Jump to content
Bit Of A Yarn

Please respond to Stewards requests at all times.


Recommended Posts

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-n-purdon-decision-dated-10-september-2020-chair-mr-b-j-scott

Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v N Purdon - Written Decision dated 10 September 2020 - Chair, Mr B J Scott

Created on 14 September 2020

 
 

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE RACING INDUSTRY ACT 2020

AND IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand

BETWEEN

RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) – Informant

AND

NATHAN PURDON - Respondent

Judicial Committee : Mr BJ Scott (Chairman)

Appearing : Mr JM Muirhead - Senior Stipendiary Steward as the Informant

Mr N Purdon – Respondent

Venue : Cambridge Harness Racecourse

Date of Decision : 10 September 2020

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

EVIDENCE:

Mr Purdon was charged with Misconduct pursuant to Rule 303(2) in that he failed to attend an investigation by the Stewards when directed to do so. The charge arose out of an investigation into the performance of 2 horses co-trained by Mr Purdon namely FABRIZIO and IM A GIGOLO in Race 6 at the Auckland Trotting Club Meeting on the 3rd of September 2020.

Rule 303(2) provides:

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, Racecourse Inspector or Starter.

This charge was heard at a Non-Raceday Inquiry at the Waikato –BOP Harness Inc meeting on the 10th of September 2020. By letter dated the 9th of September 2020 the General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit authorised Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr JM Muirhead to proceed with the charge against Mr Purdon. Information number A12242 was served on Mr Purdon and he recorded on the Information that he admitted the charge.

Mr Muirhead gave evidence and said that following Race 6 on the 3rd of September the Stewards opened an investigation into the performances of both FABRIZIO and IM A GIGOLO. Stipendiary Steward, Mr A Dooley was sent to see Mr Purdon and tell him that he was wanted by the Stewards for enquiries into the performances of his 2 horses. Mr Purdon did not respond, and Mr Muirhead said that later on that night he tried to contact Mr Purdon by phone. He did not get an answer, nor did Mr Purdon call him back.

Mr Muirhead said that he recorded in the Stewards Report for the meeting that “An investigation was opened into Co-Trainer N Purdon failing to appear before the Stewards after being directed to do so”.

Mr Muirhead said that he waited several days and did not hear from Mr Purdon, so he telephoned him again. Mr Purdon said he was busy with his horses and he made a mistake.

Mr Purdon was present at the hearing and said that on the night he had 3 horses racing and he was there on his own. He said that there were considerable demands on him because the earlier horse to race KRUG had won its race and had a growing reputation. As a result, numerous people were around the stalls to see the horse and he was fielding many enquiries. He said his phone kept ringing and he did not have time to answer it, so he turned it off.

When asked by the Committee why he did not call Mr Muirhead the next day or the one after he could not give an answer.

DECISION:

Mr Purdon has admitted the breach and therefore the charge is upheld.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:

Mr Muirhead said that this offence was essentially one of strict liability. He said for Stewards to properly run race meetings all participants need to respond to Stewards’ directions. He said that despite Mr Dooley speaking to him on racenight and he telephoning him Mr Purdon did not respond at all.

Mr Muirhead referred to a previous decision in February 2019 of RIU v K Barclay which was dealt with by way of a fine. He said that the starting point penalty in the JCA Guidelines was a fine of $500 but as Mr Purdon had not previously breached this Rule and he had admitted the breach on this occasion he submitted that a $400 was appropriate.

Mr Purdon accepted that a fine would be imposed but also referred to his evidence about being very busy on racenight.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

A breach of this Rule is a serious matter and the Stewards need to properly carry out their functions on racenight. It is essential (and required under the Rules) that they receive co-operation from all those listed in the Rule. It is a concern that Mr Purdon had not contacted Mr Muirhead several days after racenight and contact was only made when Mr Muirhead rang again.

There is one previous decision under this Rule, and it was pointed out to Mr Purdon that his excuses for not responding were very similar to Ms Barclay’s.

The Committee has taken the starting point penalty of $500 and has given Mr Purdon credit for his admission of the breach. That of course was inevitable given the evidence that has been presented. Mr Purdon was advised that in the interests of consistency the Committee will impose the same penalty as that given to Ms Barclay.

PENALTY

Mr Purdon is fined the sum of $400.

Mr BJ Scott

(Chairman)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

$400 is  a fair call. He was given a number of chances.

They have to respond to stewards or things will fall apart.

What was the outcome of the "investigation into the performance" of the two horses?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

Who knows, he didn't turn up!

He got himself in more trouble than just a regular questioning by not adhering to the request.

image.thumb.png.06066f34420fbba00bce9033508d8a97.png

Why didn't they ask him at the hearing?

Pretty obvious what changes he'd make.  Make sure the boring pole is securely attached and remove it from the other.  

Are there other examples where a trainer has told a Steward what he intends to do to fix a problem on race night?

Most trainers I know go home and think about it first.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Noodlum said:

Are there other examples where a trainer has told a Steward what he intends to do to fix a problem on race night?

The approach of RIU seems to have changed a touch recently, eg Glenthorne drive and now this. It might be just the way they write it up. Who knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Happy Sunrise said:

The approach of RIU seems to have changed a touch recently, eg Glenthorne drive and now this. It might be just the way they write it up. Who knows.

I can't see how the "new" approach is of any value.  From the report there were reasons offered why the horses may have not performed on the night.  But how does knowing what a trainer "intends" to do help or even change anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Noodlum said:

I can't see how the "new" approach is of any value.  From the report there were reasons offered why the horses may have not performed on the night.  But how does knowing what a trainer "intends" to do help or even change anything?

Further more, Fabrizio was a 2 length winner in Heat 2 of the Pukekohe Workouts, a little over 15hours after the run at Auckland in question. He showed good manners and clearly the gear alterations made by Mr N Purdon were seen to work as he beat a handy field in a nice time. 

On the same day, Friday 4th September, there was also two Qualifying Trials at Pukekohe, which means a RIU Steward would have been on course that day, yet by what I've read from the JCA report, no one directed that Steward to catch up with Mr Purdon or in fact watch the horse in his workout?

Very harsh to fine a young trainer basically half a weeks wages for this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, AndrewFitzgerald said:

Further more, Fabrizio was a 2 length winner in Heat 2 of the Pukekohe Workouts, a little over 15hours after the run at Auckland in question. He showed good manners and clearly the gear alterations made by Mr N Purdon were seen to work as he beat a handy field in a nice time. 

On the same day, Friday 4th September, there was also two Qualifying Trials at Pukekohe, which means a RIU Steward would have been on course that day, yet by what I've read from the JCA report, no one directed that Steward to catch up with Mr Purdon or in fact watch the horse in his workout?

Very harsh to fine a young trainer basically half a weeks wages for this.

So you think the stipes should hold off writing up their reports until a couple of days later in cases where trainers or drivers don't attend as requested on the night?

You say no steward was directed to catch up with mr purdon at the qualifying trials the next day. From that can we therefore assume Mr purdon did not approach the stipe on duty that day?

Can we also assume that you think it ok information may be relayed 3rd hand to a stipe,via another stipe,when that would not have been necessary had mr purdon attended as requested.

Have you ever thought to reflect how this would have been perceived by a lesser known licence holder if they were aware no action was taken against mr purdon, If that were the case they would no doubt have thought the the double standards the stipes displayed a few years back were still in play.

This really is not a big deal but you seem to be making excuses for another high profile trainer,yet again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, the galah said:

Can we also assume that you think it ok information may be relayed 3rd hand to a stipe,via another stipe,when that would not have been necessary had mr purdon attended as requested.

Pardon wasn't expected to "attend" just answer the phone or return a call.  As pointed out the stewards weren't particularly proactive at following up soon after.  It seems even on the night they couldn't be bothered walking down to the stables!  So much for its importance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AndrewFitzgerald said:

Further more, Fabrizio was a 2 length winner in Heat 2 of the Pukekohe Workouts, a little over 15hours after the run at Auckland in question. He showed good manners and clearly the gear alterations made by Mr N Purdon were seen to work as he beat a handy field in a nice time. 

On the same day, Friday 4th September, there was also two Qualifying Trials at Pukekohe, which means a RIU Steward would have been on course that day, yet by what I've read from the JCA report, no one directed that Steward to catch up with Mr Purdon or in fact watch the horse in his workout?

Very harsh to fine a young trainer basically half a weeks wages for this.

That is all irrelevant.

Nathan Purdon has a responsibility to respond to the request at the time and take responsibility for his own actions.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Noodlum said:

Pardon wasn't expected to "attend" just answer the phone or return a call. 

Did he? No.

1 hour ago, Noodlum said:

As pointed out the stewards weren't particularly proactive at following up soon after. 

Do you expect the stewards to chase up after all the drivers and trainers etc when the drivers and trainers don't respond to requests?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

Do you expect the stewards to chase up after all the drivers and trainers etc when the drivers and trainers don't respond to requests?

Yes.  It is their job.  If the RIU can find time to hide in hedges then why not chase up drivers and trainers if the issue is important!

The irony in this particular case is the boring pole completely detaching from one of Purdon's horses causing some disruption to those horses having to pace over it.  He should have been fined for that regardless of how it happened!

The other issue (the biggest issue) I have is the inconsistency.  Did they ask Telfer the trainer of the favourite Jack Ryan in the first race what he was going to do?  No.  Instead they accept the explanation of a Junior Driver!  Go figure!!!!!  Obviously Blair Orange's explanation wasn't good enough! 

If you are going to get all antsy about questioning Trainers about "what they are going to do" then be consistent about it.

 

screenshot-infohorse.hrnz.co.nz-2020.09.18-08_02_15.png

  • Like 2
  • Champ Post 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Noodlum said:

Typical sanctimonious self-righteous response from the galah.

The RIU are hardly consistent - whats it matter what profile the trainer has?  The matter was a nonsense in the first instance.

Noodlum/chief,whoever you may be. You can think what you like about what i post.

One thing i have observed is the opinions you express relating to the RIU  are always critical of what they do.  To me you have an agenda. Thats the way you come across to me.

Name calling just shows the opinions i express are annoying you. 

  • Like 1
  • Champ Post 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, the galah said:

Name calling just shows the opinions i express are annoying you. 

He who casts the first stone gets it thrown straight back at them that's my philosophy!

13 minutes ago, the galah said:

One thing i have observed is the opinions you express relating to the RIU  are always critical of what they do.  To me you have an agenda. Thats the way you come across to me.

 

Yes I do have an agenda - to see consistency in the application of the rules.  If the rules are going to be applied then they should be applied to everyone!  A classic case is the example that started this topic.  Why wasn't Telfer asked about Jack Ryan?  A Junior Driver's explanation was sufficient.

Where you piss me off Galah is you are quick to make inferences and play the holier-than-thou but are INCONSISTENT in doing it!  99% of your posts are along the lines of ......"oooh there's smoke over there....." 

  • Champ Post 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Noodlum said:

He who casts the first stone gets it thrown straight back at them that's my philosophy!

Yes I do have an agenda - to see consistency in the application of the rules.  If the rules are going to be applied then they should be applied to everyone!  A classic case is the example that started this topic.  Why wasn't Telfer asked about Jack Ryan?  A Junior Driver's explanation was sufficient.

Where you piss me off Galah is you are quick to make inferences and play the holier-than-thou but are INCONSISTENT in doing it!  99% of your posts are along the lines of ......"oooh there's smoke over there....." 

Your example of jack ryan. What has that got to do with purdon seeing the stipes?

They questioned the driver of jack ryan as to why he was off the gate prior to  the start.  Had they asked the trainer to see them, then one would expect he would have. 

You say i piss you off. So we don't agree on much. Your opinions or criticism don't annoy me. 

I think you should be more selective in picking the subjects on which to criticise the riu like you do. You wouldn't come across as so ant them if you did.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AndrewFitzgerald said:

Further more, Fabrizio was a 2 length winner in Heat 2 of the Pukekohe Workouts, a little over 15hours after the run at Auckland in question. He showed good manners and clearly the gear alterations made by Mr N Purdon were seen to work as he beat a handy field in a nice time. 

On the same day, Friday 4th September, there was also two Qualifying Trials at Pukekohe, which means a RIU Steward would have been on course that day, yet by what I've read from the JCA report, no one directed that Steward to catch up with Mr Purdon or in fact watch the horse in his workout?

Very harsh to fine a young trainer basically half a weeks wages for this.

No wonder so many people in this industry think you are an absolute moron! Stipes report comes out night of races . Workouts were next day!

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A little off topic but what are the restrictions for Nat, Mark and Blair heading to Auckland for drives tonight from CHCH?? are they in any type of bubble of can they roam Auckland before or after the races and just cruise back to CHCH at any stage over the weekend.

 

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dougie said:

A little off topic but what are the restrictions for Nat, Mark and Blair heading to Auckland for drives tonight from CHCH?? are they in any type of bubble of can they roam Auckland before or after the races and just cruise back to CHCH at any stage over the weekend.

 

Cheers.

No, yes and yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dougie said:

A little off topic but what are the restrictions for Nat, Mark and Blair heading to Auckland for drives tonight from CHCH?? are they in any type of bubble of can they roam Auckland before or after the races and just cruise back to CHCH at any stage over the weekend.

 

Cheers.

Aucklanders can go anywhere and everywhere in NZ so it will apply to them.

Don't try to think that through logically because you won't find any.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...