760 starters to the races and approximately 650 winners in New Zealand. He has also enjoyed success in Australia and is considered to be a very experienced and successful Trainer.

(ii)- Mr B Hope has been driving for 3 years having had, as at 20 February 2020, approximately 530 drives for 68 wins.

(iii)-The definition of “misconduct” in the Oxford Dictionary is “unacceptable or improper behaviour, especially by an employee or professional person”. Mr G Hope’s conduct and abusive language during the 10 minutes he was in the Stewards’ Room, and in particular to Mr Renault, (who as the transcript confirms made no comments at all during the meeting), clearly amounts to misconduct on his part.

(iv)-The Stewards were taken by surprise at the way Mr G Hope conducted himself given that one of the reasons for his behaviour related to a matter that occurred during the education training day attended by his son a considerable time ago. It is difficult to understand why, if this matter had upset Mr G Hope so much, neither he nor his son raised it with Mr Renault, or even Mr Ydgren immediately after it happened.

(v)-The conduct of Licenceholders in the Stewards’ Room must be professional and courteous at all times. It is unacceptable to openly question the integrity of the Stewards and even more so when the language used and behaviour displayed in abusive and insulting. Mr G Hope’s conduct was also in front of the female stenographer who was made to feel very uncomfortable by his words and demeanor throughout.

(vi)-The only mitigating factors are Mr G Hope’s admission of the breach and his clear record under this Rule.

(vii) -Misconduct towards Stewards happens infrequently and because of this the JCA Penalty Guide does not state a starting point penalty.

•- In February 2017, Licensed Trainer and Open Horseman, Mr S Dickson, was fined $850 for use of abusive language in the Stewards’ Room at Palmerston North. An additional aggravating fact in that matter was, however, Mr Dickson’s failure to comply with an instruction of the Steward to return to the room when he walked out.

•-In May 2019, Licensed Trainer and Open Horseman, Mr M Howard, was also fined $850 for his use of abusive language and questioning the integrity of the Stewards in the Stewards room at Banks Peninsula two months earlier.

(viii)-The penalty to be imposed must be seen to hold Mr G Hope accountable for his actions and deter others from similarly breaching the Rule. His behaviour was offensive and insulting, he used abusive language on more than one occasion, and his general demeanor during his time in the room was at times intimidatory. He also refused to leave the Stewards’ Room when asked to. For those reasons, the Stewards believe the starting point penalty on this occasion should be a $1,500 fine. Stewards also believe a small reduction in that penalty is appropriate taking into account Mr Hope’s admission of the breach and his clear record in relation to this Rule. We therefore submit a penalty of a fine of not less than $750 be imposed.

Reasons for Penalty

[19]-The Informant gave us the definition of “misconduct” as “unacceptable or improper behaviour, especially by an employee or professional person”. A wider definition is “wrongful, improper or unlawful conducted motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the consequences of one’s acts”.

[20]-The Committee is satisfied that, by any definition, Mr Hope’s behaviour, when interviewed by Stewards following Race 10 at the meeting of NZ Metropolitan TC on 20 February 2020, amounted to “misconduct”. Mr Hope has, quite properly, admitted the breach and, in his written Submission to this Committee, has acknowledged that his “language and behaviour on that night was inappropriate and not the way to deal with the situation”.

[21]-The Committee has received Submissions from both the Informant and the Respondent, and it is important that we have had the benefit of a full transcript of the 10-minute interview that took place and, in addition, an audio recording of that interview. The audio recording, in particular, put the Respondent’s conduct in context.

[22]--The Respondent was, clearly, unhappy at what he perceived was victimisation of his son, Ben, by a particular Stipendiary Steward and, as the interview progressed, he became enraged as was apparent from his raised voice and bad language.

[23]-It was not the relegation of Ben’s horse from 1st to 2nd in race 9, or the pending charge, that was the cause of his ire (and he said as much in his submissions) but, rather, it seemed that this was the “last straw”, and an opportunity for him to express his feelings concerning his perception that Ben was being picked on. In particular, the Respondent was concerned that a video shown at a cadet meeting of a “bad drive” by Ben was particularly embarrassing for Ben to be shown up in front of his peers. He went on to allege, in his Submissions, that Ben had been continued to be picked on by a Steward and had been the object of some “online abuse”. It seems that his frustration had culminated at this time and he, most unwisely, took the opportunity to vent that frustration.

[24]-We have gone into all of this detail because we believe that it is important to explain the Respondent’s state of mind that led to the behaviour that resulted in the present charge.

[25]-However, if the Respondent believed that he had valid grounds to question the treatment of Ben, then it would have been preferable for him to have raised his concerns through another channel, or on another occasion, when emotions were not as high. It is also unfortunate that the interview was not terminated when emotions began to run high but we do note, from the transcript, that Mr Ydgren did try to do so on a couple of occasions.

[26]-Mr Ydgren has submitted that “the conduct of Licenceholders in the Stewards’ Room must be professional and courteous at all times. It is unacceptable to openly question the integrity of the Stewards and even more so when the language used and behaviour displayed in abusive and insulting”. The Committee agrees. However strongly the Respondent felt about any treatment of Ben, his intimidating behaviour and language during the course of the interview on 20 February 2020 was unacceptable and offensive, and clearly amounts to misconduct, as the Respondent himself has acknowledged.

[27]-In arriving at penalty, we have had regard to the mitigating factors – Mr Hope’s admission of the breach and his previous good record. We have also had regard to the need to hold Mr Hope accountable for his actions, to promote in him a sense of responsibility, to denounce his conduct and to deter him or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence. Finally, we have had regard to the penalties handed out in the two previous cases referred to in the Informant’s penalty submissions.

[28]-The JCA Penalty Guide, while not prescribing a starting point for a breach of Rule 303(2), does prescribe a starting point for “offensive, insulting, abusive language or behaviour to Racing Integrity and Administration Officials” - Rule 1001(1)(v)(ii) – of a $1,500 fine. It is appropriate to take that as a starting point for the present case.

[29]-We are able to give the Respondent a discount from that starting point for the mitigating factors referred to in para [27]. His record, in particular, is compelling. He has been a licensed trainer since 2001 and has been very successful and a credit to harness racing. This breach would seem to be out of character and an aberration on his part which he now, clearly, regrets.

Penalty

[30]-Mr Hope is fined the sum of $850.

Costs

[31]-There will be no order for costs in favour of the Informant or the Judicial Control Authority.

R G McKENZIE

Chair

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 303(2)

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: