Chief Stipe Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 Hawkes Bay R 2 October 2021 – R7 – Jamie Richards ID: RIB4999 Respondent(s): Jamie Richards - Trainer Applicant: Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward Adjudicators: N Moffatt and B Mainwaring Persons Present: Mr Jamie Richards, Mr Oatham Information Number: A14596 Decision Type: Adjudicative Decision Charge: late scratching Rule(s): 534(1) Plea: Admitted Stewards Report Results Animal Name: SHEZATHINKA Code: Thoroughbred Race Date: 02/10/2021 Race Club: Hawkes Bay Race Club Race Location: Hastings Racecourse - 200 Prospect Road, Hastings, 4122 Race Number: R7 Hearing Date: 02/10/2021 Hearing Location: Hastings Racecourse Outcome: Proved Penalty: Trainer Jamie Richards is fined $650 SUMMARY OF FACTS: Prior to Race 1 Mr Oatham lodged an Information with the Adjudicators alleging a breach of Rule 534(1) in that “SHEZATHINKA” was declared a late scratching at 8.47am due to an error in medication administration. EVIDENCE: At 8.45am today (race day) Mr Richards advised Mr Oatham of an error that occurred in his stable. SHEZATHINKA had been administered a medication that would have returned a positive had the horse been swabbed. The horse was an acceptor in Race 7 and Mr Oatham immediately advised the TAB of the late scratching. Mr Richards explained that a senior staff member incorrectly administered meloxicam to SHEZATHINKA instead of another horse in the same barn. Upon realising the error the staff member informed the foreman who in turn notified Mr Richards. The owners of the horse and Mr D Ellis were also notified. REASON FOR DECISION: Mr Richards admitted the breach therefore the charge was deemed proved. SUBMISSION FOR PENALTY: Mr Oatham said he was aware of only one similar case where at Te Aroha in 2019 a horse had to be late scratched on the day due to being given medication. The Trainer (James/Wellwood) was fined $600 and the Stewards sought a penalty in line with that decision. Mr Richards said they take great care in the administration of medicines and this mistake was unacceptable. As a result of the error there would be an internal review of all the stable’s systems and processes. SHEZATHINKA was eligible for a race next weekend and her schedule would not be unduly disrupted by missing the race today. REASON FOR PENALTY: The Penalty Guide does not cover a breach of this type however there was one precedent case put before the Adjudicating Committee which was helpful. Mr Richards was forthcoming with the Stewards and transparent about the reason for the late scratching. All bets on the horse would be refunded in full and there were no horses on the ballot who missed a start. The owners are the most affected group and to have a horse late scratched on a Premier Race Day due to human error must have been extremely disappointing. CONCLUSIONS: Taking into account all submissions the Adjudicating Committee was of the opinion that a $650 fine was an appropriate penalty. Decision Date: 02/10/2021 Publish Date: 04/10/2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 I reckon. Just encourages one to tell porkies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ Flash Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Freda said: I reckon. Just encourages one to tell porkies. Why- if the horse wins and is found to have a positive swab he would get a far harsher fine/suspension. He takes all the credit so he should take the consequences as he would do on this occasion. He sensibly owned up and enhanced his reputation in doing so IMO. Over to Cockwomble to counter argue as per when i post on here Edited October 4, 2021 by JJ Flash 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 Because, if he had ( say ) invented an injury or an attack of colic, which had then resolved, it would not have resulted in the fine. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gospel of Judas Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 Reading this, sounds like classic revenue collection for RIU. That or ticking off the stats boxes, to make themselves look better than reality. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gospel of Judas Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 1 hour ago, Freda said: Because, if he had ( say ) invented an injury or an attack of colic, which had then resolved, it would not have resulted in the fine. Cause more incentive to liar, if going get say between $500-1000 fine. Over time lead to slippery slop argument, happening. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bloggs Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 I bet next time, oooh, touch of colic here, best call the stipes, friendly local vet, = vet cert=done deal........FFS, you couldn't make this up could you, being honest, nah......far to complicated and costly. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 4 hours ago, Freda said: Because, if he had ( say ) invented an injury or an attack of colic, which had then resolved, it would not have resulted in the fine. Appears to be in season springs to mind. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 Or you could take a punt, go to the races and follow them round assuming you won't get swabbed if you don't win. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 Exactly. He should have been congratulated for his honesty, not penalized. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 4 hours ago, Freda said: Exactly. He should have been congratulated for his honesty, not penalized. That was my point. But I guess as @JTeaz keeps saying the RIB's prime motivation is to protect the punter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ Flash Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 12 hours ago, Freda said: Because, if he had ( say ) invented an injury or an attack of colic, which had then resolved, it would not have resulted in the fine. And if was caught trying that on he would have again got a harsher penalty. Just ask j Kah et al what happens when you lie and get caught. His reputation is intact, its worth a lot to many people. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 It's all academic, anyway, JJ, didn't happen, but who knows what happens when no one is around to query? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 1 hour ago, JJ Flash said: And if was caught trying that on he would have again got a harsher penalty. Just ask j Kah et al what happens when you lie and get caught. His reputation is intact, its worth a lot to many people. That isn't the point though is it? He got penalised for being honest. Why the fine? What did it achieve? Who was the crime committed against that required a fine? Did the punter lose out? No not really. It gave something for the RIB to do and to help them look relevant. 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ Flash Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: He got penalised for being honest. Why the fine? What did it achieve? No, he was penalised for breaking the Rules of Racing. Read below- if you and others think breaking the rules is ok as some on here have alluded to then you are part of the integrity problem that racing suffers from. Turn it around and you and others would be going to town if J R had been caught lying or the horse returned a positive. I'm sure Chief Cockwomble will see it differently but your playing by yourself from here on in. Prior to Race 1 Mr Oatham lodged an Information with the Adjudicators alleging a breach of Rule 534(1) in that “SHEZATHINKA” was declared a late scratching at 8.47am due to an error in medication administration. EVIDENCE: At 8.45am today (race day) Mr Richards advised Mr Oatham of an error that occurred in his stable. SHEZATHINKA had been administered a medication that would have returned a positive had the horse been swabbed. The horse was an acceptor in Race 7 and Mr Oatham immediately advised the TAB of the late scratching. Mr Richards explained that a senior staff member incorrectly administered meloxicam to SHEZATHINKA instead of another horse in the same barn. Upon realising the error the staff member informed the foreman who in turn notified Mr Richards. The owners of the horse and Mr D Ellis were also notified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 39 minutes ago, JJ Flash said: No, he was penalised for breaking the Rules of Racing. Here is Rule 534 (1). Richards had a valid reason for scratching - the question is WHY THE $650 FINE?!!! What Rule did he actually break that would necessitate a fine? ___________________ 534 (1) At any time from the Withdrawal Deadline to the scratching deadline (as specified for the relevant Race Meeting in accordance with Rule 510(d)(v) or as amended by NZTR from time to time) on the relevant Race day, a person intending to scratch a horse from a Race (after it has been accepted or is deemed to have been accepted) shall give notice to that effect to NZTR and where such notice for scratching a horse refers to a Race Meeting but does not specify a particular Race at that Race Meeting, such notice shall be deemed to apply to all Races for which the horse has been accepted or deemed to have been accepted at that Race Meeting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nod Posted October 5, 2021 Share Posted October 5, 2021 If one had tried to lie over the circumstances the truth of the matter would be known all over Matamata by lunchtime One man bands might succeed with a lie but big outfits never 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ Flash Posted October 5, 2021 Share Posted October 5, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, nod said: If one had tried to lie over the circumstances the truth of the matter would be known all over Matamata by lunchtime One man bands might succeed with a lie but big outfits never Precisely Nod, so thanks. As i have already noted, JR took the correct course of action and has preserved his reputation and that of brand Te Akau. Those that want to counter argue the obvious might also consider " he pleaded guilty " to the charges. Edited October 5, 2021 by JJ Flash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 5, 2021 Author Share Posted October 5, 2021 9 hours ago, JJ Flash said: Precisely Nod, so thanks. As i have already noted, JR took the correct course of action and has preserved his reputation and that of brand Te Akau. Those that want to counter argue the obvious might also consider " he pleaded guilty " to the charges. That isn't the issue. Richards found out about the drug mistake and as soon as possible scratched the horse. The issue is he got a significant fine for being honest. @JJ Flash if you fine legal brain can explain where in rule 534 (1) it demands a fine then I'd be interested to hear your reasoning? But in saying that even the RIB admitted in their judgement of having difficulty in determining what to do. A better outcome which was within the rules was to applaud Richards for his honesty and quick action and not fine him. Instead the message that is sent out is "We expect you to be honest but we'll nail you with a fine anyway!" 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 5, 2021 Author Share Posted October 5, 2021 20 minutes ago, nod said: If one had tried to lie over the circumstances the truth of the matter would be known all over Matamata by lunchtime One man bands might succeed with a lie but big outfits never The fact is he didn't and was upfront and honest yet still got pinged. But I guess that is the society we now live in. It still amazes me how a driver can have a minor accident, cut a finger, no other car involved, no harm to anyone other than themselves and be charged by the Police with dangerous driving causing injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Whyisit Posted October 6, 2021 Share Posted October 6, 2021 6 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: A better outcome which was within the rules was to applaud Richards for his honesty and quick action and not fine him. Instead the message that is sent out is "We expect you to be honest but we'll nail you with a fine anyway!" Or perhaps you could call it a late scratching fee instead of a fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ Flash Posted October 7, 2021 Share Posted October 7, 2021 Star jockey Ben Melham will not be eligible to ride in races until March next year after being handed a further three-month ban for giving false and or misleading evidence to stewards. Fellow rider Ethan Brown received an eight-week penalty — partly suspended for two years — for his part in also omitting the name of Mark Zahra as an attendee at the Mornington Airbnb gathering. The significant sanctions ends the Victorian Racing Tribunal’s involvement with the five jockeys embroiled in the Covid-19 breach on August 25. All five copped three-month penalties for the breach and graded supplementary bans for the false and/or misleading evidence charge. Who said honesty is the best policy?? JR certainly abides by it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted October 7, 2021 Share Posted October 7, 2021 I think you've kinda missed the point....which is Richards was penalized for being honest. Nod's comment is on the button, though, the racing grapevine being what it is! IMO he should have been commended for his honesty, and perhaps warned, and advised to up his stable protocol. Nothing more. A fine is just b/s. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 7, 2021 Author Share Posted October 7, 2021 34 minutes ago, Freda said: IMO he should have been commended for his honesty, and perhaps warned, and advised to up his stable protocol. Nothing more. What needs to change with the protocol? Mistakes happen whatever the protocol. The fact is the protocols in place AND the work environment facilitated the discovery of the mistake and the employee not being afraid to put their hand up. What would have been interesting would have been what would have happened if the mistake hadn't been found. Hell if you get a $650 fine for identifying the mistake, notifying the authorities and scratching BEFORE the race early on raceday you can imagine what the penalty would have been of they hadn't. Let alone the conspiracy theories that would have been fueled. I feel sorry for the horse that didn't get its treatment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomates Posted October 7, 2021 Share Posted October 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Freda said: Nod's comment is on the button, though, the racing grapevine being what it is! Agree , as you know Freda , if you have spent as many years on the ground in racing as we have there are not too many secrets that you don't get to hear of . The stuff i know about people in racing , name people , from over the last 40 years i could write a trilogy . If you want something known tell someone in racing , it will get around . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.