Honestjohn Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 Anyone else hear this? Hj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted June 28, 2022 Share Posted June 28, 2022 9 hours ago, Honestjohn said: Anyone else hear this? Hj Are you kidding? The golden rule on BOAY when it comes to dodgy trainer-driver behaviour is see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. A former BOAY contributor (driven out by the nonsense) has vividly described this stance on another forum: "But, for some, there is no corruption in harness. Alford was innocent. Kerr was innocent. Jones is innocent, INCA is a witch hunt, all those associated are innocent. It is all the RIB's fault. How dare anyone call into question the integrity of harness racing. For those out there who are concerned with who informs The Star of details I suggest you be more concerned who is bringing harness racing into disrepute." Hear hear is the only sane response. But according to BOAY's Chief Denier, no trainer or driver has ever done anything worse than drop an injudicious fart or two, and anybody who claims otherwise is malicious or misguided. Coming at it from a different angle is, of course, Brodie, who sees wrongdoing everywhere except where it actually occurs. And both are enthusiastically backed up by a posse of me-tooers. None seems to have realised the sun has set on the 20th century. Perceived enemies of harness racing are ubiquitous on BOAY, but the real ones are in the mirror. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted June 28, 2022 Share Posted June 28, 2022 43 minutes ago, Basil said: Are you kidding? The golden rule on BOAY when it comes to dodgy trainer-driver behaviour is see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. A former BOAY contributor (driven out by the nonsense) has vividly described this stance on another forum: "But, for some, there is no corruption in harness. Alford was innocent. Kerr was innocent. Jones is innocent, INCA is a witch hunt, all those associated are innocent. It is all the RIB's fault. How dare anyone call into question the integrity of harness racing. For those out there who are concerned with who informs The Star of details I suggest you be more concerned who is bringing harness racing into disrepute." Hear hear is the only sane response. But according to BOAY's Chief Denier, no trainer or driver has ever done anything worse than drop an injudicious fart or two, and anybody who claims otherwise is malicious or misguided. Coming at it from a different angle is, of course, Brodie, who sees wrongdoing everywhere except where it actually occurs. And both are enthusiastically backed up by a posse of me-tooers. None seems to have realised the sun has set on the 20th century. Perceived enemies of harness racing are ubiquitous on BOAY, but the real ones are in the mirror. Basil, go and get a second Booster in you! Brodie is the voice of reason and tells it the way it is! The fact you have little spine and just want to come on every now and again explaining how righteous you are is rather pointless! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gammalite Posted June 28, 2022 Share Posted June 28, 2022 1 hour ago, Basil said: A former BOAY contributor (driven out by the nonsense) has vividly described this stance on another forum: "But, for some, there is no corruption in harness. Alford was innocent. Kerr was innocent. Jones is innocent, INCA is a witch hunt, all those associated are innocent. It is all the RIB's fault. How dare anyone call into question the integrity of harness racing. For those out there who are concerned with who informs The Star of details I suggest you be more concerned who is bringing harness racing into disrepute." Hear hear is the only sane response. You might be a mate of 'Happy's" but the bloke is on a crusade against harness racing. How can you 'hear, hear" that comment ?? and say it's sane? It's a lot of Rot. Who are the 'Some' for starters? Alford Confessed. No-one, Not even the imaginary 'some' think he is innocent. Kerr copped a barrage of criticism on this site for his deplorable , selfish actions. Is his sentence long enough? McGrath went out for 8 years DQ. sorry I'm not sure which group processed that . (but that sentence too harsh IMO) Happy can come back and enjoy 'nonsense' if he feels up to it. but left because he doesn't like Noodlum lol...... 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 28, 2022 Share Posted June 28, 2022 10 hours ago, Basil said: Are you kidding? The golden rule on BOAY when it comes to dodgy trainer-driver behaviour is see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. What rule? There are no rules on BOAY. Hell you can even slag off the owner and administrator of BOAY without being banned. Try that elsewhere. 10 hours ago, Basil said: A former BOAY contributor (driven out by the nonsense) has vividly described this stance on another forum: "But, for some, there is no corruption in harness. Alford was innocent. Kerr was innocent. Jones is innocent, INCA is a witch hunt, all those associated are innocent. It is all the RIB's fault. How dare anyone call into question the integrity of harness racing. For those out there who are concerned with who informs The Star of details I suggest you be more concerned who is bringing harness racing into disrepute." What "nonsense"? Robust debate and counter opinion? Is this "former BOAY contributor" now a member of a private Facebook page slagging off Harness Racing? A member of the same clique that feeds Peter Profit aka @Archie Butterfly? If the quote you attribute to this "former BOAY contributor" is correct then they are a liar. No one has said on BOAY that there is no corruption - well certainly not me. Although corruption is an emotive word - there are cheats in every sport and in most industry's. If you don't know that then you are naive. But is there widespread performance enhancing drug use and race fixing going on? No evidence yet. INCA has been an expensive (more than $14m) witch hunt by incompetent RIB staff. What is the score now for INCA after 6 years? Close to ZIP. Yes I believe the culture at the RIB has been toxic driven by ex-Policemen who have had dodgy exits from the Police force. BTW I have yet to see any evidence that that culture has changed. 11 hours ago, Basil said: But according to BOAY's Chief Denier, no trainer or driver has ever done anything worse than drop an injudicious fart or two, and anybody who claims otherwise is malicious or misguided. That is a lie. An outright lie. What is your agenda? I do not appreciate people attributing opinions to me that are not mine. If you did that on any other forum you would be banned or at the very least moderated. But feel free to respond @Basil because I'm more than happy to argue your points robustly. In my opinion the cases that we are seeing are just reflective of wider societal ills i.e. it isn't just a Harness Racing problem. I also believe that there isn't widespread use of performance enhancing drugs i.e. Woodend ISN'T riddled with cheating trainers. Now the Bennetts, the Happy's and the Archie Butterflies of this world might think so and might want to bring Harness to its knees but where is the evidence? If the RIB is so good, efficient, professional and competent in performing their assigned task where is the evidence? After $14m of expense and using the NZ Police Force where is the evidence of race fixing? I would argue that the RIB and HRNZ should be bought to account. They have contributed to what is becoming a toxic industry to work in. Where were the HRNZ systems preventing Kerr from over selling horses or over selling insurance? Something I might add has gone on for decades. That isn't defending Kerr - not by any means. He obviously has an addiction illness and should be held accountable for his actions. But has HRNZ done ANYTHING to prevent the crime he committed? Have they updated their ownership systems? Have they made them more transparent to those who invest in the industry? Have they initiated anything that registers a pecuniary interest against a horse? If they did or even if they advertised they were going to there would be some scurrying in some quarters. Yeah na - let's all get on Social Media and hang draw and quarter anyone who commits a crime or makes a mistake. Let's publicly vilify two of NZ's best ever drivers for getting caught by INCA using recreational party drugs because Harness Racing is above the rest of society. No, no lets extrapolate it even further and say "oooohhh if they are willing to use illegal party drugs what are they doing to their horses"..... What I do notice about those yelling the loudest is that when you challenge their views and ask for evidence of their accusations they scurry in all directions and mostly go undercover into private forums. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honestjohn Posted June 28, 2022 Author Share Posted June 28, 2022 And McGrath given permission to break in horses, from hrnz chief himself. Go figure. 2 years into an 8 year ban. What a fng joke. Hj 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeynz Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 That Cam Jones I noted a while back had a impressive strike rate, after Tetrick won at Kurow after performing so poorly before got me doing some research, what happened to Tetrick, could he have had a overdose, .? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honestjohn Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 5 minutes ago, mikeynz said: That Cam Jones I noted a while back had a impressive strike rate, after Tetrick won at Kurow after performing so poorly before got me doing some research, what happened to Tetrick, could he have had a overdose, .? You're on the money I think? Hj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 22 minutes ago, mikeynz said: That Cam Jones I noted a while back had a impressive strike rate, after Tetrick won at Kurow after performing so poorly before got me doing some research, what happened to Tetrick, could he have had a overdose, .? Evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 16 minutes ago, Honestjohn said: You're on the money I think? Hj Evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 2 hours ago, Honestjohn said: And McGrath given permission to break in horses, from hrnz chief himself. Go figure. 2 years into an 8 year ban. What a fng joke. Hj that's not true can graze horses and wean foals 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeynz Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 im actually just taking the piss,have been known too now and then, might just stay out of it, in fact i might just go and take a piss😃 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honestjohn Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Evidence? That's why I ended with a? Too many things seem to happen out there. Nil horses suddenly winning. Hmmmm. Hj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honestjohn Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 1 hour ago, hunterthepunter said: that's not true can graze horses and wean foals I'll stick to my sources. You believe what you want. Hj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 1 hour ago, Honestjohn said: I'll stick to my sources. You believe what you want. Hj im on the money . lol your sources is fuking lier 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongOwner Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 6 hours ago, Honestjohn said: And McGrath given permission to break in horses, from hrnz chief himself. Go figure. 2 years into an 8 year ban. What a fng joke. Hj Rubbish 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 4 hours ago, hunterthepunter said: that's not true can graze horses and wean foals Elmer on the money !!!!!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 54 minutes ago, Rangatira said: Elmer on the money !!!!!!!! champion trainer is ELMER. RANGATIRA how many group 1s has he trained? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 23 minutes ago, hunterthepunter said: champion trainer is ELMER. RANGATIRA how many group 1s has he trained? shitloads give or take 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Non Raceday Inquiry – Reserved Written Decision dated 27 June 2022 – Cameron Jones ID: RIB9705 Respondent(s): Cameron Jones - Trainer Applicant: Mr Simon Irving, Senior Racing Investigator Adjudicators: Geoff Hall; Warwick Gendall Information Number: A15813 Decision Type: Adjudicative Decision Charge: Administration breach of One Clear Day Rule Rule(s): 1004C(1)(b) - One Clear Day Rule Plea: Admitted Stewards Report Results Animal Name: JOHNNY NEVITS Code: Harness Race Date: 10/12/2021 Race Club: NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club Inc Race Location: Addington Raceway - 75 Jack Hinton Drive, Addington, Christchurch, 8024 Race Number: R2 Hearing Date: 21/06/2022 Hearing Location: Christchurch Outcome: Proved Penalty: Trainer Cameron Jones - 21 months' disqualification [1] The Informant, the RIB, has laid Information A15813 with respect to the Respondent, Mr Cameron Jones, alleging a breach of r 1004C(1)(b) of the Rules of Harness Racing. [2] This Information alleges: “On 10 December 2021 at 123 Woodend Beach Road, Woodend Beach, the Respondent did administer to JOHNNY NEVITS, which was entered in Race 2 at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club meeting at Addington Raceway that evening, a substance by way of injection, in breach of r 1004C(1)(b) and subject to the penalties pursuant to r 1004D.” [3] Rule 1004C(1) states: “No person shall administer to a horse entered in a race in the period one clear day before racing (except under the direction or supervision of club veterinarian, Racing Investigator, or Stipendiary Steward) any substance by:(b) injection, hypodermic needle, or oral syringe. [4] Subsection (2) provides: “A breach of sub-rule (1) is committed regardless of the nature of the substance administered.” [5] Rule 1004D(1) states: “A person who commits a breach of r 1004C shall be liable to:(a) a fine not exceeding $20,000; and/or(b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years [6] The matter was heard at Christchurch on 21 June last. The Respondent admitted the breach and accepted the Summary of Facts. Summary of Facts Background 1 The Respondent, Cameron Thomas Jones, is licensed under the Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand. He currently holds a Public Trainers Licence and a Junior Drivers Licence. Breach of Rules 2 Information A15813 relates to a breach of r 1004C(1) – Administration in breach of the One Clear Day Rule. 3 On Friday 10 December RIB Investigators conducted an inspection at the stables of Cameron Jones at Woodend Beach. This being the afternoon of a race meeting held at Addington Raceway by the NZMTC. 4 Mr Jones had one runner engaged that evening: JOHNNY NEVITS; Race 2, 5.42pm. 5 Investigators observed Mr Jones collect his horse from a yard, tether it in his tie-ups and prepare it for transportation to the races. Also present was HRNZ Licensed Trainer Andrew Fitzgerald who did the same with his horse EYECON entered in Race 4. 6 At approximately 3.05pm Investigators observed Mr Jones lead his horse onto a horse float while Mr Fitzgerald waited on the ramp to load his horse. Seconds later Mr Fitzgerald observed Mr Jones holding an empty hypodermic syringe next to JOHNNY NEVITS. This was approximately two and a half hours before the horse was due to race. 7 Mr Fitzgerald loaded his horse, secured the float, and then drove his vehicle towards the gate which Mr Jones had walked to and opened. Mr Jones was observed by both Investigators and Mr Fitzgerald to open the lid of a green wheelie bin next to the gate and place something in it. Both Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Jones then left the property and drove the float to Addington Raceway. 8 Minutes later Investigators inspected the wheelie bin and located a used 20ml hypodermic syringe on the top of other rubbish. The syringe was taken as an exhibit for analysis. 9 Upon the float arriving at Addington, Investigators immediately interviewed both Mr Jones and Mr Fitzgerald independently. 10 Mr Jones denied injecting JOHNNY NEVITS or having possession of a syringe. He stated that he had placed a small vaping cannister in the wheelie bin. 11 Mr Fitzgerald stated that he saw Mr Jones with the empty syringe next to his horse but did not see him inject it and stated that he observed Mr Jones put something in the wheelie bin after he opened the gate. 12 JOHNNY NEVITS was inspected by the oncourse RIB vet at Addington who observed a 10mm soft swelling on the left jugular vein with a focal puncture in its centre, consistent with an intravenous injection site. 13 Based on the evidence presented, JOHNNY NEVITS was scratched from its race by Stewards pursuant to r 213(1)(c). 14 Urine and blood samples were obtained from both JOHNNY NEVITS and EYECON which were analysed and found to contain no prohibited substances. 15 Analysis of the syringe by NZRLS failed to identify any prohibited substances. 16 The evidence does not support Mr Jones’ version of events and no vaping cannister was located in the wheelie bin. Circumstances relating to Mr Jones 17 Mr Jones has been involved in the Harness Industry for several years and has held a Trainers Licence for one year. He does not have any previous breaches of the “One Clear Day” Rule. Informant’s Penalty Submissions [7] The Informant made both written and oral penalty submissions, which we summarise. [8] The Informant submitted that the relevant purposes and considerations were helpfully stated in the Appeals Tribunal’s decision in RIU v L (2019) at [25] and [28]: Proceedings under the Rules of Harness Racing, as is the position in all cases involving professional disciplines, are designed not simply to punish the transgressor, but crucially are to protect the profession/public/industry/and those who are to deal with the profession… A common thread in cases involving serious misconduct is for the regulatory tribunal generally to focus on the interests and reputation of the profession as being more important than the fortunes of the individual offending member…The Tribunal must endeavour to reach a proportionate balance between: • the public interest • the interests of the offending member • the interests of the professional body as a whole • the seriousness of the offending • any aggravating and mitigating factors. [9] More recently, in RIU v Kerr (2021), the JCA observed: [T]he need to deter others who might choose to deceive owners or others in the misguided view that they are entitled to operate in similar ways is crucial. The confidence of owners and others in the absolute integrity of Trainers in whom total trust is vested, is vital. The Sport cannot endure if owners cannot trust Trainers…. If there should be any Trainers or others who might breach these Rules, the general deterrence following from this sanction may prevent similar abuse and deceit of, helpless owners. It is the general deterrence principle to which we give special weight in the sentencing balancing exercise so that any Trainer who might tend to forget to whom their duty lies, are aware of possible sanctions they might face if they transgress in similar ways to their owners’ detriment. [10] The Informant submitted that these comments from Kerr should guide this Adjudicative Committee’s approach to determining penalty in this case. It was a serious administration offence, the only purpose of which must have been to obtain an advantage in the upcoming race. [11] The Penalty Guide suggests a starting point of 18 months’ disqualification for a first administration offence, then three years’ and five years’ disqualification for second and third offences, respectively. This was a guide only, and more recent decisions indicated that in particularly serious cases, significantly higher penalties might be adopted. [12] In this regard, the Informant referred to RIB v Wigg (2022), RIU v McGrath (2020) and RIU v Alford (2021) as being comparable cases. [13] In contending for a penalty of not less than two years’ disqualification, the Informant argued the Respondent’s conduct was more serious than that in Wigg where a starting point of 18 months’ disqualification was adopted for a first administration offence. This case involved the administration of a substance using an oral drench at the prompting of another person. The prompting to administer the substance did not in any way excuse the conduct and, as the Adjudicative Committee in Wigg observed, her actions fell woefully short of the behaviour required of a Licensed Trainer. However, offending which occurs entirely of the offender’s own volition, as in the present case, was comparatively more serious. [14] The Informant also submitted that injection by hypodermic needle was more serious than administration by oral drench. Injecting was noted to permit the substance to be transferred directly into the bloodstream rather than requiring gradual absorption through the stomach lining, increasing the risk of animal welfare concerns. With respect to an oral drench, the horse has some control as to whether to accept it. For example, in Wigg the horse had resisted the drench and there was a lot of the paste on the ground around the horse. A horse could not resist a substance which was being given by way of a hypodermic needle. [15] Notwithstanding the absence of a detected prohibited substance, the Adjudicative Committee was invited to consider that Mr Jones’ offending sat closer to the penalties in McGrath and Alford where prohibited substances were administered on raceday. [16] The Informant acknowledged that the Respondent’s offending was less serious than that in McGrath and Alford, given the absence of a prohibited substance being detected and the absence of evidence of serious animal welfare concerns. However, the principles underpinning penalty in respect of administering offending were said to remain the same. [17] Analysis had been unable to determine the nature of the substance injected into JOHNNY NEVITS as there was only a residual, miniscule amount available for analysis. However, the Informant contended that the only viable reason for administering a substance to a horse by hypodermic syringe, on raceday and shortly before a race, was to obtain some form of benefit. [18] The fact that the substance administered was not determined to be a prohibited substance was reflected in the Information, which involves administration in breach of the One Clear Day Rule rather than administration of a prohibited substance. However, in administering the substance Mr Jones’ intention must have been for the substance to be performance enhancing. No other explanation had been proffered. This also made Mr Jones’ case more serious than Wigg, as in that case the Adjudicative Committee accepted the possibility that Ms Wigg did not believe the mixture involved was performance enhancing, finding however, that it was clearly her intention to provide some benefit to the horses for animal health. A similar explanation had not been advanced by Mr Jones in the present case. [19] The Informant considered that the Respondent’s offending was further aggravated by the deceptive conduct he engaged in once his actions had been detected. This showed that he was clearly aware that his conduct was in breach of the Rules of Harness Racing. In his initial interview with an RIB Investigator, he maintained that he had not injected JOHNNY NEVITS, and challenged the RIB to prove that he had. When confronted with the fact that he had been seen throwing something in the bin and a syringe had been found sitting at the top of the bin, Mr Jones claimed that he had thrown a vape pod into the bin. After Mr Jones’ associate was interviewed and stated that he saw Mr Jones holding a hypodermic syringe, Mr Jones asserted that this associate was either lying, mistaken or had been pressured into making an allegation by the RIB. This was false as Mr Jones had injected JOHNNY NEVITS with the hypodermic syringe. [20] The Informant emphasised that Mr Jones’ admission of the charge did not come at the earliest opportunity, although it was acknowledged that this was delayed in part while Counsel awaited the decision of the Appeals Tribunal in Wigg, a delay which should not be held against him. Mr Jones’ denials when first interviewed about this matter were said to be also a factor when considering the appropriate discount for the admission of the charge. [21] The Informant concluded their written penalty submission by stating that in assessing the appropriate starting point for Mr Jones, the Adjudicative Committee should consider the effects of his offending on both the owners of the horses concerned and the wider racing community as a whole, and thus the need for both specific and general deterrence in regard to this type of offending. [22] At the request of the Adjudicative Committee, the Informant produced the record of JOHNNY NEVITS which showed two starts for a second and a third. The horse did not race after the day in question and Mr Jones explained this was due to a tendon injury. JOHNNY NEVITS was owned by the Respondent’s partner, a family friend, and another Licensed Trainer, and had now been rehomed. Respondent’s Penalty Submissions [23] Mr Jones made oral submissions. He commenced by apologising to the Adjudicative Committee. He said he wanted “to come clean”. He had lied when interviewed by the Investigators and acknowledged it had taken some time for the truth to come out. He said he had panicked as he knew he was going to lose his licence. That was another mistake he had made. [24] The Respondent said the injection was intramuscular rather than intravenous. The substance was Flexidine, (now called Depodine) which he described as iodised peanut oil. It was an organic substance. He referenced the substance on his cell-phone. (We note it is described on the website as a “long-acting injection for treatment and prevention of primary and induced iodine deficiency in sheep and cattle”.) [25] Mr Jones stated the injection was due to be given on the preceding Monday, but he had not been spending time at the stable due to his partner giving birth to their first child. He only discovered when he returned from the hospital on the Friday that the injection had not been given and it was then that he injected the horse. He said the substance was not performance enhancing but was intended to put the horse in a good head space so it could run up to its ability. He explained JOHNNY NEVITS was a nervous horse and would be a ball of sweat before a race and was always pulling in trackwork. [26] Mr Jones said the substance was used to treat an iodine deficiency and had no withholding period. JOHNNY NEVITS had been on it for two months and was receiving it once a week. The substance seemed to work. He acknowledged he had not told Mr Irving the nature of the substance. This hearing was the first time he had identified it. Flexidine was in a 500 ml bottle and was used with respect to other horses in the stable as well. He had not asked the vet for advice with respect to JOHNNY NEVITS, but the substance was in the stable on vet’s advice and, by trial and error, he had worked out that it was suitable for the horse. [27] Mr Jones said he was aware of the One-day Rule and had no excuse other than it was a poor decision due to his family commitments and he accepted he was “about to pay the price”. He emphasised he was “not trying to get an edge”. [28] When questioned concerning his stable, he said he had been winding down the past month and only had one horse in his care, which he would sell for the owners. He said that while he lived on David Butt’s property, he had a separate entrance and disqualification would not cause an issue in this regard. (Mr Irving confirmed this.) [29] Mr Jones presented glowing character references from two well-respected Licensed Trainers and stated a third reference was available. He said he had driven for four years in Australia and for a similar period in New Zealand. He had had his Trainer’s licence for about 18 months and had not driven in a race for the past two seasons. He explained he had worked as stable foreman for Bob Butt in the mornings for the past four or five years and would work his own horses in the afternoon. He trained out of David Butt’s property and usually had about six to eight horses in his stable. [30] Mr Jones said he had pleaded guilty once he had taken legal advice. He asked that the Adjudicative Committee consider a 12-month disqualification. He had worked in the Harness Industry all his adult life and was the sole earner for his young family. No other employment was available to him at the present time. In a further brief written communication he added that he would like, if possible, to be able to shoe horses. [31] When questioned by the Adjudicative Committee, he acknowledged he knew why Mr Alford had been disqualified and that the same horse was involved on this occasion. He had taken over JOHNNY NEVITS after Mr Alford’s disqualification. He agreed he knew he was taking a great risk and was doing wrong. Discussion [32] We first analyse the three administration cases to which the Informant has made reference. [33] In Wigg, Ms Wigg admitted three charges of administration in breach of the One Clear Day Rule. Ms Wigg had administered a substance comprised of turmeric (curcumin) and black pepper (piperine) to three horses by way of oral drench on the afternoon of raceday. The horses were all swabbed and no prohibited substances were detected. Ms Wigg’s explanation was that the substance was provided to the horses to improve gut health. [34] The Adjudicative Committee adopted a starting point of 18 months’ disqualification for the initial administration offence and uplifted this by five months to account for the other two breaches. This was reduced by four months for Ms Wigg’s late admission of the charges and her personal circumstances, resulting in 19 months’ disqualification. Ms Wigg’s appealed this penalty. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed her appeal, upholding the penalty imposed. [35] Mr McGrath admitted three charges: attempting to administer a prohibited substance; refusing to make a statement; and obstructing a Racing Investigator. Mr McGrath attempted to administer a horse with a prohibited substance by way of nasal gastric tube. He then refused to answer a Racing Investigator when questioned regarding tubing equipment in his possession, and ultimately obstructed the Investigator from seizing the equipment. The Committee concluded “the most likely substance which was to be administered via a nasal gastric tube was an alkalising agent”. The starting point in McGrath was 10 years’ disqualification, which included a small uplift for his previous breaches of the Rules. After a discount for personal mitigating factors, penalty was eight years’ disqualification. [36] Mr Alford admitted two charges of administering a prohibited substance and one charge of attempting to administer a prohibited substance. This offending involved the raceday administration of Formalin to two horses via injection from a syringe. The third horse was not injected as RIU Investigators intervened before that could occur. The Tribunal viewed the case as broadly similar in respect of the seriousness to McGrath and adopted a global starting point of nine years’ disqualification. The penalty in Alford was seven years’ disqualification after admission of guilt, remorse and absence of previous breaches were taken into account. [37] Mr Jones has administered a substance by way of a hypodermic needle two and a half hours before the horse JOHNNY NEVITS was due to race. An insufficient quantity of the substance was present on the syringe for analysis. Mr Jones’ explanation is that JOHNNY NEVITS is a nervy horse, and the substance was Flexidine, which he regularly administered to the horse intramuscularly but had omitted to do so due to his being absent from the stable earlier in the week because of his personal circumstances. This explanation was proffered for the first time to this Adjudicative Committee. Mr Jones had never mentioned this fact when interviewed by the Investigators, which could be seen to raise doubt as to its authenticity. There is no obvious reason not to identify the substance once Mr Jones became aware that he had been witnessed administering something to the horse. Rather, his response was to lie and to state a vaping cannister had been deposited in the bin rather than a syringe. [38] Whatever the nature of the substance, it was not prohibited, unlike the substance in both McGrath and Alford. For this reason, we obtain greater guidance from Wigg. It is evident that Mr Jones’ intention, like that of Ms Wigg, was to administer a substance that would be of benefit to the horse, and in this instance, to enable the horse to settle during its race, and give of its best. Unlike Mr Jones, Ms Wigg confessed her actions when confronted by the Racing Investigators on the day. We add also that the Informant has stated there is no evidence of any betting anomalies with respect to JOHNNY NEVITS. [39] Certainly, no discount is available for co-operation with the Racing Investigators. Mr Jones lied. And this does make Mr Jones’ expression of remorse at the penalty hearing sound a little hollow. [40] Mr Jones has been involved in the Harness Industry for several years and has held a Trainer’s Licence since 2021. He does not have any previous breaches of the “One Clear Day” Rule. He has tabled excellent character references. [41] The Administration Rules are fundamental to the integrity of the Racing Industry. They are intended to prevent Trainers from obtaining an unfair advantage over other horses through the administration of substances that may in some way improve their horse’s performance, whether prohibited or not. Animal welfare concerns are raised whatever the substance, especially when administration is by syringe. The distinction drawn by the Informant between oral administration and administration by injection is not without foundation. The impact of the Respondent’s actions upon both the connections of the horse and the integrity of the Harness Industry itself, points to the need for deterrence, both general and specific. Absent participant confidence, the Industry will not thrive. [42] The gravity of the breach necessitates that Mr Jones be removed from any involvement in the Harness Industry for a period of time. A mere suspension of his Public Trainer’s licence is not an adequate penalty, nor is a fine. The starting point is that for a first breach, as stated in the Penalty Guide, of 18 months’ disqualification. [43] Taking into account the circumstances of the breach — that the substance was administered by syringe; this was only two and half hours before the horse was due to race; and the clear warning that the Respondent had received with respect to the penalty imposed upon Mr Alford for a breach of the very same Rule with respect to the very same horse — we believe an increase to the starting point to two years’ disqualification is appropriate. Mr Jones’ intention was plainly to flout the Rules of which he was well aware. His good record (although we note this is inherent in the starting point) and character, difficult financial circumstances, belated remorse, and his admission of the breach at a teleconference on 29 April 2022 upon his eventual obtaining of legal advice and in the context of there being clear evidence of his actions, warrant a three-month deduction. We also take into account that the hearing of this matter was deferred until the Appeal decision in Wigg was delivered. This delay is not attributable to Mr Jones. [44] Mr Jones is disqualified for 21 months, commencing Thursday 30 June 2022 up to and including 29 March 2024. Costs [45] The Informant’s costs were $3380, which comprised legal fees, including file review and advice, communication with Defence Counsel, attendance at teleconferences and preparation of penalty submissions. [46] Costs must be just and reasonable and do not seek to indemnify the successful party. We order costs of $2000 in favour of the Informant and, as there have been hearing costs, $1000 by way of Adjudicative costs to the RIB. Decision Date: 27/06/2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non Raceday Inquiry – Reserved Written Decision dated 27 June 2022 – Cameron Jones ID: RIB9705 Respondent(s): Cameron Jones - Trainer Applicant: Mr Simon Irving, Senior Racing Investigator Adjudicators: Geoff Hall; Warwick Gendall Information Number: A15813 Decision Type: Adjudicative Decision Charge: Administration breach of One Clear Day Rule Rule(s): 1004C(1)(b) - One Clear Day Rule Plea: Admitted Stewards Report Results Animal Name: JOHNNY NEVITS Code: Harness Race Date: 10/12/2021 Race Club: NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club Inc Race Location: Addington Raceway - 75 Jack Hinton Drive, Addington, Christchurch, 8024 Race Number: R2 Hearing Date: 21/06/2022 Hearing Location: Christchurch Outcome: Proved Penalty: Trainer Cameron Jones - 21 months' disqualification [1] The Informant, the RIB, has laid Information A15813 with respect to the Respondent, Mr Cameron Jones, alleging a breach of r 1004C(1)(b) of the Rules of Harness Racing. [2] This Information alleges: “On 10 December 2021 at 123 Woodend Beach Road, Woodend Beach, the Respondent did administer to JOHNNY NEVITS, which was entered in Race 2 at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club meeting at Addington Raceway that evening, a substance by way of injection, in breach of r 1004C(1)(b) and subject to the penalties pursuant to r 1004D.” [3] Rule 1004C(1) states: “No person shall administer to a horse entered in a race in the period one clear day before racing (except under the direction or supervision of club veterinarian, Racing Investigator, or Stipendiary Steward) any substance by:(b) injection, hypodermic needle, or oral syringe. [4] Subsection (2) provides: “A breach of sub-rule (1) is committed regardless of the nature of the substance administered.” [5] Rule 1004D(1) states: “A person who commits a breach of r 1004C shall be liable to:(a) a fine not exceeding $20,000; and/or(b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years [6] The matter was heard at Christchurch on 21 June last. The Respondent admitted the breach and accepted the Summary of Facts. Summary of Facts Background 1 The Respondent, Cameron Thomas Jones, is licensed under the Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand. He currently holds a Public Trainers Licence and a Junior Drivers Licence. Breach of Rules 2 Information A15813 relates to a breach of r 1004C(1) – Administration in breach of the One Clear Day Rule. 3 On Friday 10 December RIB Investigators conducted an inspection at the stables of Cameron Jones at Woodend Beach. This being the afternoon of a race meeting held at Addington Raceway by the NZMTC. 4 Mr Jones had one runner engaged that evening: JOHNNY NEVITS; Race 2, 5.42pm. 5 Investigators observed Mr Jones collect his horse from a yard, tether it in his tie-ups and prepare it for transportation to the races. Also present was HRNZ Licensed Trainer Andrew Fitzgerald who did the same with his horse EYECON entered in Race 4. 6 At approximately 3.05pm Investigators observed Mr Jones lead his horse onto a horse float while Mr Fitzgerald waited on the ramp to load his horse. Seconds later Mr Fitzgerald observed Mr Jones holding an empty hypodermic syringe next to JOHNNY NEVITS. This was approximately two and a half hours before the horse was due to race. 7 Mr Fitzgerald loaded his horse, secured the float, and then drove his vehicle towards the gate which Mr Jones had walked to and opened. Mr Jones was observed by both Investigators and Mr Fitzgerald to open the lid of a green wheelie bin next to the gate and place something in it. Both Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Jones then left the property and drove the float to Addington Raceway. 8 Minutes later Investigators inspected the wheelie bin and located a used 20ml hypodermic syringe on the top of other rubbish. The syringe was taken as an exhibit for analysis. 9 Upon the float arriving at Addington, Investigators immediately interviewed both Mr Jones and Mr Fitzgerald independently. 10 Mr Jones denied injecting JOHNNY NEVITS or having possession of a syringe. He stated that he had placed a small vaping cannister in the wheelie bin. 11 Mr Fitzgerald stated that he saw Mr Jones with the empty syringe next to his horse but did not see him inject it and stated that he observed Mr Jones put something in the wheelie bin after he opened the gate. 12 JOHNNY NEVITS was inspected by the oncourse RIB vet at Addington who observed a 10mm soft swelling on the left jugular vein with a focal puncture in its centre, consistent with an intravenous injection site. 13 Based on the evidence presented, JOHNNY NEVITS was scratched from its race by Stewards pursuant to r 213(1)(c). 14 Urine and blood samples were obtained from both JOHNNY NEVITS and EYECON which were analysed and found to contain no prohibited substances. 15 Analysis of the syringe by NZRLS failed to identify any prohibited substances. 16 The evidence does not support Mr Jones’ version of events and no vaping cannister was located in the wheelie bin. Circumstances relating to Mr Jones 17 Mr Jones has been involved in the Harness Industry for several years and has held a Trainers Licence for one year. He does not have any previous breaches of the “One Clear Day” Rule. Informant’s Penalty Submissions [7] The Informant made both written and oral penalty submissions, which we summarise. [8] The Informant submitted that the relevant purposes and considerations were helpfully stated in the Appeals Tribunal’s decision in RIU v L (2019) at [25] and [28]: Proceedings under the Rules of Harness Racing, as is the position in all cases involving professional disciplines, are designed not simply to punish the transgressor, but crucially are to protect the profession/public/industry/and those who are to deal with the profession… A common thread in cases involving serious misconduct is for the regulatory tribunal generally to focus on the interests and reputation of the profession as being more important than the fortunes of the individual offending member…The Tribunal must endeavour to reach a proportionate balance between: • the public interest • the interests of the offending member • the interests of the professional body as a whole • the seriousness of the offending • any aggravating and mitigating factors. [9] More recently, in RIU v Kerr (2021), the JCA observed: [T]he need to deter others who might choose to deceive owners or others in the misguided view that they are entitled to operate in similar ways is crucial. The confidence of owners and others in the absolute integrity of Trainers in whom total trust is vested, is vital. The Sport cannot endure if owners cannot trust Trainers…. If there should be any Trainers or others who might breach these Rules, the general deterrence following from this sanction may prevent similar abuse and deceit of, helpless owners. It is the general deterrence principle to which we give special weight in the sentencing balancing exercise so that any Trainer who might tend to forget to whom their duty lies, are aware of possible sanctions they might face if they transgress in similar ways to their owners’ detriment. [10] The Informant submitted that these comments from Kerr should guide this Adjudicative Committee’s approach to determining penalty in this case. It was a serious administration offence, the only purpose of which must have been to obtain an advantage in the upcoming race. [11] The Penalty Guide suggests a starting point of 18 months’ disqualification for a first administration offence, then three years’ and five years’ disqualification for second and third offences, respectively. This was a guide only, and more recent decisions indicated that in particularly serious cases, significantly higher penalties might be adopted. [12] In this regard, the Informant referred to RIB v Wigg (2022), RIU v McGrath (2020) and RIU v Alford (2021) as being comparable cases. [13] In contending for a penalty of not less than two years’ disqualification, the Informant argued the Respondent’s conduct was more serious than that in Wigg where a starting point of 18 months’ disqualification was adopted for a first administration offence. This case involved the administration of a substance using an oral drench at the prompting of another person. The prompting to administer the substance did not in any way excuse the conduct and, as the Adjudicative Committee in Wigg observed, her actions fell woefully short of the behaviour required of a Licensed Trainer. However, offending which occurs entirely of the offender’s own volition, as in the present case, was comparatively more serious. [14] The Informant also submitted that injection by hypodermic needle was more serious than administration by oral drench. Injecting was noted to permit the substance to be transferred directly into the bloodstream rather than requiring gradual absorption through the stomach lining, increasing the risk of animal welfare concerns. With respect to an oral drench, the horse has some control as to whether to accept it. For example, in Wigg the horse had resisted the drench and there was a lot of the paste on the ground around the horse. A horse could not resist a substance which was being given by way of a hypodermic needle. [15] Notwithstanding the absence of a detected prohibited substance, the Adjudicative Committee was invited to consider that Mr Jones’ offending sat closer to the penalties in McGrath and Alford where prohibited substances were administered on raceday. [16] The Informant acknowledged that the Respondent’s offending was less serious than that in McGrath and Alford, given the absence of a prohibited substance being detected and the absence of evidence of serious animal welfare concerns. However, the principles underpinning penalty in respect of administering offending were said to remain the same. [17] Analysis had been unable to determine the nature of the substance injected into JOHNNY NEVITS as there was only a residual, miniscule amount available for analysis. However, the Informant contended that the only viable reason for administering a substance to a horse by hypodermic syringe, on raceday and shortly before a race, was to obtain some form of benefit. [18] The fact that the substance administered was not determined to be a prohibited substance was reflected in the Information, which involves administration in breach of the One Clear Day Rule rather than administration of a prohibited substance. However, in administering the substance Mr Jones’ intention must have been for the substance to be performance enhancing. No other explanation had been proffered. This also made Mr Jones’ case more serious than Wigg, as in that case the Adjudicative Committee accepted the possibility that Ms Wigg did not believe the mixture involved was performance enhancing, finding however, that it was clearly her intention to provide some benefit to the horses for animal health. A similar explanation had not been advanced by Mr Jones in the present case. [19] The Informant considered that the Respondent’s offending was further aggravated by the deceptive conduct he engaged in once his actions had been detected. This showed that he was clearly aware that his conduct was in breach of the Rules of Harness Racing. In his initial interview with an RIB Investigator, he maintained that he had not injected JOHNNY NEVITS, and challenged the RIB to prove that he had. When confronted with the fact that he had been seen throwing something in the bin and a syringe had been found sitting at the top of the bin, Mr Jones claimed that he had thrown a vape pod into the bin. After Mr Jones’ associate was interviewed and stated that he saw Mr Jones holding a hypodermic syringe, Mr Jones asserted that this associate was either lying, mistaken or had been pressured into making an allegation by the RIB. This was false as Mr Jones had injected JOHNNY NEVITS with the hypodermic syringe. [20] The Informant emphasised that Mr Jones’ admission of the charge did not come at the earliest opportunity, although it was acknowledged that this was delayed in part while Counsel awaited the decision of the Appeals Tribunal in Wigg, a delay which should not be held against him. Mr Jones’ denials when first interviewed about this matter were said to be also a factor when considering the appropriate discount for the admission of the charge. [21] The Informant concluded their written penalty submission by stating that in assessing the appropriate starting point for Mr Jones, the Adjudicative Committee should consider the effects of his offending on both the owners of the horses concerned and the wider racing community as a whole, and thus the need for both specific and general deterrence in regard to this type of offending. [22] At the request of the Adjudicative Committee, the Informant produced the record of JOHNNY NEVITS which showed two starts for a second and a third. The horse did not race after the day in question and Mr Jones explained this was due to a tendon injury. JOHNNY NEVITS was owned by the Respondent’s partner, a family friend, and another Licensed Trainer, and had now been rehomed. Respondent’s Penalty Submissions [23] Mr Jones made oral submissions. He commenced by apologising to the Adjudicative Committee. He said he wanted “to come clean”. He had lied when interviewed by the Investigators and acknowledged it had taken some time for the truth to come out. He said he had panicked as he knew he was going to lose his licence. That was another mistake he had made. [24] The Respondent said the injection was intramuscular rather than intravenous. The substance was Flexidine, (now called Depodine) which he described as iodised peanut oil. It was an organic substance. He referenced the substance on his cell-phone. (We note it is described on the website as a “long-acting injection for treatment and prevention of primary and induced iodine deficiency in sheep and cattle”.) [25] Mr Jones stated the injection was due to be given on the preceding Monday, but he had not been spending time at the stable due to his partner giving birth to their first child. He only discovered when he returned from the hospital on the Friday that the injection had not been given and it was then that he injected the horse. He said the substance was not performance enhancing but was intended to put the horse in a good head space so it could run up to its ability. He explained JOHNNY NEVITS was a nervous horse and would be a ball of sweat before a race and was always pulling in trackwork. [26] Mr Jones said the substance was used to treat an iodine deficiency and had no withholding period. JOHNNY NEVITS had been on it for two months and was receiving it once a week. The substance seemed to work. He acknowledged he had not told Mr Irving the nature of the substance. This hearing was the first time he had identified it. Flexidine was in a 500 ml bottle and was used with respect to other horses in the stable as well. He had not asked the vet for advice with respect to JOHNNY NEVITS, but the substance was in the stable on vet’s advice and, by trial and error, he had worked out that it was suitable for the horse. [27] Mr Jones said he was aware of the One-day Rule and had no excuse other than it was a poor decision due to his family commitments and he accepted he was “about to pay the price”. He emphasised he was “not trying to get an edge”. [28] When questioned concerning his stable, he said he had been winding down the past month and only had one horse in his care, which he would sell for the owners. He said that while he lived on David Butt’s property, he had a separate entrance and disqualification would not cause an issue in this regard. (Mr Irving confirmed this.) [29] Mr Jones presented glowing character references from two well-respected Licensed Trainers and stated a third reference was available. He said he had driven for four years in Australia and for a similar period in New Zealand. He had had his Trainer’s licence for about 18 months and had not driven in a race for the past two seasons. He explained he had worked as stable foreman for Bob Butt in the mornings for the past four or five years and would work his own horses in the afternoon. He trained out of David Butt’s property and usually had about six to eight horses in his stable. [30] Mr Jones said he had pleaded guilty once he had taken legal advice. He asked that the Adjudicative Committee consider a 12-month disqualification. He had worked in the Harness Industry all his adult life and was the sole earner for his young family. No other employment was available to him at the present time. In a further brief written communication he added that he would like, if possible, to be able to shoe horses. [31] When questioned by the Adjudicative Committee, he acknowledged he knew why Mr Alford had been disqualified and that the same horse was involved on this occasion. He had taken over JOHNNY NEVITS after Mr Alford’s disqualification. He agreed he knew he was taking a great risk and was doing wrong. Discussion [32] We first analyse the three administration cases to which the Informant has made reference. [33] In Wigg, Ms Wigg admitted three charges of administration in breach of the One Clear Day Rule. Ms Wigg had administered a substance comprised of turmeric (curcumin) and black pepper (piperine) to three horses by way of oral drench on the afternoon of raceday. The horses were all swabbed and no prohibited substances were detected. Ms Wigg’s explanation was that the substance was provided to the horses to improve gut health. [34] The Adjudicative Committee adopted a starting point of 18 months’ disqualification for the initial administration offence and uplifted this by five months to account for the other two breaches. This was reduced by four months for Ms Wigg’s late admission of the charges and her personal circumstances, resulting in 19 months’ disqualification. Ms Wigg’s appealed this penalty. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed her appeal, upholding the penalty imposed. [35] Mr McGrath admitted three charges: attempting to administer a prohibited substance; refusing to make a statement; and obstructing a Racing Investigator. Mr McGrath attempted to administer a horse with a prohibited substance by way of nasal gastric tube. He then refused to answer a Racing Investigator when questioned regarding tubing equipment in his possession, and ultimately obstructed the Investigator from seizing the equipment. The Committee concluded “the most likely substance which was to be administered via a nasal gastric tube was an alkalising agent”. The starting point in McGrath was 10 years’ disqualification, which included a small uplift for his previous breaches of the Rules. After a discount for personal mitigating factors, penalty was eight years’ disqualification. [36] Mr Alford admitted two charges of administering a prohibited substance and one charge of attempting to administer a prohibited substance. This offending involved the raceday administration of Formalin to two horses via injection from a syringe. The third horse was not injected as RIU Investigators intervened before that could occur. The Tribunal viewed the case as broadly similar in respect of the seriousness to McGrath and adopted a global starting point of nine years’ disqualification. The penalty in Alford was seven years’ disqualification after admission of guilt, remorse and absence of previous breaches were taken into account. [37] Mr Jones has administered a substance by way of a hypodermic needle two and a half hours before the horse JOHNNY NEVITS was due to race. An insufficient quantity of the substance was present on the syringe for analysis. Mr Jones’ explanation is that JOHNNY NEVITS is a nervy horse, and the substance was Flexidine, which he regularly administered to the horse intramuscularly but had omitted to do so due to his being absent from the stable earlier in the week because of his personal circumstances. This explanation was proffered for the first time to this Adjudicative Committee. Mr Jones had never mentioned this fact when interviewed by the Investigators, which could be seen to raise doubt as to its authenticity. There is no obvious reason not to identify the substance once Mr Jones became aware that he had been witnessed administering something to the horse. Rather, his response was to lie and to state a vaping cannister had been deposited in the bin rather than a syringe. [38] Whatever the nature of the substance, it was not prohibited, unlike the substance in both McGrath and Alford. For this reason, we obtain greater guidance from Wigg. It is evident that Mr Jones’ intention, like that of Ms Wigg, was to administer a substance that would be of benefit to the horse, and in this instance, to enable the horse to settle during its race, and give of its best. Unlike Mr Jones, Ms Wigg confessed her actions when confronted by the Racing Investigators on the day. We add also that the Informant has stated there is no evidence of any betting anomalies with respect to JOHNNY NEVITS. [39] Certainly, no discount is available for co-operation with the Racing Investigators. Mr Jones lied. And this does make Mr Jones’ expression of remorse at the penalty hearing sound a little hollow. [40] Mr Jones has been involved in the Harness Industry for several years and has held a Trainer’s Licence since 2021. He does not have any previous breaches of the “One Clear Day” Rule. He has tabled excellent character references. [41] The Administration Rules are fundamental to the integrity of the Racing Industry. They are intended to prevent Trainers from obtaining an unfair advantage over other horses through the administration of substances that may in some way improve their horse’s performance, whether prohibited or not. Animal welfare concerns are raised whatever the substance, especially when administration is by syringe. The distinction drawn by the Informant between oral administration and administration by injection is not without foundation. The impact of the Respondent’s actions upon both the connections of the horse and the integrity of the Harness Industry itself, points to the need for deterrence, both general and specific. Absent participant confidence, the Industry will not thrive. [42] The gravity of the breach necessitates that Mr Jones be removed from any involvement in the Harness Industry for a period of time. A mere suspension of his Public Trainer’s licence is not an adequate penalty, nor is a fine. The starting point is that for a first breach, as stated in the Penalty Guide, of 18 months’ disqualification. [43] Taking into account the circumstances of the breach — that the substance was administered by syringe; this was only two and half hours before the horse was due to race; and the clear warning that the Respondent had received with respect to the penalty imposed upon Mr Alford for a breach of the very same Rule with respect to the very same horse — we believe an increase to the starting point to two years’ disqualification is appropriate. Mr Jones’ intention was plainly to flout the Rules of which he was well aware. His good record (although we note this is inherent in the starting point) and character, difficult financial circumstances, belated remorse, and his admission of the breach at a teleconference on 29 April 2022 upon his eventual obtaining of legal advice and in the context of there being clear evidence of his actions, warrant a three-month deduction. We also take into account that the hearing of this matter was deferred until the Appeal decision in Wigg was delivered. This delay is not attributable to Mr Jones. [44] Mr Jones is disqualified for 21 months, commencing Thursday 30 June 2022 up to and including 29 March 2024. Costs [45] The Informant’s costs were $3380, which comprised legal fees, including file review and advice, communication with Defence Counsel, attendance at teleconferences and preparation of penalty submissions. [46] Costs must be just and reasonable and do not seek to indemnify the successful party. We order costs of $2000 in favour of the Informant and, as there have been hearing costs, $1000 by way of Adjudicative costs to the RIB. Decision Date: 27/06/2022
Chief Stipe Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Question: when are the Harness Racing Bureaucracy and the RIB going to call to account the likes of @Enteebee and @Archie Butterfly? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongOwner Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) I cannot work out the penalties RIU set versus our higher court system ? Drink and drive and kill five kids and 2.5 years jail - out in 18 mths. You administer a none banded natural product and banded from earning a living for 21 months. What is worse ? I see the old double dipping - triple if you count NZ Super - Judge again set this unrealistic penalty . RIU bench needs some fresh younger bench members who have some - just a little - empathy with fairness and justice. Edited June 30, 2022 by LongOwner 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gammalite Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 5 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Question: when are the Harness Racing Bureaucracy and the RIB going to call to account the likes of @Enteebee and @Archie Butterfly? Why ? aren't they just expressing opinion whether right or wrong on social media.? bit like some here. (although they show extreme bias and defame people badly sadly . but doesn't social media do that every minute of every day ? i.e They are Not having any effect on the outcome of any race .... so why bother 'call to account' ?? 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 18 hours ago, Gammalite said: Why ? aren't they just expressing opinion whether right or wrong on social media.? bit like some here. (although they show extreme bias and defame people badly sadly . but doesn't social media do that every minute of every day ? i.e They are Not having any effect on the outcome of any race .... so why bother 'call to account' ?? The malcontents and rumour mongers may not be directly affecting any race but they are affecting the future of ALL races. HRNZ and RIB need to proactively manage a positive narrative and do so on a regular basis. For example why aren't the number of tests taken and results published publicly on a regular basis? We only hear about the positive drug results. With the 59 stables inspected in 2 days in Canterbury what were the outcomes? For example did 50 get an A+ rating? Are some required to do remedial work? If so what work is required? Don't need to name or shame stables that weren't up to scratch. What was the inspection protocol? What do we get? A few fluffy paragraphs on the RIB website. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 On 28/06/2022 at 11:32 PM, Gammalite said: You might be a mate of 'Happy's" but the bloke is on a crusade against harness racing. How can you 'hear, hear" that comment ?? and say it's sane? It's a lot of Rot. Who are the 'Some' for starters? Alford Confessed. No-one, Not even the imaginary 'some' think he is innocent. Kerr copped a barrage of criticism on this site for his deplorable , selfish actions. Is his sentence long enough? McGrath went out for 8 years DQ. sorry I'm not sure which group processed that . (but that sentence too harsh IMO) Happy can come back and enjoy 'nonsense' if he feels up to it. but left because he doesn't like Noodlum lol...... Et tu Gammalite? The denial rot has certainly spread far and wide... 1 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.