Oamaru RC 30 June 2011 – heard Waimate 3 July 2011

hearingid: 353a240c7d0a2224a41c999b0c4b7948

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 30/06/2011

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Oamaru RC 30 June 2011 - heard Waimate 3 July 2011

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr Davidson Stipendiary Steward
Defendants: Mr Bullard, Ms M Carston, Mr Johnson, Mr Walters, Mr D Walsh, Mr R Bishop
Information Nos: 0971, 0972, 0973, 0975, 0976, 0977
Meeting: Oamaru Racing Club

Date: 30 June 2011 (heard Waimate 3 July 2011)
Venue: Oamaru
Race:   1
Rule No: 610(4)
Judicial Committee: Mr G Hall, Chairman – Mr P Knowles, Committee Member
Plea: Admitted

Facts:
Seven charges under rule 610(4) were adjourned from the Oamaru meeting on Thursday 30 June and were scheduled to be heard at Waimate on 3 July. After hearing the charge against Ms Van Der Werf and imposing penalty, the race meeting was abandoned. Rather than continuing to hear each charge separately, as the modifications were essentially the same in each case and the charges were identical, with the consent of the six jockeys and that of the stipendiary steward, the charges were considered at the one hearing.

Decision:

As the breaches were admitted we find the charges proved.

Submissions on Penalty:

Mr Davidson stated that all riders at the Oamaru meeting on 30 June last had had their vests checked and a number of riders had vests with small modifications. He said 1 or 2 small pads had been taken out under the area of the tail bone. The removal of the section in each case was very similar. He stated it had been a common practice with the jockeys as he understood the extra padding caused discomfort. He said it was not a matter of cheating in order to gain a weight advantage but he emphasised it was a health and safety issue.

He said the rule had always “been there” but the jockeys had previously been treated leniently and the stewards were now policing the rule more closely. He acknowledged no oral warning had been given to the South Island jockeys but said notification had been given in the New Zealand Thoroughbred Monthly magazine and on the NZTR website.

The defendants asked that Mr Walsh speak on their behalf. We agreed that this was a sensible suggestion and indicated they should feel free to add any further comments of their own, which a number of them did.

Mr Walsh said the padding had not been removed to gain a weight advantage and it had never been an issue in this country until the Chief Stipendiary Steward had received a call from Melbourne telling him that an ex-New Zealand jockey had been found to be riding with a vest modified in this fashion and that that jockey had said the vest had been inspected and approved in New Zealand. He said the Australian steward apparently questioned the New Zealand practice. This had prompted the “crackdown” in this country. He agreed that Mr Davidson was correct in saying that the rules did not allow for any modification, no matter how minor, but the jockeys had been misled by the stewards previously approving these modifications.

Mr Walsh further said the jockeys riding at Oamaru had not been notified properly. He said it was apparent only some North Island riders had been notified. For example, even though he rode regularly in the North Island, he had not received any oral notification of the change of policy with respect to modification of vests. He further explained that he had been rung by a steward while on his way to the races and told the vests were going to be checked, but this was too late. He was already on the road with his modified vest. He said had he been told earlier he could had simply brought an alternative model vest to the course which was fully complaint with the rules. He said he had no access to the NZTR website; he did not even have a computer. Not all jockeys received the magazine. He summed up this part of his submission by saying there had been a sudden change of the goalposts with no proper official notification, such as an official letter giving 7 to 14 days notice. The result was jockeys scurrying around at Oamaru borrowing vests from other jockeys, which were often ill-fitting. He said the stewards’ actions had caused major disruption due to an absence of communication.

Mr Walsh then turned to the issue of safety. He said that this was not compromised by the modifications to the vests. He demonstrated this by producing another model of approved vest, which did not have the offending panels below the base of the spine. He said the vests with these lower panels were most uncomfortable when sitting on the saddle as the vest would ride up, pushing into the neck causing pain and pushing up the cap with the possibility of lack of vision. Ironically, he believed these vests without modification were clearly more of a safety issue than those that had been modified by removing the padding in the lower panels. Every other defendant indicated they concurred with this statement and agreed that the new style vests were much more comfortable.

With respect to these new vests, the defendants indicated that these had cost them between $400 and 500. They had had to go and buy these at short notice and some had had to take out personal loans in order to do so. They explained that once they had unpicked the stitching to remove the pads the vests needed to be re-approved by the manufacturer in order to comply with the rule and it was simpler and much quicker to buy a new vest.

Mr Walsh concluded his submission with a request that any penalty we might be minded to impose be suspended.

Mr Davidson in reply reiterated there was no suspicion of cheating but the rule was clear, no modifications were permitted. He asked for a fine in the range of $100 to $200.

Reasons for Penalty:

The rule is clear. A jockey is not able to alter the vest even though the stipendiary stewards have not questioned the removal of bottom pads when vests have been inspected on previous occasions. The purpose of the rule is to address health and safety issues. Those matters are relevant to the seriousness of the breach.

We also need to consider the culpability of each jockey, which we believe on this occasion, is at the very bottom end. Some makes of approved vests do not have a full bottom panel that extends below the base of the spine. It is these panels extending below the base of the spine, in respect of which each defendant has removed a row of padding.

We also note as a significant mitigating factor that the stipendiary stewards had previously not charged riders where this bottom layer of padding had been removed. We understand that the Chief Stipendiary steward, Mr George, at a race meeting on Queens Birthday weekend in the North Island (we were not told the exact location) informed the jockeys present on the day (many of whom were jumps jockeys) that no modifications whatsoever of the vests were acceptable. They were also told that the rule was going to be strictly enforced. No such notification was given to South Island riders, including nothing being said at the apprentice school in Canterbury. However we are told there was a statement in the New Zealand Thoroughbred Monthly and on the NZTR website. We accept the defendants’ evidence that they were not aware of this.

A further factor to be considered is the cost of replacing the vests, which we are told was in the region of $400 and 500. The defendants have all said that they had had to go and buy another vest at short notice and some had had to take out personal loans in order to do so. We believe this unexpected financial burden that each has had to bear is relevant to determining the level of the financial penalty that we impose.

We recognise the need for consistency and note that fines of $200 and $150 have been imposed for similar breaches at meetings in the past 2 days. However, these meetings were in the North Island where jockeys had been warned. As we have said, the South Island jockeys were not warned and we believe this is a significant point of difference that justifies the imposition of a lesser penalty.

We also take into account, as was done at hearings for similar breaches these past 2 days, that where the defendant is an apprentice he or she is likely to have lesser means. We also give weight to the fact each jockey has a clear record under this rule and has admitted the breach.

Penalty:

We impose a fine of $100 on the defendants, Messrs Johnson, Walsh, Bishop, and Bullard, and Ms Carston. As Mr Walters is an apprentice jockey we fine him $50.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 610(4)

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: