RIB gets rap on hand from High Court.

[Chief Stipe]

The Harness Trainer Sheryl Wigg took her RIB disqualification and penalty to the High Court for review.  The decision was that the penalty wasn't consistent with others handed down by the RIB and should be reviewed.

 

 

High Court Ruling - Wigg vs RIB 14 March 2014.pdf

[Chief Stipe]

Here is @Archie Butterfly

take on the decision

 

[Chief Stipe]

The Archie article is a typical example of how things can be twisted.  Was Richards case comparable with Wiggs? 

Hardly.  Wigg was caught giving a horse (possibly three) an oral paste on raceday by an RIB employee.  

[Special Agent]

I think as Justice Peters in the end only judged on the disproportionately severe penalty it is fair to compare Sheryl Wigg's fine to the fines imposed on other trainers, including Jamie Richards.

I believe the crux of the matter is that Sheryl was fined $10,000 for administering a non performance enhancing substance not one full day before racing, her horses were scratched so WERE NOT PRESENTED TO RACE.  Jamie was fined $1,000 for presenting a race winner with prohibited substance morphine in it's system.

Justice Peters has referred the penalty decision back to the RIB for reconsideration.  As the lower penalty threshold precedent has been set for Jamie Richards at $1,000 for a horse testing positive to a prohibited substance post race, natural justice would suggest the penalty for Sheryl Wigg where her horses were not presented to race could only be $1,000 or less.

[Chief Stipe]

12 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

I believe the crux of the matter is that Sheryl was fined $10,000 for administering a non performance enhancing substance not one full day before racing, her horses were scratched so WERE NOT PRESENTED TO RACE.  Jamie was fined $1,000 for presenting a race winner with prohibited substance morphine in it's system.

The crux of the matter is Wigg was caught administering a substance orally to horses engaged to race that day.  That is clearly against the rules.  Specifically Rule 1004(C).

One Clear Day Rule 1004C(1) 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 a club veterinarian, Racing Investigator, or Stipendiary Steward) any substance by:

(a) gastric tube or nasal gastric tube;

(b) injection, hypodermic needle, or oral syringe;

(c) aerosol, ventilator, nebulizer, atomiser, or face mask;

(d) topical treatment to the skin or tissues that contains or claims to contain medication, or has or claims to have a therapeutic effect, including analgesia or antiinflammatory actions; or

(e) by any similar method.

The maximum penalty for a breach of rule 1004C is a fine of up to $20,000, and/or suspension or disqualification from holding a licence under the rules of harness racing for up to five years.

Wigg also lied to the RIB.

Richard's offense is not even a close comparison.

[Chief Stipe]

18 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Justice Peters has referred the penalty decision back to the RIB for reconsideration.  As the lower penalty threshold precedent has been set for Jamie Richards at $1,000 for a horse testing positive to a prohibited substance post race, natural justice would suggest the penalty for Sheryl Wigg where her horses were not presented to race could only be $1,000 or less.

Justice Peters referred to 9 other cases presented by the lawyer for Wigg not just the Richards case.  Richards was fined $1,500 (not $1,000) and charged $1,300 costs.  The horse which won was disqualified from winning a black type race.  There was no evidence that Richards deliberately broke the rules.  Wigg did.

[Special Agent]

Yes, I get all that and accept it was $1,500 fine, not $1,000.

It is the severity of the penalty in comparison to other cases that is the only consideration going back to the RIB so, let's take Jamie Richards out of the equation.  Look at the Peter McKenzie case then.

Happy Star won TWO races a week apart with cobalt in his system.  Peter was fined $6,000 compared to Sheryl's $10,000.

Sheryl's horses were not presented at the races so, she was found administering B Boost which is bought over the counter at many feed places, not performance enhancing (there is actually no science to prove cobalt is performance enhancing either but, that is another matter), within the 24 hour window prior to a race.  In Peter McKenzie's case the owner was penalised as were the punters who backed the runners which were subsequently promoted.  Sheryl Wigg's horses did not race so, the only only penalised party is Sheryl.

Sheryl broke the 24 hour administering rule.  All of the other trainers listed in the decision have also broken the rules, whether intentional or not, and some I know are still pleading injustice.

To the general public, with the Wigg horses scratched, they are none the wiser of the situation unless they read the juducial reports.  Most of the other cases involve disqualifications and change of placings.  What is worse for racing's image?

I will be interested in the final outcome and revised penalty decision, because that is all that is being looked at.

NB: I only know of Sheryl Wigg and do not know her personally.

 

[Chief Stipe]

33 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Sheryl broke the 24 hour administering rule.  All of the other trainers listed in the decision have also broken the rules, whether intentional or not, and some I know are still pleading injustice.

There was no evidence that Mackenzie administered Cobalt within 24 hours of racing.  Wigg was caught "red-handed" administering on raceday and breaking rule 1004.  She initially didn't cooperate with the RIB investigation.  Whether the horse raced or not is immaterial to breaking the rule.  I don't think it is material either to the determination of a penalty.

The issue is was the penalty consistent with the penalty guidelines and precedent.  Justice Peters has asked the RIB to reconsider.

[nod]

So if the horses had raced they would not have returned a positive test.

Seems like one of those cases where 'they are out o get a person'  spying ik the hope of finding anything that suited their purpose.

Had she been overly successful?

'

[Special Agent]

I've followed most of these cases fairly thoroughly at another time.  Cases can be won or lost on wording.  As far as the guidelines stated are concerned as Justice Peters points out legally this is a contentious issue as it seems these guidelines are not readily accessible to those in the industry.

To compare the Wigg situation with the Luxton case, the latter was also caught red handed with a syringe in the horse's mouth at the racecourse, told to stop but refused.  The Luxton fine was $1,000.

So back to the wording.  As I understand it of the four original grounds for review only one was satisfied by Justice Peters, thus only one was sent back to the RIB for reconsideration, namely that the penalty was disproportionately severe.  Again, as I understand it this means that is the sole piece of wording that can be reconsidered by the RIB.  I believe that means if the RIB was to compare penalties of like with like the Luxton case would be most apt as both were caught, and I'll quote your "red handed", administering using syringe not a full clear day from the race.  That is the rule being used so, the charges under that same rule need to be the comparison.

The case and Tribunal are over where evidence was given.  The High Court ruling is that the disproportionately severe penalty issued must be reconsidered by the RIB.  Nothing else is on the table, only the severity of the penalty compared to others who have been penalised under the rule.  So, taking Richards and McKenzie out of the equation now does that not mean that Wigg should be compared to Luxton and her fine should not exceed $1,000?

[Special Agent]

19 minutes ago, nod said:

So if the horses had raced they would not have returned a positive test.

Seems like one of those cases where 'they are out o get a person'  spying ik the hope of finding anything that suited their purpose.

Had she been overly successful?

'

I have a feeling Sheryl may have been an apprentice jockey before getting involved in harness.  As to her success rate I'd have to look it up.  It does seem an awful act to try and catch someone doing something wrong by hiding in the stables.

Why couldn't the pre race check commence with an introduction and a shake of the hand?  If Sheryl was guilty, the RIB Investigator was good at their job and a decent person, the horses would still have been scratched.  The method seemed inappropriate.  It is not a murder mystery for entertainment.

[Gammalite]

6 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

The case and Tribunal are over where evidence was given.  The High Court ruling is that the disproportionately severe penalty issued must be reconsidered by the RIB.  Nothing else is on the table, only the severity of the penalty compared to others who have been penalised under the rule. 

June 2017 the Dunn stable had three horses disqualified for Caffiene positives after racing at Nelson.

They were fined $14,000 and then appealed. The Appeal reduced their fine to $3900 each John and Robert Dunn.

seems appeals pay off too then on occasion. At various times Caffiene was considered quite a serious offence. (try Phil Coulson with Junior's Image) so what is it then ??

So for anyone training >>>>>> Are the sentences because of what chemical is used ? or because they were caught using it ? before or after the race is run. is getting very confusing...

3 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

I have a feeling Sheryl may have been an apprentice jockey before getting involved in harness.  As to her success rate I'd have to look it up.  It does seem an awful act to try and catch someone doing something wrong by hiding in the stables.

Mcgrath was caught race day administering something and given 7 years . was to set the example to others I thought. Not Alford though . (who got 8 years when caught raceday) 

Sheryl still drives in amateur races but trains as a an open public trainer. go figure. 

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, nod said:

So if the horses had raced they would not have returned a positive test.

Seems like one of those cases where 'they are out o get a person'  spying ik the hope of finding anything that suited their purpose.

Had she been overly successful?

'

Are you serious @nod ?  She could have given the horse a number of things and not returned a positive.  For example Bicarbonate or as was recently done a shot of vodka.  The rule is you can't administer anything on raceday!

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Special Agent said:

  It does seem an awful act to try and catch someone doing something wrong by hiding in the stables.

This type of approach has been going on  for years.  Operation INCA was the pinnacle of the approach with wire tapping, flak jackets and police.

[Special Agent]

7 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Are you serious @nod ?  She could have given the horse a number of things and not returned a positive.  For example Bicarbonate or as was recently done a shot of vodka.  The rule is you can't administer anything on raceday!

So, 30ml - 60ml of vodka quietens a 500kg racehorse down.  How much vodka would it take to shut a yappy date up?

[Special Agent]

5 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

This type of approach has been going on  for years.  Operation INCA was the pinnacle of the approach with wire tapping, flak jackets and police.

Yes, disgusting.  INCA was an expensive exercise.

Maybe racing licence holders are easy targets for former policemen after serving time in the police force.

IQ testing should be compulsory for the entire industry with all licence holders, administrators and enforcers required to be above an acceptable threshold for entry.  Then we wouldn't see all these dumb things happening.  There wouldn't be many of us left.

[Freda]

12 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Are you serious @nod ?  She could have given the horse a number of things and not returned a positive.  For example Bicarbonate or as was recently done a shot of vodka.  The rule is you can't administer anything on raceday!

I think Bicarb and alcohol would most definitely be picked up.    How else would the milkshaking be detected?  

[Special Agent]

I'm not sure how long alcohol has been detectable here, about 20 years in the United States.  I don't think the American authorities use the INCA method of investigation.  They seem content with catching cheats but, the main motivation appears to be deterring illegal behaviour.

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, Freda said:

I think Bicarb and alcohol would most definitely be picked up.    How else would the milkshaking be detected?  

Bicarb is measured by TCO2 levels.  As long as you are below those levels you are ok.  So theoretically you could raise the TCO2 levels of your horse by administering bicarb and not pass the threshold.

Alcohol is metabolised relatively quickly.  In the RIB recent case vodka was administered to supposedly calm the horse on the way to the races.  Would have been gone from the bloodstream by testing time.

 

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

I'm not sure how long alcohol has been detectable here, about 20 years in the United States.

It's detectable only if you administer more than can be metabolised in the time to the sample being taken.  Bit like withholding periods.

[Chief Stipe]

To be fair though it would appear Justice Peters doesn't understand the rules of racing or racing that well when she asked during the hearing if having pepper on your hands while feeding a horse could result in a positive.

Although arguably the RIB didn't argue their case very well.

[The Centaur]

The Wigg case sounds quite similar to the Andrew Scott case with Penney Gem before the Kelt. The Kelt was worth $750,000 and done on the day so you would expect Scott being penalized much more.

[curious]

Do you think the stake for the race  should affect the penalty for any breach? Is that what you are saying?

[The Centaur]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Do you think the stake for the race  should affect the penalty for any breach? Is that what you are saying?

Yes I would. Stealing $1m gets higher penalty than stealing $10.

[Special Agent]

4 hours ago, curious said:

Do you think the stake for the race  should affect the penalty for any breach? Is that what you are saying?

The jockey fines reflect the stake level.