You are here: Home / Race Days / Dummy Location - 1 January 2001 / Non Raceday Inquiry - Mr I Khairil decsn 05 Apr 09

Non Raceday Inquiry - Mr I Khairil decsn 05 Apr 09



528.1
1003.1

DATE OF HEARING 5 April 2009

___________________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
NON RACEDAY INQUIRY
___________________________________________________________________________

Information No. 61688 alleging a breach of the Rules was lodged by Mr R Scott.

The Charge against Mr I Khairil reads as follows:

“THAT on the 13th day of March 2009, at the Ashburton Racecourse, being a rider who, having been requested by a Racecourse Inspector to supply a sample of his urine which was found upon analysis to contain the diuretic frusemide, committed a breach of Rule 528(1) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing AND THAT he is thereby liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon him pursuant to Rule 1003(1) of the said rules.”

 



BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AT WAIKOUAITI
 IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing

 BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND     THOROUGHBRED RACING   Informant

 AND IZUAN KHAIRIL   Licensed Apprentice Jockey    Defendant

DATE OF HEARING 5 April 2009

VENUE Waikouaiti Racecourse

PRESENT Mr R  Scott, Racecourse Inspector,  for NZTR
 Mr I Khairil, assisted by Mr M Hamilton

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE Mr G Hall (Chair)
 Mr N Johnstone

DATE OF DECISION 5 April 2009

___________________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
NON RACEDAY INQUIRY
___________________________________________________________________________

Information No. 61688 alleging a breach of the Rules was lodged by Mr R Scott.

The Charge against Mr I Khairil reads as follows:

“THAT on the 13th day of March 2009, at the Ashburton Racecourse, being a rider who, having been requested by a Racecourse Inspector to supply a sample of his urine which was found upon analysis to contain the diuretic frusemide, committed a breach of Rule 528(1) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing AND THAT he is thereby liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon him pursuant to Rule 1003(1) of the said rules.”

Mr Scott tabled his authority to prosecute signed by Mr P Bittar, Chief Executive of NZTR, on 31 March, and also the Urine Drug Test Report from the ESR, dated 27 March, stating that Mr Khairil had tested positive to frusemide.

Mr Khairil admitted the breach of Rule 528(1).

The summary of facts was read by Mr Scott and accepted by Mr Khairil. It stated that the defendant had attended the Ashburton Racing Club’s meeting at Ashburton on 13 March 2009. Mr Scott served a written notice on all jockeys riding that day that they were required under the Rules of Racing to provide a urine sample for analysis. A copy of the notice, served on the defendant at 11.04 hours, was presented as an exhibit. At 16.35 the defendant complied with this requirement and supplied a sample to the person authorised to collect samples. His sample No. was 109698.  On 20 March NZTR was advised by memorandum that this (the defendant’s) sample was positive to frusemide. Mr Khairil was advised of this on 25 March and on 26 March he was interviewed by Mr Scott by telephone.  The defendant admitted to having taken the diuretic prior to his test at Ashburton. He said he had taken the pill in order for him to be able to ride at the corect weight.

Mr Hamilton said he took some responsibility for the breach, in that he had accepted rides for Mr Khairil at 53.5 kg, whereas the defendant’s riding weight was now 54 kg. There was no sauna at Omakau and Mr Khairil had been helping on the local farms and building up an appetite because of the heavy labour involved. This had caused him to put on weight. Mr Hamilton indicated he would no longer take rides at 53.5 kg on the defendant’s behalf.

Mr Khairil has not previously been charged under this Rule.

Mr Scott in his written submissions emphasised that drug testing of riders was an important aspect of NZTR’s health and safety policy. He asked for a fine in the range of $500 to $750. However, after receiving a print out of the fines that had been imposed for previous breaches of this Rule, he said he now believed a fine of $500 was appropriate as that was the penalty that had been imposed upon apprentice jockeys in those cases.

Mr Hamilton asked that the penalty not exceed $500.

PENALTY
We have had the opportunity to view the earlier decisions of NZTR v W (21 January 2009) and NZTR v S (1 November 2008). These cases both indicate that NZTR has a policy in relation to seeking a penalty of a fine of $500 for a breach of this Rule by an apprentice jockey. In S’s case the penalty was $500. (W was a licensed jockey.)

The Committee has carefully considered the parties’ submissions. We take into account the defendant’s open and honest admission of the breach and his good record with respect to this Rule.

In the interest of consistency and fairness we have regard to the recent penalties imposed under this Rule. The cases all demonstrate that a penalty of $500 has been imposed upon an apprentice jockey for a first breach of this Rule.  We see no reason to differ from this level of penalty in the particular circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we fine Mr Khairil the sum of $500, with no order for costs. We also take the opportunity to remind him of his obligations under the Rules of Racing.

G Hall  Chairman
N Johnstone  Member

Document Actions