INTERNAL REVIEW DECISION (Internal Review Decision Notice in response to an Application for Internal Review)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "INTERNAL REVIEW DECISION (Internal Review Decision Notice in response to an Application for Internal Review)"

Grant Daniels
5 years ago
Views:

INTERNAL REVIEW DECISION (Internal Review Decision Notice in response to an Application for Internal Review) PART 1: Details of Internal Review Internal Review Number: Internal Review 0042-16

1 INTERNAL REVIEW DECISION (Internal Review Decision Notice in response to an Application for Internal Review) PART 1: Details of Internal Review Internal Review Number: Internal Review Applicant s Name: PART 2: Decision History Original Decision: Original Decision Makers: J. Hodge Breach of Rule 140(aa) of the Australian Rules of Racing J. Williamson, M. Knibbs, I. Brown Date of Original Decision: 2 November 2016 Internal Review Decision: Internal Review Decision-Maker: Date of Internal Review Decision: 2 December 2016 PART 3: Summary of Internal Review Application Original decision on charged confirmed. Original decision on penalty amended. Mr Kane Ashby, Internal Adjudicator, Queensland Racing Integrity Commission The Applicant, Mr Jedidiah Hodge, was the rider of RECOMPENCE when it raced in race 2 at the Sunshine Coast Turf Club on 18 September On 18 September 2016, stewards opened an inquiry into the failings of the Applicant to report a pre-race occurrence which may impact the running or performance of RECOMPENCE. On 2 November 2016, at the resumed stewards inquiry, the Applicant was subsequently found guilty of a charged under rule 175(k). Australian Rule of Racing 175(k) states: The Principal Racing Authority (or the Stewards exercising powers delegated to them) may penalise any person who has committed any breach of the Rules, or whose conduct or negligence has led or could have led to a breach of the Rules. Australian Rule of Racing 140(aa) states: The rider of a horse must report any pre-race occurrence or incident involving or affecting the horse occurring after the order to mount which may impact the running or performance of the horse in the race. The report by the rider must be made to the Stewards or, in the absence of the Stewards, to the race starter, prior to the start of the race. The Applicant s race riding licence was suspended for a period of 3 months. The Applicant sought a review on charge and penalty. The Applicant noted in his review submissions, the three (3) month suspension was unjust and felt coerced in pleading guilty to the charge and noted no other official or rider noticed any abnormalities with RECOMPENCE. The Applicant submitted that at no time did he have any indication that the horse was injured or distressed. The horse showed no signs of injury whilst parading in the mounting yard, during the preliminary or behind the barriers. Further the Applicant submitted, that as soon as he became aware during the race that the horses stride was quite awkward, he subsequently retired the horse from the event. Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, Internal Review Decision

2 PART 4: Reasons for Internal Review Decision The Applicant, rider of RECOMPENCE, was found guilty of a charge under Australian Rule of Racing 175(k) in that during the preliminary prior to race 2 at the Sunshine Coast Turf Club on 18 September 2016, the Applicant was negligent in failing to identify a pre-race occurrence, namely the lameness exhibited by RECOMPENCE, which should have been reported and which may have impacted the running of RECOMPENCE. The negligence led to a breach of rule 140(aa) which in summary, requires a rider to report any pre-race occurrence or incident involving or affecting a horse that may impact the running or performance of the horse. RECOMPENCE was subsequently humanly euthanised following the race. The reviewer notes, rule 140(aa) was introduced on 1 August 2016 and the Applicant received such notification, from Racing Queensland to his nominated address on the 12 August The Applicant s employer, Mr Pat Duff was the trainer of RECOMPENCE who was having its second race start after running third on debut at Ipswich on 26 August 2016, when ridden by the Applicant. Mr Duff stated throughout the stewards inquiries conducted on 18 September 2016 and the resumed inquiry on 2 November 2016, that RECOMPENCE had no aliments leading into the race other than shifting two hind plates when exiting the track on the Friday morning prior to the race. Mr Duff noted RECOMPENCE was reshod and the horse was as good as gold and not lame (Transcript of stewards inquiry 2 November 2016 page 35 and 36). In the week prior to the race Mr Duff stated RECOMPENCE galloped on the Tuesday and worked very well too. I was very happy with his work. RECOMPENCE worked at the beach on the Saturday morning, which is stable practice with a large percentage of horses the day prior to racing. On the morning of the race RECOMPENCE went on the walker and was observed by Mr Duff who stated I observed he (RECOMPENCE) along with the others and they were all A1. Mr Duff further stated; RECOMPENCE travelled well to the races and never had to miss any work at all. (Transcript of stewards inquiry 2 November 2016 page 36 and 37). Mr Duff acknowledged in his experience, it s difficult to identify soreness in the hind area, as opposed to in front when riding a horse. However, Mr Duff conceded, given the significance of the lameness exhibited by RECOMPENCE during its preliminary, stating; I would have felt that it would be diagnosed (Transcript of stewards inquiry18 September and 2 November 2016 page 5 and 31 respectively). Mr Duff noted, early in his preparation, RECOMPENCE made a noise (breathing) in a trial and subsequently was scoped and diagnosed as a grade four (4) roarer. Mr Duff further noted RECOMPENCE had previously gone shin sore on numerous occasions. The reviewer notes, Mr Duff s treatment diary was provided and examined during the inquiry with no abnormal findings detected. Miss Mandy Radecker, an experienced horsewoman, employed by Mr Duff as a trackwork rider stated; RECOMPENCE was a big gangly type of horse that didn t have any physical dramas other than being a bit nervy and answered no in response to a question from the chairman, was there any incident that occurred that caused a problem with the horse. Miss Radbecker further stated when I rode him (RECOMPENCE) he didn t give me any feel like that there were any issues (Transcript of stewards inquiry 2 November 2016 page 39 and 40). The Applicant after viewing the pre-race footage at the initial stewards inquiry stated, he was instructed to hold him up (on the way to barrier) because he had a breathing problem and I thought it might have just been you know, just trying to pull too hard against me in general no, I didn t. I didn t know it was in response to the horse s action. The chairman asked you didn t feel any unusual action at all on the horse the Applicant responded every now and again but I didn t take notice, to be honest sir (Transcript of stewards inquiry 18 September 2016 page 3 and 4). The Applicant further stated; Working around (to the barriers) I did not pick up on it where I should have. In hindsight he is a big, long legged horse. I thought it was just an awkward movement at the time. It was only once he was really change leg around the corner (near the 700m) that I have noticed it. As he was standing awkward in the gates and when he has come out I thought there was just - him trying to get balanced. (Transcript of stewards inquiry 18 September 2016 page 12). The Applicant added; at the resumed inquiry trotting off she asked me to trot it (inaudible) way down. We broke into a canter. I have obviously been trying to ease him back up. In hindsight I feel I should have I should have picked up on that. There is no doubt about that, but in my mind at the time I was making my way to the gates, and again he was just a big big horse. He is normally a little bit shifty with his legs. Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, Internal Review Decision

3 and I thought he might have just been a little bit green, just trying to mess around a bit. This was all going through my head at the time. Other than that, that's all I can say. The chairman; All right. So there was some awkwardness the Applicant; Yes. The Applicant further stated; In hindsight I am I feel like I m disappointed I didn t pick up on it on the day. You know, the circumstances leading up to it - it affected my judgement, I d say. That s as far as I can go with that. (Transcript of stewards inquiry 2 November 2016 page 32 and 53). Dr Gemma Silvestri the official veterinary surgeon on the day stated, she observed RECOMPENCE come off the track subsequent to the race and the horse displayed a four (4) out of five (5) lameness on its near hind leg. Dr Silvestri further stated; We were able to walk the horse although reluctantly we were able to walk the horse up to the stalls. It then progressed to a non-weight bearing lameness in the near hind. There was significant swelling over the left hind quarter the gluteal area with the horse demonstrating significant pain, swelling in this area, and an injury such as that is most likely a pelvic fracture, and as a result carries a poor prognosis, and in consultation with the trainer and owner the decision was made to euthanase the horse. On reviewing the sky footage for the prelim that the horse had, it appeared when it cantered that there was an abnormal gait behind. I would just describe it as the horse skipped a few strides, and then but when it returned to the walk behind the barrier and also as I had seen in the enclosure at the walk there were no abnormal signs, but as I had not witnessed the prelim I wasn t aware of any issue prior to the race. (Transcript of stewards inquiry 18 September 2016 page 7). The reviewer notes, the resumed inquiry heard that when the Applicant was mounted on RECOMPENCE, the horse slipped in the parade ring. Dr Silvestri witnessed the incident and stated I mean on the day I did observe the horse in the enclosure at the walk. I do recall it having a minor slip I think on the pavement or on the verge of the grass and pavement, and then you are having some difficulty mounting. As I said, that is not an uncommon occurrence. Then we watched the horse move off and certainly appeared fine at the walk. Unfortunately, on the day I didn t get to see the horse in the prelim with the way the track is set up going in opposite directions to get to the 1000-metre start, and again behind the barrier at the walk the horse appeared fine. (Transcript of stewards inquiry 2 November 2016 page 25 and 26). In response to a question by a panel member whether such slip of this nature would cause such injury, Dr Silvestri stated The slip I saw, I would be very surprised. The horse didn t fall. It maintained an upright position and there was no immediate pain or gait abnormality immediately after. So I would be very surprised. (Transcript of stewards inquiry 2 November 2016 page 27). In response to a question from the chairman, whether the pre-race footage, in your experience would be something you d expect a rider to notice, Dr Silvestri stated Yes, I think so. I mean, the horse obviously carries them for some distance and then bears minimal weight which equates to a very abnormal gait as it moves forward and, like I previously said, I believe the footage also shows that the horse is reluctant to move forward as you would expect. (Transcript of stewards inquiry 2 November 2016 page 30). Miss Robyn Bell, (Education Manager, Racing Queensland) stated at the resumed stewards inquiry, apprentices are required to complete a Certificate IV qualification. This involves several units of competency, which in part, provide education to riders on pre and post-race conditions, that effect performance and the relevant officials to report such occurrences. The reviewer finds, the Applicant s competency training manual, confirms completion in units related to 304A Identifying Factors that Affect Racehorse Performance. Part one (1) of this unit, in summary requests apprentices to identify a time when you have pulled up a horse due to injury and the appropriate personnel to report such condition (Exhibit 5). This unit was successfully completed by the Applicant on the 1 March The stewards ordered a full post mortem and blood and urine samples be collected from RECOMPENCE. The post mortem s final diagnosis noted a severe comminuted fracture of the left iliac wing. The reviewer notes under the subheading comments the report stated; Approximately 10 percent of the pelvic fracture cases have been reported to arise spontaneously during exercise without previous inciting traumatic incident. These fractures may be a form of stress fracture initially arising from micro-fractures that fail to heal appropriately due to continued exercise. It is thought that continued exercise induces an imbalance between the normal healing process of osteolysis and new bone formation after microfractures in the bone core text. This imbalance results in an overall loss of mineralisation and ultimately stress fractures. Given the lack of previously reported trauma in the current case, the iliac wing fracture likely stemmed from an initial stress fracture progressing to the severe comminuted form where exercise the race. Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, Internal Review Decision

4 (Exhibit 2). Dr Silvestri added, the aforementioned comments note, The only way these stress fractures are ever detected is that if there is a minor lameness problem, and - usually it is by diagnostic imaging (inaudible) or bone scan. Sometimes they are picked up (inaudible) when they are scanned for a different reason, but they are certainly difficult to pick, and they aren t routine unless you go looking you know, rooting to find an issue specifically by looking. (Transcript of stewards inquiry 2 November 2016 page 29). The blood and urine samples returned negative results. The aforementioned comments concur with Mr Duff and Miss Radecker s evidence that RECOMPENCE displayed no signs of soreness at any stage leading into the race. However, the reviewer finds, on the evidence, RECOMPENCE sustained some form of injury, at some time prior to entering the mounting yard. There is no evidence to identify when this occurred. The Applicant noted in his review submissions, the three (3) month suspension was unjust and felt coerced in pleading guilty to the charge and noted no other official or rider noticed any abnormalities with RECOMPENCE. The reviewer finds, there is no evidence to support the Applicant being pressured into pleading guilty to the charge. The reviewer notes, due to the configuration of the course, the official vet and starter are required to travel the opposite way to the start and therefore did not see RECOMPENCE during its preliminary to the barrier. The reviewer further finds, it s not the responsibility of other riders to focus on the condition of other horses competing in the race and acknowledges RECOMPENCE paraded to the barriers up against the outside fence, away from most runners. The reviewer finds, there is no evidence in the pre-race footage of the mounting yard and behind the barriers to suggest RECOMPENCE displayed any signs of soreness, albeit at a walk. However, the reviewer finds the pre-race footage of RECOMPENCE trotting/cantering to the barrier is compelling, to the fact, the horse is on three legs and bearing minimal weight, if any, on its near hind leg. This is not disputed by either party. The Applicant stated, he wasn t aware in his mind, RECOMPENCE was lame and therefore didn t notify the relevant officials. Throughout the inquiries, the Applicant described RECOMPENCE as normally a little bit shifty with his legs was a big, long legged horse and thought his action was; just an awkward movement at the time. The Applicant further stated; every now and again in response to a question by the chairman, whether the Applicant felt any unusual action at all on the horse. The reviewer finds, it defies logic, that the Applicant would knowingly ride RECOMPENCE in the race, with such lameness and place himself and that of other riders and horses in danger. Therefore, the most pertinent part to this review, is whether the Applicants experience was sufficient enough, to a standard, whereby he was negligent, in failing to identify RECOMPENCE was on three (3) legs heading to the barriers. The reviewer notes, the Applicant commenced race riding in January 2015 and had approximately 346 race rides not including trials and ridden 36 country winners, one being in the provincial area. The Applicant spent six (6) months breaking in horses in New Zealand for Mr Graham Rogerson prior to commencing his apprenticeship. The Applicant has recently successfully completed the Certificate IV training unit related to relevant factors that affect a horse performance. In considering all the relevant evidence, the reviewer finds, the Applicants actions, potentially could have severely further impacted the safety of other horses and riders competing in the race. It remains unknown whether RECOMPENCE would have fully recovered from its injuries, had it not started in the race. Despite this, the reviewer finds by competing in the race, one would expect, it would only aggravate the existing injury. The reviewer considers the seriousness of the rule, the welfare of horses and riders and the wagering component to the industry. The reviewer finds, the Applicants race riding experience and training, is sufficient enough, in the circumstances, to detect such an acute form of lameness. Considering the pre-race footage, which is compelling to say the least, that RECOMPENCE was on three (3) legs and bearing minimal weight, if any, on its near hind leg during its preliminary to the barrier. Therefore, the reviewer confirms the decision on charge. In respect to penalty, the reviewer notes, there are no prior precedents for an offence under this rule. The reviewer considers the Applicants openness and remorse throughout the stewards inquiries and notes the Applicant stated in hindsight, he should have picked up on the horse s condition. The reviewer notes, the Applicant had a stressful Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, Internal Review Decision

5 morning and nearly did not make it to the track due to car issues. The reviewer finds each case is determined on its own evidence and in considering all the circumstances amends the penalty to one calendar month s suspension. PART 5: Review Rights following Internal Review Decision In accordance with section 246 of the Racing Integrity Act 2016, as the applicant for an internal review of the original decision, you are able to apply to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for an external review of the internal review decision. An external review is commenced by lodging the appropriate forms with QCAT. In accordance with section 33 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, an application for an external review of an internal review decision is to be made within 28 days from the day this internal review decision notice is provided to the applicant. For further information regarding the processes for an external review of the decision, please contact QCAT: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Registry Location: Postal Address: Phone: Level 9, 259 Queen Street, BRISBANE QLD 4001 GPO Box 1639, BRISBANE QLD enquiries@qcat.qld.gov.au Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, Internal Review Decision

RACING APPEAL PANEL, NEW SOUTH WALES APPELLANT: MR DENNIS MITCHELL

RACING APPEAL PANEL, NEW SOUTH WALES APPELLANT: MR DENNIS MITCHELL Appeal Panel: Mr R. Beasley SC, Principal Member; Mr J. Murphy; Ms J. Madsen Date of Appeal hearing: 5 October 2017 Date of decision: