South Canterbury RC – 12 September 2010 – R 8

hearingid: a2d7251ac6621b4a8741bb640e562906

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 12/09/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: South Canterbury RC - 12 September 2010 - R 8

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  M Davidson, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  D Stackhouse (Apprentice Jockey) accompanied by Mr TJ Hazlett, Licence Holder

Information No:  5525

Meeting:  South Canterbury Racing Club

Date:  12 September 2010

Venue:  Phar Lap Raceway, Washdyke

Race:  9

Rule No:  610(2)(a)

Judicial Committee:  KG Hales, Chairman - P Rosanowski, Committee Member

Plea:  Admitted

CHARGE:

It was alleged that D Stackhouse rode in Race 8 in an unapproved body protector. 

Rule 610(2)(a) reads as follows:

“A Rider shall, when mounted on a horse, wear:

(a)        A properly fastened body protector of a type and standard approved by NZTR which shall be in a satisfactory condition and shall have attached to it a manufacturer’s label that states that it complies with the relevant type and standard approved by NZTR; ……………..

The sole responsibility for wearing a body protector and skull cap in accordance with these Rules and for ensuring that the body protector and skull cap is in a satisfactory condition is that of the rider, provided that where the rider is an apprentice jockey such apprentice jockey’s employer, or a representative of their employer who is in charge of the apprentice jockey at any relevant time, is also responsible for the apprentice jockey wearing a body protector and skull cap in accordance with these Rules and for ensuring such body protector is in a satisfactory condition.”

At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Stackhouse confirmed that he admitted the charge.  Mr Hazlett, who was jointly charged with Mr Stackhouse, also confirmed to the hearing that he admitted the charge and accepted that he was the person “in charge of the Apprentice Jockey at the relevant time”.

The charge against each defendant is therefore deemed to be proven.

FACTS:

At the weigh in scales following Race 8, Stipendiary Steward J McLaughlin noticed

that Mr Stackhouse did not appear to be wearing an approved body protector.  Body

protectors approved by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing and as published in “Thoroughbred Racing Monthly” are as follows:

·        “Race Safe”.

·        “Oz Vest”.

·        “Ransom”.

·        “Vipa”.

·        “Tipperary/Phoenix”.

Mr McLaughlin produced to the hearing the vest that Mr Stackhouse had been wearing, and the vest in question was not one of the above.

He demonstrated to the Committee how the part of the back of the vest was missing, although he did say that all panels were in place.  The explanation that he had received was that Mr Stackhouse was wearing an old vest that belonged to Mr Hazlett.  Mr McLaughlin pointed out that Mr Stackhouse rode at a weight of 55 kilograms and that there was no suggestion that Mr Stackhouse was trying to obtain an advantage by wearing this particular vest.

By way of explanation, Mr Hazlett said that this vest was one that he used when he was riding in Australia, where it was an approved vest.  He said that he made an error by giving this particular vest to Mr Stackhouse and said that Mr Stackhouse should not be blamed for that. 

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:

Mr Davidson suggested that a fine was appropriate and that the level of the fine should be between $300 and $500.  He said that a previous offender had been fined the sum of $375 for not wearing a vest whilst riding track work, which was a blatant breach of the Rule.

PENALTY:

On Race Day we delivered the following penalty decision.

“In considering penalty, we have taken into account that Mr Stackhouse was not trying to cheat the system by wearing a vest which would have given him a weight advantage.  We further note that Mr Hazlett, who provided Mr Stackhouse with the vest, believed it to be an approved vest because he had ridden in it in Australia for a period of time.

Thus, in terms of culpability, which we consider was equal, this offending was in the low range.  The actions of Mr Stackhouse and Mr Hazlett were somewhat remiss, as

opposed to deceitful, and that will reflect in the level of the fines to be imposed.

Each of you is fined $175.”

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 61092)(a)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: cf3df246cc525704343acbf99cf23a0f

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R 8

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 087c1278cdf5af593979c5fc48d3d2ce

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 12/09/2010

meet_title: South Canterbury RC - 12 September 2010

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: south-canterbury-rc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair: tom

meet_pm1: tom

meet_pm2: tom

name: South Canterbury RC