You are here: Home / Race Days / Dummy Location - 1 January 2001 / Non-Raceday Inquiry - S Simon

Non-Raceday Inquiry - S Simon



1004.2.c
1004.3

Licensed trainer Mr S C Simon appeared before this Judicial Committee and admitted a charge set out in information 0845 for a breach of Rule 1004 (2) (c) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing.

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

_________________________________________________________________________________

 

Licensed trainer Mr S C Simon appeared before this Judicial Committee and admitted a charge set out in information 0845 for a breach of Rule 1004 (2) (c) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing.  That Rule sets out that :

 

Every person commits a breach of this sub-rule, who, during any day of racing , in respect of a horse entered in a race administers by injection, nasal gastric tube, gastric tube, ventilator or nebuliser, any substance whatsoever, unless such administration occurred after the horse has raced or under the direction of a Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector

 

  The charge against Mr Simon read :

 

THAT on the 27th day of December 2007 at the race meeting being conducted by Racing Rotorua at Arawa Park Racecourse, you did commit a breach of Rule 1004 (2)(c) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing IN THAT you did administer by injection a substance with a syringe into the mouth of the horse CULLENATOR prior to it racing in race two on the programme AND THAT such administration was not under the direction of a Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector AND THAT you are thereby liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to Rule 1004 (3) of the said Rules.

 

The Racecourse Inspector presented a summary of facts:

 

  1. On Saturday the 27th day of December 2007, Racing Rotorua conducted a totalisator meeting at Arawa Park.  Licensed Trainer Shane Simon had a horse named CULLENATOR engaged in race two on the programme. 

 

  1. At a time when connections of those horses entered in race two were completing the saddling of their horses in the tie up stalls, an NZTR official observed Mr Simon in the process of saddling a horse.  The official noted that a female assisting Mr Simon had in her hand a syringe.

 

  1. This was later reported to other NZTR Officials as the horses for this race were making their way to the start for the race.  Mr Simon was immediately spoken to and questioned about the syringe seen by the official.

 

  1. He frankly admitted that he did have a syringe with him when he was saddling CULLENATOR for the race and that he had squirted a glucose and water mix into the horse’s mouth and he did this to help the horse take the bit.

 

  1. Mr Simon claimed he had adopted this practice with his horses for many years and had learnt it from a leading trainer.  He was adamant that there was nothing untoward in the substance he had squirted into the horse’s mouth.

 

  1. He accompanied the Inspector to his tie-up stall and took from his gear bag a syringe and partly used bottle and handed this over and told the Inspector that it was the syringe and the contents of this bottle that he had used to administer the substance to the horse prior to the race.  The syringe and bottle are produced as an exhibit.

 

  1. Mr Simon claimed he had not been aware of the fact that what he had done by way of injecting the substance in the horse’s mouth on a race day was in breach of the Rules.  He was shown the relevant Rules.

 

  1. In view of his explanation and because of the fact the race was about to start when this action was being undertaken, the horse was allowed to start.  It finished sixth in a field of eleven horses.  It was the second favourite in the betting.

 

  1. The horse CULLENATOR underwent a swab after the race and the swab, syringe and bottle were sent to the Racing Laboratory for analysis.  The swab was clear of any prohibited substances as were the syringe and bottle contents.  The Analyst was able to confirm the syringe and bottle contents as having Glycerol (also known as Glycerine).  A copy of the Lab report is submitted as an exhibit.

 

 

 

  1. In accordance with the relevant Rule of Racing, it can be confirmed the actions of Mr Simon on the day in question relating to this administration were not done under the direction of the Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector, there being no prior notification by him to such officials of his intentions.  It is relevant to point out that had he made such an approach prior to the administration his request would have been denied.

 

  1. Mr Simon is aged 42 years.  He is a former jockey and has held a trainers license since 1990.  He has not previously been charged with any breach of the Rules that are relevant to this charge.

 

SUBMISSIONS

 

The Defendant, Mr Simon, submitted to the Committee that, in his view, he did not inject the substance into the  horse but had used a syringe and not a needle and queried therefore whether he was liable under this particular rule.

 

The Racecourse Inspector referred the Judicial Committee to the decision of the JCA Appeals Body of Judge J Bisphan and Prof. GG Hall in the matter of HRNZ v JJ Clementson dated the 11 July 2007. 

 

This appeals decision clearly covers and confirms that the use of a syringe to administer a substance into a horse is to ‘inject’ in accordance with the Rule.

 

Having studied that decision, it is our finding the action of the defendant Mr Simon in this matter was a breach of Rule 1004 (2) (c).

 

 

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

 

Mr McKenzie confirmed this Rule was intended to maintain the integrity of the racing industry and that it was important on a race day no horse should have anything administered to it, any substance, by the methods as set out in the Rule.

 

The Inspector confirmed Mr Simon had been very frank and co-operative and had expressed regret at his actions once the Rule and its intent was explained to him.  The Inspector confirmed also that there was nothing sinister in what Mr Simon had administered to the horse.

 

The Inspector submitted the matter could be dealt with by way of a fine.  The quantum of fine should take into account not only the importance of this Rule to the integrity of racing but should reflect the co-operation and guilty plea of the defendant Mr Simon.  The Inspector submitted that a minimum starting point for a fine for such an offence be $750.00 and that he would not seek any costs order.

 

Mr Simon submitted that he had at no time acted with any sinister motive and had not realised at the time that what he had done was a breach of the Rules and he had learnt a lesson and had ceased this type of practice on race days.

 

 

PENALTY

 

Before imposing a fair penalty the Committee took into account all the evidence and submissions presented.  In particular we give credit to Mr Simon for his guilty plea and his full co-operation with the Racecourse Inspector, Mr Bryan McKenzie.

 

We accept there was no malice intended by Mr Simon in his actions and it was really his ignorance of the Rule which has led to this charge.  However, it was pointed out to Mr Simon it is his responsibility to make himself fully conversant with the Rules and keep up to date with any changes.

 

The integrity of the racing industry is paramount and any penalty imposed must act as a deterrent to all those involved in racing.  It is a concern that in a case such as this how Mr Simon’s actions could have been perceived.  Accordingly, it is the decision of the Committee the defendant Mr Simon be fined the sum of $750.  There will be no order for costs.

 

 

 

 

………………………………                                       …………………………

RM Seabrook                                                            GM Downey                                          

Chairman

  

Document Actions