Whangarei RC 2 July 2011 – R 1
ID: JCA16785
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Whangarei RC - 2 July 2011
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
AGodsalve
Race Date:
2011/07/02
Race Number:
R 1
Decision:
We find the charge against Rule 610 (2)(a) proved and dismiss the charge against Rule 610(4).
Penalty:
Accordingly after taking all the above factors into account we impose a fine of $200.00.
Charge:
Following race 1 an information was lodged alleging a breach of rule 610 (2) (a), 610 (4) in that Mr Innes had possession of a vest that has been modified and in an unsatisfactory condition.
Facts:
Mr Coles displayed Mr Innes’s vest and pointed out a piece of padding was missing from the shoulder and the vest had a zip replaced that was inserted back to front.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Innes said the old zip had broken and a Chinese lady put the zip on back to front. He said the vest was used just for track work generally, however he wore it today because his other vest was non compliant. He said he was not aware that the shoulder had a hole in it with a pad missing; he told the stewards the pad must have come out in the wash. He believed he had nothing to worry about when producing his vest to the stewards, he admitted he was waiting to get a new vest as his other one was not up to scratch and had used Mr Colgan’s vest last Saturday.
The committee asked Mr Innes when he last wore his vest, he replied 6 weeks ago. We asked Mr Innes if he checked his vest this morning, he conceded this did not occur.
Mr Innes was asked how old the vest was and replied he didn’t know, he confirmed he was getting a new vest, and he admitted the stewards warned him at Tauranga last Saturday that they would be checking for compliance of safety vests.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We find under rule 610 (2) (a) the charge to be proved due to the following observations. Firstly there is a tear in the shoulder part of the vest and the pad on that section of the vest is missing, we also found the zip has been sewed on back to front and on inspection we noted 8 holes of varying sizes on the inside of the vest . Therefore we believe the vest is not in a satisfactory condition. Although the vest was not been worn by Mr Innes at the time of the stewards inspection, Mr Innes admitted intending to wear the vest when he arrived at the races.
In so far as rule 610 (4) we accept Mr Innes evidence that the zip was incorrectly repaired, we find that this forms part of the decision into rule 610 (2) (a) and therefore dismissed the charge under this rule on the information.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Coles submitted Mr Innes’ vest was a clear breach of the rules. Mr Innes had no previous breaches of the rule. Mr Coles’ submission was for a fine of $200.00 which was imposed at Egmont racing Club yesterday.
Mr Innes said it was hard to be charged on a vest “I haven’t used it and was more than happy to show stewards”.
Reasons for Penalty:
The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. We also had the opportunity to inspect the vest for compliance.
Mitigating factors are Mr Innes’s clear record under this rule.
Aggravating factors were Mr Innes not ensuring his safety vest was in a satisfactory condition, the fact that he was warned by stewards last Saturday that safety vests must comply with the rules.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: a06e37a2e3120e5b5d80d7ca0e7ccea8
informantnumber: 6886
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 23/06/2011
hearing_title: Whangarei RC 2 July 2011 - R 1
charge:
Following race 1 an information was lodged alleging a breach of rule 610 (2) (a), 610 (4) in that Mr Innes had possession of a vest that has been modified and in an unsatisfactory condition.
facts:
Mr Coles displayed Mr Innes’s vest and pointed out a piece of padding was missing from the shoulder and the vest had a zip replaced that was inserted back to front.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Innes said the old zip had broken and a Chinese lady put the zip on back to front. He said the vest was used just for track work generally, however he wore it today because his other vest was non compliant. He said he was not aware that the shoulder had a hole in it with a pad missing; he told the stewards the pad must have come out in the wash. He believed he had nothing to worry about when producing his vest to the stewards, he admitted he was waiting to get a new vest as his other one was not up to scratch and had used Mr Colgan’s vest last Saturday.
The committee asked Mr Innes when he last wore his vest, he replied 6 weeks ago. We asked Mr Innes if he checked his vest this morning, he conceded this did not occur.
Mr Innes was asked how old the vest was and replied he didn’t know, he confirmed he was getting a new vest, and he admitted the stewards warned him at Tauranga last Saturday that they would be checking for compliance of safety vests.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We find under rule 610 (2) (a) the charge to be proved due to the following observations. Firstly there is a tear in the shoulder part of the vest and the pad on that section of the vest is missing, we also found the zip has been sewed on back to front and on inspection we noted 8 holes of varying sizes on the inside of the vest . Therefore we believe the vest is not in a satisfactory condition. Although the vest was not been worn by Mr Innes at the time of the stewards inspection, Mr Innes admitted intending to wear the vest when he arrived at the races.
In so far as rule 610 (4) we accept Mr Innes evidence that the zip was incorrectly repaired, we find that this forms part of the decision into rule 610 (2) (a) and therefore dismissed the charge under this rule on the information.
Decision:
We find the charge against Rule 610 (2)(a) proved and dismiss the charge against Rule 610(4).
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Coles submitted Mr Innes’ vest was a clear breach of the rules. Mr Innes had no previous breaches of the rule. Mr Coles’ submission was for a fine of $200.00 which was imposed at Egmont racing Club yesterday.
Mr Innes said it was hard to be charged on a vest “I haven’t used it and was more than happy to show stewards”.
reasonsforpenalty:
The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. We also had the opportunity to inspect the vest for compliance.
Mitigating factors are Mr Innes’s clear record under this rule.
Aggravating factors were Mr Innes not ensuring his safety vest was in a satisfactory condition, the fact that he was warned by stewards last Saturday that safety vests must comply with the rules.
penalty:
Accordingly after taking all the above factors into account we impose a fine of $200.00.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 610(2)(a) 610(4)
Informant: Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr L Innes - Licensed Rider
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: e21b346abf8378772f3fc768cef3340f
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 6e36e00bb54ddeeaee33d8d01504669b
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 02/07/2011
meet_title: Whangarei RC - 2 July 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: whangarei-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: AGodsalve
meet_pm2: none
name: Whangarei RC