Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Decision dated 12 November 2024 – Sam O’Malley

[1]  INTRODUCTION

1.1  The Racing Integrity Board charged Mr O’Malley with a breach of Rule 340 of the Rules of Racing.

1.2  Information A17490 Alleges that; That on the 6th of October, at New Plymouth Racecourse, Sam O’Malley, holder of an NZTR Stablehand’s Licence, did misconduct himself by berating and insulting RIB Raceday Veterinarian Rabecca McKenzie. This behaviour in breach of Rule 340 and subject to the general penalties set down in 803(1) of the Rules of Racing.

1.3  Rule 340 provides that: “A Licensed Person, Owner, Lessee, Racing Manager, Official or other person bound by these Rules must not misconduct himself in any matter relating to the conduct of Races or racing.”

1.4  On the 9th of October, Mr O’Malley endorsed the Information confirming that he admitted the breach and advised that he agreed for the hearing to proceed on the papers.

[2]  FACTS

2.1  The RIB presented the following Summary of Facts:

1.  The Respondent Sam O’Malley is a stable hand and trackwork rider. He holds a current licence issued by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR). He works as stable foreman for licenced trainer Bill Thurlow.

Circumstances

2.  On the 5th of September 2024, Sam O’Malley was strapping Bill Thurlow’s trained horse, ‘No Rain Ever’, in Race 8 at Hawera Races.

3.  ‘No Rain Ever’ finished an unexpected last and a vet check was requested by the stewards. As the horse was being led from the birdcage by Mr O’Malley, race day veterinarian Dr Rabecca McKenzie saw a trickle of blood in both the mare’s nostrils.

4.  She called out to Mr O’Malley that the horse was bleeding and required a vet check. Mr O’Malley lifted his arm to cover the horse’s nose and continued walking, not acknowledging the comment of the vet.

5.  The vet was required to check another runner in the race who was bleeding from the mouth, she promptly checked this and went to locate No Rain Ever. She was unable to locate the horse in the tie ups as expected and was directed by fellow trainers to the car park.

6.  Here she located the horse and trainer Bill Thurlow, she noted the horse’s nostrils were now ‘retrospectively spotless’ and had been wiped clean. She checked the horse for any head injuries and explained to Mr Thurlow the horse had been bleeding from both nostrils.

7.  Ms McKenzie reported her evaluation to the race day stewards and the horse was issued the standard 3 months stand down for Epistaxis.

8.  Later that evening, after reading the stipendiary report, Mr Thurlow called stipendiary steward Neil Goodwin. He queried the stand down period and was advised he had the choice to get the horse scoped within 6 hours of the race if he disagreed with the veterinarian diagnosis.

9.  On the 6th of October 2024, both Sam O’Malley and veterinarian Rabecca McKenzie attended a party at the New Plymouth Racecourse to celebrate the 1000th win of Trainer Allan Sharrock.

10.  About 6.00pm Mr O’Malley came and joined Ms McKenzie at her table. He aggressively advised he wished to speak with her about her race day decision the previous day. She responded this was not the right time or place, but Mr O’Malley continued to make the following comments:

• I’ve been a trainer and jockey for years you don’t know what you are talking about.
• How long have you been around horses?
• You’re a s..t vet. Where are the Jim Robins of the world? You’re useless.
• I have a hearing issue, which is why I never stopped.
• You have ruined my horse’s preparation.

Despite being asked multiple times to stop and being advised this was not the time or the place Mr O’Malley continued to aggressively berate the vet and her professional decision making. The situation was concluded when a fellow trainer intervened.

11.  When spoken to about the incident Mr O’Malley was extremely apologetic and remorseful. He acknowledged his behaviour fell short of that required of him as a licensed person. He offered to apologise to Ms McKenzie. He explained he cared deeply for his horses and was bitterly disappointed by the diagnosis of epistaxis but agreed this had not been the correct way to manage the situation. He advised he had learnt from the situation and would be mindful not to let this happen again.

12.  Mr O’Malley has one previous charge from 2022 in which he was charged for betting under Rule 707(1)(a) and fined $900.

[3]  DECISION

3.1  Mr O’Malley has admitted the charge; therefore it is found proved.

[4]  PENALTY

4.1 Rule 803(1)

A person who commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these rules or any of them for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in the rules shall be liable to:

• Be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and /or
• Be suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a licence is renewed during a period of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed licence; and /or
• A fine not exceeding $20,000

[5]  SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY (from RIB)

1.  Sentencing Principles –

1.1  The four principles of sentencing can be summarised briefly:

• Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his / her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.
• In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.
• A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the RIB for the type of behaviour in question.
• The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.

1.2  The first three principles apply in this matter.

2.  Precedent –

2.1  The most recent cases involving misconduct of this nature are as follows: –

RIB V BENNER (25.02.2023). Trainer. Misconduct, insulting and offensive language directed towards race day veterinarian and investigator. Received two previous warnings. The penalty in this case was a $1500 fine.

RIB V NEAL (25.10.2022). Trainer. Misconduct, insulting, and offensive language directed towards racing officials. The penalty in this case was a $500 fine.

RIB V PENDER (22.02.2022). Trainer. Misconduct, insulting, and offensive language directed towards an employee of the Tauranga Racing Club.  The penalty in this case was a $500 fine.

RIU v WYNYARD (13.02.2021) Trainer. Misconduct, inappropriate and offensive language towards a Steward. The penalty in this case was a $1200 fine (2nd offence within 12 months).

3.  Aggravating Factors –

3.1  Mr O’Malley has an extensive history in the thoroughbred industry and should therefore know the importance of conducting himself in a professional manner.

4.  Mitigating Factors –

4.1  Mr O’Malley has admitted the breach and been compliant throughout the process.

4.2  He has no previous breaches of this rule.

5.  Conclusion –

5.1  When determining penalty, the RIB submits that the adjudicators have regard to upholding and maintaining the high standards expected of officials and licence holders alike and to protect participants in racing.

5.2  The RIB submits that the breach can be dealt with by way of a monetary penalty and therefore seek a fine in line with previous cases of this nature of $500.

[6]  REASONS FOR PENALTY

6.1  The Adjudicative Committee has carefully considered the case at hand, taking into account the evidence presented and the submissions received. It has given due regard to the previous cases submitted by the Racing Integrity Board (RIB), which have provided context and precedent. The Adjudicative Committee has also taken into account the Respondent’s clear record under this particular Rule.

6.2  Aggravating Factors

Aggressive Behaviour: Mr O’Malley’s conduct was aggressive and confrontational. He approached Ms McKenzie in a public setting at a social function and persisted in berating her, despite being asked to stop multiple times.

Professional Disrespect: The comments made by Mr O’Malley were disrespectful and undermined Ms McKenzie’s professional competence. Such behaviour is unacceptable and can have a detrimental effect on working relationships within the Racing Industry.

Persistence: Despite being advised that it was neither the time nor the place for such a discussion, Mr O’Malley persisted with this behaviour until a third party intervened.

6.3  Mitigating Factors

Admission of Breach: Mr O’Malley admitted to the charge of Misconduct, demonstrating a willingness to take responsibility for his actions.

Remorse: When spoken to about the incident, Mr O’Malley was extremely apologetic and remorseful. He recognised that his behaviour fell short of what is expected of a Licensed Person in the Racing Industry.

Offer to Apologise: Mr O’Malley offered to apologise to Ms McKenzie, showing a desire to make amends for his behaviour.

Clear Record: The Respondent has no previous breaches of this Rule, which has been taken into consideration.

[7]  DECISION

7.1  After thorough examination of all factors, the Adjudicative Committee has reached the following decision:

1.  Mr O’Malley is found to have committed a breach of the Misconduct Rule.

2.  Given the nature of the offence and considering the Respondent’s previously unblemished record in this regard, the Adjudicative Committee has determined that a fine of $600 is appropriate.

3.  This penalty serves to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, maintain professional standards within the Racing Industry, and act as a deterrent for future incidents.

4.  The fine acknowledges Mr O’Malley’s remorse and willingness to improve his behaviour, while still holding him accountable for his actions.

7.2  The Adjudicative Committee notes that while Mr O’Malley’s remorse and offer to apologise are positive steps, it has no information on whether he actually apologised to Ms McKenzie. The Adjudicative Committee also notes that no penalty submissions were received from the Respondent.

7.3  In conclusion, the $600 fine strikes a balance between the need for disciplinary action and the recognition of Mr O’Malley’s remorse and commitment to do better. The Adjudicative Committee expects all participants in the Racing Industry to uphold the highest standards of professionalism and respect.

[8]  PENALTY

8.1  Mr O’Malley is fined the sum of $600.

[9]  COSTS

9.1  As this charge was heard on the papers, without requiring a formal hearing or in-person proceedings, there is no order for costs associated with this Decision.