NZ Metro TC – 20 January 2008 –

hearingid: eb16d95ca9608cd48c95eb3b910031b7

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 20/01/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 20 January 2008 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Harness Racing New Zealand, through Mr Kitto, seeks a ruling pursuant to Rule 1112(1) as to the disqualification of the horse “Cheval De Triomphe” from four races - as specified in Official Race Results provided to the Tribunal - when the horse entered and started as “Cheval De Triomphe” has been identified as another horse.  

Harness Racing New Zealand, through Mr Kitto, seeks a ruling pursuant to Rule 1112(1) as to the disqualification of the horse “Cheval De Triomphe” from four races - as specified in Official Race Results provided to the Tribunal - when the horse entered and started as “Cheval De Triomphe” has been identified as another horse.  

The Rules relevant to the issue are:-

Rule 411(2), which provides:-

            (2)        Where a horse has, or is deemed to have, been accepted for a race at a

                        particular racecourse no other horse shall be brought to the racecourse                   for the purpose of racing there as the first-mentioned horse, and

Rule 1003 (2)(a), which provides:-

            (2)        Every Horse which commits a breach of any Rule shall be liable to the                     following penalties:-

                        (a)        to be disqualified or scratched from any race.

The Tribunal also acknowledges that, under Rule 411(5), a breach of this Rule may also be governed by the penalty provisions of Rule 1001(3), which provides:-

            (3)        The Judicial Committee may in addition to or substitution of any penalty                  imposed under sub-rule(2) hereof disqualify from any race and/or for any                specific period or for life any horse connected with the serious racing                        offence.

Mr Kitto presented a comprehensive summary of the events in support of the Request, which follows the identifying of two horses being mistaken in identity.   

Licensed trainer, Mr Barron, for the connections, indicated he was the trainer of both horses at that time, and confirmed that he had received a copy of the summary and the associated documents presented to the Tribunal.   That summary, in most part, is reproduced hereunder:-

1.         The two horse involved are “Cheval De Triomphe”, freeze brand 041149, and       “Westwood Castleton”, freeze brand 041145.

2.         Both horses were prepared for the 2006 yearling sales, were branded at the same               time, and their brands are identical except for the last symbol, 9 and 5, respectively.

3.         Both horses were purchased for clients of Licensed Public trainer, Mr Ken Barron,            and removed from the grounds of the yearling sales and taken to the premises of          licensed trainer, Mr John Howe.

4.         The owner of “Cheval De Triomphe” went to look at his horse at Mr Howe’s                     stables a few days after the sales where he described his horse to Mr Howe as the        horse with the white face.   This information was mistaken, as “Westwood                    Castleton” has more white on it’s face.         

5.         Mr Howe broke in the horses at his property before they were taken to Mr Barron’s           property.

6.         The horses were accidentally switched and were being trained as one another at Mr           Howe’s property and this continued with Mr Barron.  

7.         Mr Barron had not checked the brands of either horse and had no reason to believe           anything was untoward.   He was training them, unbeknown to him, as each other.

8.         On 6th March 2007, he took the horse he thought was “Cheval De Triomphe”                    to the Ashburton trials where it was inspected and passed to trial.   A note was          placed on the horse’s record that the last symbol was smudged.   This smudging           made this brand very similar to the other.

9.         “Cheval De Triomphe” qualified on 27 March 2007.   The horse was entered for                and raced in the four totalisator races previously referred to.

10,       On 15 January 2008, Mr Barron nominated “Westwood Castleton” for a trial at                 Addington Raceway.   The trainer notification he submitted on 12 March 2007 did      not contain a freeze brand and a query was placed on the horses record stating so.  

11.       Later that day, stipendiary steward Mr Nick Ydgren rang Mrs Lynette Barron and            advised her of the brand query and requested she send a new trainer notification in     to rectify the situation.

12.       When Mr Barron checked the brand on the horse it became apparent it was not                  “Westwood Castleton” but in fact “Cheval De Triomphe”, and that “Westwood            Castleton” had been moved back to Mr Howe’s property for future racing.              

13.       Mr Ydgren immediately inspected both horses at both properties and confirmed the          horses were on the wrong properties.

14.       As a result both horses were scratched from their respective engagements.

Mr Kitto further stated that Mr Barron and Mr Howe genuinely believed they had moved “Cheval De Triomphe” to Mr Howe’s property, and both were at a loss to explain how the situation had happened.   They said that it had obviously happened long ago, as each person had come to know each horse under the wrong guise.

Mr Kitto said that, prior to the last race involved, on 25 May 2007, “Cheval De Triomphe” was pre-race blood tested.   The mistake in freeze brand was not identified by the veterinarian at that time, and he believed it was understandable how this mistake in reading the brands could occur, when they were the same except for the last symbol.

He concluded by indicating there was no suggestion of malice from any of the parties involved.   He said it had been a genuine mistake, and no parties will be financially disadvantaged as a result.  

Mr Barron confirmed he had read the summary, which he had endorsed as being a correct summary of events.   He said that, from the day of the sales, he had known each horse as the other.      

DECISION:

This Tribunal has been asked to adjudicate not on an Information alleging a breach of the Rules, or to determine culpability but, under a Request for a Ruling, on the matter of disqualification following an unfortunate set of circumstances leading to a mix-up in the identity of two horses, “Cheval De Triomphe” and “Westwood Castleton”  .

Where the disqualification of a horse is concerned it is unfortunate that none of the owners is present.   However, the Tribunal is assured by both the informant,  Mr Kitto, for Harness Racing New Zealand, and licensed trainer, Mr Barron, that he (Mr Barron) appears both as the trainer of both horses at the time, and on behalf of the owners, and that the situation requires the matter to be dealt with expeditiously.  

The circumstances have been well summarised and presented by Mr Kitto.   I have been advised, and accept, that the matter has only recently come to notice, and Mr Barron, has attested to his agreement with the circumstances by so endorsing the summary.  

Turning to the point of the Ruling, the informant has referred to the relevant Rules of Harness Racing which provide for the disqualification of a horse in circumstances described in the Information.  

I am satisfied that there has been a breach of Rule 411(2) in that the horse mistakenly known as “Cheval De Triomphe” accepted for and raced, as provided in the schedule, when it was actually the horse, “Westwood Castleton”.  

The evidence provided is clear, and uncontested, and Mr Barron, for the connections, accepts that, under the Rules, “Cheval De Triomphe” must be disqualified.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 1003(2)(a), I direct that “Cheval De Triomphe” be disqualified from, and the placings amended in, the four races in which it took part, as provided in the schedule:-

1.         Race 8, The PGG Wrightson NZ Yearling Sales 2YO Trot, held by the New     Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club on the 25 May 2007.

2.         Race 3, The Murray Tapper Racing Stables Mobile Trot, held by the Timaru    Harness Racing Club on the 13 May 2007

3.         Race 5, The Livingston First National Mobile Trot, held by the New Zealand     Metropolitan Trotting Club on the 4 May 2007

4.         Race 12, The Wyatt & Wilson Print Mobile Trot held by the New Zealand         Metropolitan Trotting Club on the 23 March 2007.

I further order that all stakes are to be refunded.

PH Welch

Judicial Control Authority.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 411.5, 1001.3, 1112.1, 411.2, 1003.2.a

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: