Chief Stipe

Baaeed - super colt - 7 from 7! https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/3533559/baaeed/form

Manobo

But who was that "lobby group"? The only AWT that made sense was the one built at Cambridge - the irony with that one being the fact that Cambridge didn't need funding to do it if they wanted to. They have the horses in training to maintain it as well. Although I suspect a few trainers are not so keen on it as they were before. Riccarton and Awapuni AWT's are unnecessary but seem to have been funded to appease those two clubs. It certainly had nothing to do with abandoned race meetings - it never ever did have anything to do with them. The biggest red herring in the entire plan. So aside from the Cambridge "lobby group" (a reasonable case for an AWT there) who were they in the other regions? A few prominent trainers with a lack of foresight pushing their own self-interest perhaps?

Once can't say that the new RIU/RIB setup is any better. Just the same as before but higher cost and bigger salaries.

Taranaki RI 14 May 2022 -R3 – Lisa Allpress ID: RIB9092 Respondent(s): Lisa Allpress - Jockey Applicant: Mr N Goodwin Stipendiary Steward Adjudicators: N Moffatt Persons Present: Mr N Goodwin, Mrs L Allpress, Mr K Coppins Stipendiary Steward Information Number: A14540 Decision Type: Adjudicative Decision Charge: careless riding Rule(s): 638(1)(d) - careless riding Plea: Not Admitted Stewards Report Results Animal Name: RAFFLE Code: Thoroughbred Race Date: 14/05/2022 Race Club: Taranaki Racing Inc Race Location: Hawera Racecourse - Waihi Road, Hawera, 4610 Race Number: R3 Hearing Date: 14/05/2022 Hearing Location: Hawera racecourse Outcome: Not Proved Penalty: no penalty - charge dismissed Evidence: Following the running of Race 3, an Information was lodged by Mr N Goodwin alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) in that L Allpress (RAFFLE) improved into a narrow run that had not fully developed resulting in CHIKIRA LASS (D Turner) being dictated into CASAQUINMAN (K Hercock) which was checked near the 150 metres. Mrs Allpress acknowledged she understood the Rule and confirmed that she did not admit the breach. In response to a question from the Chair both Mr Goodwin and Mrs Allpress stated they would not be calling witnesses. Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless. Using the available race films Mr Goodwin said the Stewards’ case was quite simple. Rounding the home turn Mrs Allpress was in behind the leaders seeking a run. Instead of being patient she commenced to improve into a narrow gap between BOLD MAC (J Parkes) and CHIKIRA LASS (D Turner). Mr Parkes (BOLD MAC) came outwards as Mrs Allpress continued to improve up into the gap. This caused an outward shift of Mrs Allpress onto Mr Turner who in turn moved into the line of CASAQUINMAN who was checked. Mr Goodwin said he was all for competitive riding but it had to be done safely, and the Stewards did not believe there was a sufficient gap available for Mrs Allpress. If she had not gone for the gap the incident would not have happened. In response to a question from the Committee Mr Goodwin said that Mr Turner, when questioned by the Stewards after the race, and who was directly outside Mrs Allpress, did not have much to say about the incident In response, Mrs Allpress said she had been waiting patiently for a run, and while the gap was narrow there was enough room for her to go there. She was already committed to the gap when BOLD MAC (J Parkes) moved outwards. Mrs Allpress called out to Mr Parkes “go straight, go straight” but his horse proceeded to step out half a horse width. Mrs Allpress argued it was competitive riding, not careless, and if Mr Parkes had not moved out the incident would not have happened. Decision: Head and side-on films were viewed multiple times at both normal and slow speed. In order to find the charge of careless riding proved the Committee had to be sure that Mrs Allpress forced a gap where there wasn’t one, and that this action precipitated the concertina effect culminating in CASAQUINMAN being checked. The head-on film shows a narrow gap between J Parkes on the inside and D Turner on the outside which Mrs Allpress rides her mount into. In her evidence Mrs Allpress said that she was almost alongside Mr Turner when Mr Parkes’ mount stepped outwards, and although Mr Turner was not called as a witness the films support that assertion. The movement from Mr Parkes was slight (approximately half a horse width) but with already tight racing room this was sufficient to compound the movement outwards of both Mrs Allpress and Mr Turner into the line of Ms Hercock (CASAQUINMAN) who was checked. The Stewards said the incident would not have happened had Mrs Allpress not taken the gap. Mrs Allpress said the incident would not have happened had Mr Parkes not moved outwards. The Committee found support for both these statements. Mrs Allpress went for a very narrow gap but as she did so Mr Parkes moved slightly off his line narrowing it further. Both these events unfolded quickly with the resultant interference being relatively minor. Mrs Allpress is a highly experienced, competitive and skillful rider. The Committee found that although there was crowding and some interference it was difficult to attribute it completely to Mrs Allpress. Conclusion – Penalty: There was not sufficient evidence produced to prove the charge of careless riding against Mrs Allpress, therefore the charge is dismissed.

Because you will get some of the public (disgruntled punters) asking why the question wasn't asked. It has become a tick the box thing however still not consistent.

She does have a nice action. Long strider. I wonder if they ever try fast working unhoppled? I hate all the head gear they put on horses nowadays. Went the distance today and not far off them on a slushy track.

Increasing stakes isn't the answer when you have no opportunities to race on good safe surfaces.

So SAFE would like races that involved Greyhounds being injured to be available unedited. Nice!

NZ Metropolitan TC 21 April 2022 – R6 – (heard at Rangiora on 8 May 2022) – Ian Cameron ID: RIB8975 Respondent(s): Ian Cameron - Driver Applicant: Paul Williams, Stipendiary Steward Adjudicators: Russell McKenzie (Chair) and Liana Yong Persons Present: Mr Williams, Mr Cameron, Mr N McIntyre Chief Stipendiary Steward Information Number: A16141 Decision Type: Adjudicative Decision Charge: Misconduct Rule(s): 303(2) Plea: Admitted Stewards Report Results Code: Harness Race Date: 21/04/2022 Race Club: NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club Inc Race Location: Addington Raceway - 75 Jack Hinton Drive, Addington, Christchurch, 8024 Race Number: R6 Hearing Date: 08/05/2022 Hearing Location: Rangiora Racecourse, Rangiora Outcome: Proved Penalty: Driver Ian Cameron, fined $500 BACKGROUND: Information No. A16141 filed by Stipendiary Steward, Paul Williams, alleges that the Respondent, Driver, Ian Cameron, misconducted himself when failing to remain in the Stewards Room and directing offensive language towards Stewards, following Race 6, Airpark Canterbury Handicap Trot. The Information was filed with the Adjudicative Committee on race night and heard at the meeting of Rangiora HRC at Rangiora on 8 May 2022. The Respondent had signed the information ”I do admit a breach of the Rule”. Rule 303 provides: (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 any Stipendiary Steward, Racing Investigator or Starter. EVIDENCE: Chief Stipendiary Steward, Nigel McIntyre, said that the Respondent was requested by Stewards to attend an inquiry into his whip use when driving PRINCE TEKA in Race 6 at the meeting. It was indicated to the Respondent that he was to be charged. Mr McIntyre produced a copy of the interview with Mr Cameron, which Mr Cameron accepted was an accurate record. PW The Rules say you cannot engage the elbow or the shoulder. IC Yeah PW We are going to put a charge to the Committee because you were warned five starts ago. IC Just forget it. I’m finished that will do me. I can’t be bothered with this. That’s the bloody end of it. PW Mr Cameron IC I can’ t be bothered with this. I’ve listened to bullshit. PW Mr Cameron IC No. Shove it up your arse. Mr McIntyre said that it is unacceptable to talk to Stewards in that manner. Mr Cameron has been driving for a long time and he has always been good to deal with in the past. Mr Cameron accepts that this behaviour was unacceptable and has admitted the breach. Mr Cameron’s refusal to accept the charge on the day has resulted in a delay in the whip charge being heard. Mr Cameron said that when Stewards told him he was to be charged for his whip action, he had referred to the whip action of the driver of the winner of the race. Stewards told him that they were not looking at that driver, but only at him. He said that it was only the second time he had driven with a whip in the last 2-3 months. He had been justifiably warned recently for his whip use but he felt that, in this race, his actions had been no different from the actions of the driver of the winning horse. This had upset him, he said. DECISION: The Respondent having admitted the breach it is found proved. SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY: Mr McIntyre referred the Committee to the penalties handed down in three recent misconduct cases. Those penalties were $850, $800 and $400. The level of offending in the first two cases was higher than in this case. The lowest of the fines was in a case where the Respondent had been told a charge would be laid and had showed a lack of respect for the Stewards. The present case is closer to that case, Mr McIntyre said, and he submitted that a fine of $400-$500 would be appropriate. Mr Cameron declined the opportunity to make any submission. REASONS FOR PENALTY: The Penalty Guide does not provide a starting point for penalty for misconduct. Obviously, the circumstances of a misconduct charge can vary greatly in terms of nature and seriousness. In fixing a starting point for penalty in this case, we have been principally guided by the case of RIU v Doody (January 2021) in which the Respondent was requested to appear before the Stewards to discuss his whip use in a race. He did so, but after a brief discussion, he told the Stewards to do whatever was required, before exiting the hearing. The Respondent was fined the sum of $400 and we have taken that as the starting point in this case. The starting point takes into account that the breach was admitted and that the Respondent had an impeccable record over many years in the industry, as in this case. In the Doody case, two other misconduct charges were referred to the Committee involving the Respondent, in each case, failing to attend a hearing. A fine of $400 was imposed in each of those two cases. From that starting point, the Committee has applied an uplift in this case because of the language that the Respondent directed at Stewards prior to walking out of the hearing. While that language was not the worst, it was still quite unacceptable for Stewards to be spoken to in that manner by the Respondent. The Committee has fixed the uplift at $100. CONCLUSION – PENALTY: The Respondent, Ian Cameron, is fined $500.

From what I've seen it isn't. In some OZ states they have indeoendent appeal tribunal's don't they? If not very rare that the same people are involved with the initial charge hearing AND the appeal.

Then aim at Riccarton. Fight your battles close to home first.

Why blame the so called "Waikato Mafia"? Where are the South Island Trainers screaming from the rooftops? Target close to home first. Aiming at the mythical Mafia only diminishes and weakens your argument. Act locally!!!! Otherwise you are just buying into the divide and rule and every other conspiracy. Presumably the Waikato Mafia includes Te Akau - do they really have that much input into Sth Island racing programing? Get on the phone (Zoom) and get all the Sth Island stakeholders working together.

Trainers are too soft and scared to speak out. Where is the South Islands leading trainer @Pitman and contributor to the programming committee?

The strength and strategic advantage of NZ racing has ALWAYS been the provinces. Why kill it? Just doesn't make any sense. If these muppets running the show think they have the skills and nous to compete in the entertainment/hospitality industry in the metro's they are dreaming. Get back to promoting the core product.

Yes and it's a very flawed strategy. The preferred metro tracks are high cost models of operation. They operate in a competitive entertainment environment I.e. Ellerslie isn't the only gig in town. Whereas in the smaller communities racing doesn't have the same competition and locals have a greater affinity with the land. Jobs are scarcer and so a riding apprenticeship for a young horse enthusiast of small stature who has been to the local races has a career path.

There ARE remedies however the Administrators don't SEE them. Unfortunately we can't convert the single biggest capital investment in NZ racing history in to a positive revenue earning one. I'm referring to the AWT's.

Perhaps I am simple but I wish the administrators of the sport would address the issues with what are largely simple solutions. With regard to the adverts - you can always buy a subscription and go advert free.

But isn't that always been part of the game? When questioned about why he moved off the rail, Driver Wally Nobbler replied, "He was tiring quickly Sir like a 70 year old in a brothel and he was running outwards to the exit. I'd used up my whip allowance".... Perhaps racing could get innovative with the rules - if your horse is spent then you can drift inside the markers and not interfere with any horses behind you. That said is there any specific rule that says you can't move off the markers? To counter that the Drivers get nailed if they squeeze through a gap on the inner and brush a marker or two.

I see the shifted a race meeting to the Coloundra Poly AWT due to wet weather further south. 53 scratchings from an 8 race card. Is that a sign of the popularity of these tracks amongst trainers? I recall @Joe Bloggs frequently commenting on this polytrack as being particularly unpopular amongst trainers.

A couple of quick points: Obviously Molloy is still providing advice behind the scenes hence the involvement of Paul Dale QC. That will be at some cost; The "lay advocate" mentioned was Molloy (has he ever helped anyone in these cases?); Noel McCutcheon seems to be the main go to man at the RIB in these cases. He never struck me as a legal eagle and when I met him 16 years ago he was an old man then!; ..... BUT the biggie is the legal principle of separating the police from the judiciary. The RIB are now the Police, Judge and Jury under the new structure. Regardless of the merits of this case does the new structure facilitate a fair hearing and justice? Particularly when it is clearly evident that this Appeal process only involves one legal professional passing judgement (McCutcheon must be there to make up numbers!). This could be a case that stakeholders fund a test case to a higher appeal authority although it would be better if there was a stronger argument for the appellant.

Appeal – Written Reasons of Appeals Tribunal dated 10 May 2022 – Sheryl Wigg ID: RIB9055 Respondent(s): Racing Integrity Board - Other (Racing Integrity Board) Applicant: Ms Sheryl Wigg Appeal Committee Member(s): Mr Murray McKechnie (Chair) and Mr Noel McCutcheon Persons Present: Ms Sheryl Wigg, Mr Paul Dale, QC - Counsel for Ms Wigg, Mr Steve Symon - Counsel for the RIB, Mr Dennis Dow - Counsel for the RIB, Mr Neil Grimstone - Chief Investigator RIB Information Number: A15915, A15916, A15917 Decision Type: Appeal Charge: Administering Substance on Raceday Rule(s): 1004(c)(1)(b) Hearing Date: 06/05/2022 Hearing Location: Alexandra Park, Auckland Outcome: Appeal Dismissed Penalty: The penalty from the Non-Raceday Inquiry is upheld - 1 year 7 months disqualification 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Ms Wigg’s Appeal was heard at Alexandra Park on Friday 6 May 2022. 1.2 At the conclusion of the hearing the Appeals Tribunal took an adjournment and when the hearing resumed, announced the decision which it had reached. The Appeal was dismissed. It was explained to those present that given the nature of the matters raised in the appeal, the Tribunal would require some time to issue what is known as a reasons decision. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 At the hearing before the Adjudicative Committee, Ms Wigg admitted three charges of administering a substance (a mixture) to three harness racing horses on the afternoon of the 16 July 2021. The three horses were to race that day. The three admitted charges were as follows: a. Charge A15915: She administered to the harness horse Getn Wiggy Withit which was entered in Race 4 at the Auckland Trotting Club meeting at Alexandra Park that evening, a substance by way of oral syringe; b. Charge A15916: She administered to the harness horse Saint Michel which was entered in Race 6 at the Auckland Trotting Club meeting at Alexandra Park that evening, a substance by way of oral syringe; c. Charge A15917: She administered to the harness horse Happy Place which was entered in Race 7 at the Auckland Trotting Club meeting at Alexandra Park that evening, a substance by way of oral syringe; 2.2 Each administration was a breach of Rule 1004(c)(1)(b) which provides: “No person shall administer to a horse entered in a race in the period one day before racing (except under direction or supervision of the Club Veterinarian, Racing Investigator, or Stipendiary Steward, any substance by: a. ….. b. Injection, hypodermic need or oral syringe c. ….. d. ….. 2.3 Rule 1004(d) sets out the penalties that a person may face who breaches Rule 1004(c). These are: a. A fine not exceeding $20,000 and/or b. Be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for a period not exceeding 5 years. 2.4 The Adjudicative Committee emphasised that the Rule makes no reference to the substance being or having to be “performance enhancing” (or a “prohibited substance”). 2.5 The experienced and senior Adjudicative Committee issued a comprehensive decision. In the result, Ms Wigg was disqualified for a period of 1 year and seven months commencing on 17 February 2022 and to end on 17 September 2023 with respect to each information, those periods of disqualification to be served concurrently. Further, Ms Wigg was ordered to pay costs in the sum of $6,000 to the RIB as a contribution towards its costs and a sum of $4,000 to the RIB Adjudicative Committee as a contribution towards its costs. 2.6 When originally charged Ms Wigg engaged a lay advocate. The advocate proposed that Ms Wigg would plead guilty to one information and indicated that the other two would be defended. Upon the engagement of Mr Dale and following discussion with counsel for the RIB, Ms Wigg indicated that she would plead guilty to all three charges. 2.7 The Tribunal has been furnished with a Summary of Facts. At the hearing before the Adjudicative Committee no issue was taken with that summary. 2.8 Ms Wigg, through her counsel furnished a written statement to the Adjudicative Committee. Further, she presented herself for questioning by Mr Symon, counsel for the RIB and the Adjudicative Committee. It is appropriate to record the answers she made to questions from Mr Symon and the Committee. These are set out at paragraph 26 of the Committee’s decision as follows: • She knew of the “one clear day” Rule and that she should not have administered the mixture to the three horses. • She said she did it for animal health reasons and thought it was only a feed supplement. • She lied on the day to the Investigators because she was in a state of panic when they arrived. • Another person told her to on this afternoon as she said she had forgotten to provide it in the feed of the horses earlier. She named that person but it is not necessary for us to record that in these reasons. • She did not then think her actions were especially serious. • She had not taken advice from her Vet. 3. JURISDICTION 3.1 Mr Dale challenged the jurisdiction of the Appeals panel, contending that it was not properly constituted. He submitted that the Appeals panel’s jurisdiction comes from s44 of the Racing Industry Act 2020. It was submitted that s44(i)(e) governs the appointment of an Adjudicative Committee to hear matters relating to the Rules of Racing and to determine penalties. It was said that s44(i)(f) requires the board of Harness Racing New Zealand to appoint an Appeals Tribunal to hear and adjudicate on Appeals. It was Mr Dale’s position that because Appeal panel members sit regularly on Adjudicative Committees there is not a separate and distinct panel of persons to make up Appeals Tribunals. It was said that this position is contrary to a correct interpretation of s44 of the Racing Act 2020. Mr Dale pointed to s44(2) of the Act which requires that compliance functions and adjudicative functions are performed independently. He acknowledged that the provision does not bear directly upon the relationship between Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals. 3.2 The rules of practice and procedure to be followed are set out in the second schedule to the Act. These rules make no reference to the appointment of members of an Appeal panel from persons who may have sat on adjudicative panels. This Tribunal points out that nothing in those rules of practice and procedure say anything to indicate that Appeal panel members should not be persons who have sat on adjudicative panels. 3.3 Mr Dale submitted that s27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was relevant in that the appointment of Appeals Tribunal members from amongst those who had sat on Adjudicative Committees could be seen as a breach of the principles of natural justice by “any Tribunal or other public authority”. 3.4 Mr Dale then turned to the fifth schedule of Harness Racing New Zealand Rules which sets out the practice and procedure for Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals. The structure of an Appeal Tribunal is set out in Rules 32, 33 and 34. Mr Dale contended that there was an underlying assumption that the Appeals Tribunal would be different from the Adjudicative Committee and that this he contended was consistent with s44 of the Racing Act 2020. 3.5 Mr Dale emphasised that his submission was not intended to impugn the panel’s independence or integrity. Rather he said he was challenging the jurisdiction of an Appeals Tribunal where members of that Tribunal have previously sat on Adjudicative Committees and may have sat with those persons whose decision was under Appeal. 3.6 It was said for Ms Wigg that this jurisdiction was relevant because the penalties for this offence are too severe. Mr Dale submitted that there should be the opportunity for what he described as “independent Appeal Panel” to determine whether as a matter of principle that submission as to severity was appropriate. 3.7 Mr Dale acknowledged that judicial review would be available. 3.8 With reference to the criminal jurisdiction of the High Court of New Zealand and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Mr Dale acknowledged that High Court Judges regularly sit on the Court of Appeal but sought to distinguish that circumstance from the situation which contended had application here. 4. THE RIB POSITION ON JURISDICTION 4.1 It was first said by Mr Symon that the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Appeals Tribunal on the grounds that it was not properly constituted as being drawn from the same pool as Adjudicative Committee members amounted to an application for Appeals Tribunal members to recuse themselves on the basis of actual or apparent bias. It was noted that the submissions for Ms Wigg said it was not intended to impugn the panel’s independence or integrity so the RIB position is that the application for recusal must have been advanced on the basis of apparent bias. 4.2 The RIB submitted that it was not aware of any circumstances giving rise to which the Tribunal members ought to recuse themselves. 4.3 It was pointed out that s44 of the Racing Industry Act 2020 gives no guidance as to how the Adjudicative Committees or Appeals Tribunals are to be made up – that is to say from where members will be drawn. 4.4 As to schedule 2 of the Act relating to Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunal there is said to be no guidance as to the composition of the Adjudicative Committees and the Appeals Tribunal. 4.5 It was further said for the RIB that the predecessor to the Racing Industry Act 2020 was framed in the same terms and did not set out any mandate as to how the two panels should be constituted or importantly, that they had to be comprised of different persons. 4.6 The submissions for the RIB are set out in considerable detail the process by which both Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals are constituted. In the event that this matter of jurisdiction might be taken further or be the subject of some future challenge, it is appropriate to set out those submissions for the RIB verbatim. They are as follows: a. In practice, the process by which both Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals are constituted is to draw persons from the following three separate and distinct groups of persons: i. A group of persons who are appointed only to Adjudicative Committees. In general, this group tends to be laypersons with expertise about and experience in the racing industry, but no legal training. ii. A group of persons who are appointed only to Appeals Tribunals. In general, this group tends to be lawyers who obviously have legal expertise, many of whom also have an interest in the racing industry. iii. A group of persons who are appointed to both Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals. This group is comprised of both lawyers and laypersons with expertise about and experience in the racing industry. b. At present, the composition of the three groups is as follows: i. There are 10 persons in the first group, that is, those who are appointed only to Adjudicative Committees ii. There are 10 persons in the second group, that is, those who are appointed only to Appeals Tribunals. iii. There are 9 persons in the third group, that is, those who are appointed to both Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals. c. The practical process of constitution of Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals is done by the Executive Officer of the RIB once an Appeal has been filed. Executive Officer Catherine Hutton has advised that when constituting Appeals Tribunals, she will do so by selecting one person from group 2 above (that is, those who only sit on Appeals Tribunals) who will usually be designated as chairperson, and one person from group 3 above (that is, those who sit on both Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals) who will be designated as a member. d. Once the Executive Officer has proposed the members to be appointed to the respective panel, the proposal is considered and approved. That was formerly done by a member of the RIB Board who was authorised by the chair of the RIB Board to undertake that consideration and approval process. Counsel has been advised that this is what occurred in respect of the members of the Appeals Tribunal in this matter. Since March 2022, that role has passed onto the Director Corporate Services of the RIB. There is therefore a level of oversight of the selection and appointment of every panel constituted under the Act. e. The Appellant draws a distinction with the constitution of benches in the Court of Appeal, which regularly involves one permanent Court of Appeal Judge and two sitting High Court Judges. Considering the process outlined above, it is clear that there is an analogy, rather than a distinction, to be drawn between the Appeals Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in that Judges (or adjudicators) who sit both at first instance and on Appeal are always accompanied by a Judge (or adjudicator) who sits only on Appeal. f. The reason for the third group of persons outlined above, that is, those who sit on both Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals, is one of pragmatism. It reflects the reality that in an industry such as racing, when dealing with busy legal practitioners and busy participants in the industry, it can be difficult to find persons to constitute panels to deal with all matters that arise. The persons who sit on both panels are generally those with the greatest availability. Allowing persons to sit on both panels widens the pool available for each panel and is effectively required to ensure that the RIB can perform its adjudicative function without undue delay. g. Having two entirely separate and distinct pools of persons might be regarded as best practice. However, it is simply not realistic for the expeditious functioning of a body such as the RIB. Nor is it necessarily required. As noted above, the process adopted by the RIB is consistent with that used by the Courts of New Zealand when constituting the Court of Appeal. This does not give rise to any suggestion of apparent bias in those courts, so it is difficult to see how such an argument can be sustained in the present context. 4.7 Mr Dale filed reply submissions late on the afternoon of 5 May 2022. These submissions drew attention to the approach to be taken to decisions at first instance as set out in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stitching Lodestar [2007] NZSC 41. 4.8 The reply submissions make clear that it was not accepted that the proposition of the RIB that “it can be difficult to find persons who can constitute panels to deal with matters that arise” was valid. It was pointed out that professional bodies called upon experienced lawyers, retired Judges and other suitably qualified persons and it was contended that this could be done in the present circumstances. Further, it was submitted that the obligations to have separate bodies was statutory by reference to the Racing Act and could not be waived as a matter of convenience. 4.9 It was said in support of the need for an Appeals Tribunal to have membership entirely separate from persons who had sat on Adjudicative Committees was required for these reasons: a. The need in appropriate cases to challenge policy or guideline decisions made by an Adjudicative Committee. b. The ability to argue that an Adjudicative Committee has made errors of judgment or principle. c. The need to assure an Appellant that the Appeal by way of rehearing is in truth a rehearing rather than what Mr Dale described as a “rerun in front of a Tribunal which is compromised in part by members of the Adjudicative Committee the subject of criticism”. 5. RULING ON JURISDICTION 5.1 The Tribunal has carefully considered the submissions from both parties. The statute governing the issue is the Racing Industry Act 2020. It is the relationship between s44(1)(e) and s44(1)(f) which requires careful examination. These provisions which reflect the previous legislation have governed the position for many decades. It is the Tribunal’s view that if the lawmakers had intended that persons who sat on Adjudicative Committees could not sit upon Appeals Tribunals and that there were thus two separate bodies required, then the legislation would have made that plain. There is nothing in the wording of s44 which demonstrates the need for two separate unrelated bodies to be in place. Mr Dale seeks to support his position by reference to s44(2) of the Act which requires the compliance functions of the Board of NZ Harness Racing to be performed independently from the adjudicative functions. Such a provision is unsurprising. It does not advance the Appellant’s argument. If it had been intended to separate the adjudicative functions between Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals then s44(1)(e) and s44(1)(f) could have clearly spelt out that distinction. 5.2 Mr Dale sought support for his position by reference to the rules of practice and procedure for Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals. These came into effect on 27 August 2015. Mr Dale pointed to rules 32, 33 and 34. Nothing in those rules demonstrates that there must be or indeed that there should be, separate panels from which members of Adjudicative Committees are drawn and a separate panel from which Tribunal members are drawn. 5.3 As noted earlier with reference to the Appellant submissions Mr Dale sought to draw support from the New Zealand Bill of Rights. That with reference to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal can see no breach of the rules of natural justice in the procedure which has been followed over many years for the appointment of Adjudicative Committees and Appeal Tribunals. 5.4 In the Tribunal’s view it is the wording of s44 of the Racing Industry Act 2020 which is determinative of this issue. In that section there is no language which could credibly lead to a construction of the statute which required the two separate bodies for which the Appellant argues. 5.5 For all the reasons set out above the jurisdiction argument must fail. 6. APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY 6.1 At the forefront of the submissions advanced by Mr Dale which the proposition that the “guidelines” were too severe. The Tribunal knows of its own knowledge that the guidelines were put in place following consultation throughout the harness racing community. As the Committee at first instance observed they are truly “only guidelines”. Those guidelines provide for a disqualification of 18 months for a first breach of Rule 1004(c)(1)(b). There were three breaches of the Rule. They all took place on the same day over a short period of time. Ms Wigg was being observed by investigators. Clearly, they must have had some grounds for believing that a breach of the Rules might occur. 6.2 The Tribunal believes that upon a careful reading of the decision of the Adjudicative Committee, it is plain that the Committee saw the offending as a single incident notwithstanding that three horses were involved. Given that there were three Rule breaches the Adjudicative Committee might well have been justified in taking the view that it might start the penalty assessment at a level somewhat beyond the guidelines for a first breach; that is to say for a period greater than 18 months. 6.3 Earlier in this decision the Tribunal set out the answers given by Ms Wigg to questions asked of her at the hearing. At paragraphs 30 and following of the Adjudicative Committee’s decision conclusions are set out in relation to Ms Wigg’s evidence. There is an unequivocal finding that the Committee did not accept as credible her assertion that she lied to the Investigators because she had panicked. Further, the Committee concluded that while Ms Wigg did not believe that the mixture administered was “performance enhancing” it was nonetheless clearly her intention to provide some benefit to the three horses for “animal health”. Further and importantly, the Committee found that there was a deliberate breach of the Rule of which Ms Wigg was well aware. 6.4 In assessing penalty the Committee referred to the Appeal Tribunal decision in RIU v L 13 May 2019. That is a very comprehensive decision which sets out the appropriate sentencing principles and how each is to be determined in relation to the other. 6.5 Mr Dale put forward a number of decided cases. Several were from Australia. The Tribunal, with respect, found those decisions to be of little assistance. 6.6 The Committee pointed out that for a second administration offence, the penalty guide proposed three years and five years for a second or third offence. Further, the Committee observed that Appeals Tribunals have indicated in particularly serious cases that penalties significantly higher than set out in the penalty guide might be adopted. 6.7 For reasons explained the Tribunal believes that a starting point of 18 months disqualification was appropriate; perhaps even generous to Ms Wigg given that there were three Rule breaches. 6.8 The Committee having set the starting point then considered aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Reference has been made to the number of the aggravating circumstances. It is the Tribunal’s view that the most significant of those was that there were administrations to three horses. It is plain from paragraph 34 of the Committee’s decision that they were not attracted to Ms Wigg’s claim that what she did was “not a big deal”. The Committee concluded that her intention was plainly to flout the Rule of which she was well aware. The Tribunal can find no fault in the reasoning of the Committee which led to an uplift on account of aggravating circumstances for a period of five months. That took the disqualification to a period of 23 months. 6.9 The Committee then turned to mitigating circumstances. There were a number of these. They included health issues, Ms Wigg’s difficult financial circumstances and the loss of income that would follow from not being able to train. There was reference to Ms Wigg having been invited to the world amateur drivers’ championship in Italy in September this year. That was an issue upon which Mr Dale placed considerable significance. What is clear from the decision under Appeal was that this issue was given consideration. 6.10 Mr Dale put before the Tribunal a witness statement from a Mr Frank Cooney. He is a well known and respected former trainer/driver. Mr Dale advised when filing that document that Mr Cooney would appear before the Tribunal but Mr Cooney did not appear to give evidence. 6.11 The Committee was plainly conscious of the effect of significant disqualification upon Ms Wigg: refer paragraph 46 of the decision. Ms Wigg’s previously unblemished record was another consideration in her favour. 6.12 The Tribunal concludes that a discount of four months for mitigating circumstances was appropriate. It is clear that those mitigating circumstances were given proper attention notwithstanding the number of aggravating circumstances pointing in the other direction and spoken of above. 7. CONCLUSION 7.1 For the reasons set out above the challenge to jurisdiction is rejected. 7.2 With reference to the Appeal against the term of disqualification that Appeal is also dismissed. 8. COSTS 8.1 The RIB indicated that costs would be sought and that advice in relation to that would be provided once the costs of the Appeal hearing were brought to account. 8.2 Mr Dale did not address the Tribunal on the issue of costs. 8.3 Both parties are requested to file with the Executive Officer of the RIB submissions on the costs issue. Such submissions to be filed not later than 3pm on Thursday 26 May 2022. DATED this 10th day of May 2022 Murray McKechnie Chairman

He wasn't even doing that. He was doing an "exhibition gallop"!

Too busy checking Greyhound dental records. Herd probably thought he wouldn't get tested riding a horse in an "exhibition gallop"!!!! I guess however it highlights a discrepancy in the rules. He was immediately suspended and served out the penalty before the penalty was determined!

For the life of me I can't work out why the industry administrators are intent on staying on this path to self destruction. Can't they see stakeholders walking out with their feet with their kit bags over their shoulders? It will be the administrators closing the lights off well after there are no horses or trainers or jockeys or owners. They'll then sell the assets to pay their redundancy packages and retire. A plea to the administrators some of you need to retire NOW!