Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Penalty Decision dated 6 June 2025 – Allen Pyers

BACKGROUND:

Information No A16881 has been lodged by Ms Georgie Murrow, Investigator, on behalf of the Racing Integrity Board.

The Information alleges that on Thursday 13 March 2025 at Manawatu HRC Meeting at Manawatu Raceway, you misconducted yourself on leaving the Stewards Room by using offensive and/or inappropriate language, an alleged breach of Rule 303(2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing.

Rule 303(2)(a) provides:

(2) No person or body to whom these rules apply shall :  (a) misconduct themselves:

By way of email dated 17 April 2025, the Adjudicative Committee was advised that the Respondent admitted the charge, but that he looked to mitigate penalty on the grounds that he did not believe that the matter was dealt with professionally.

A hearing took place at the Manawatu Harness Racing Club on 29 April 2025.

The Adjudicative Committee was provided with documentation by way of Information, Summary of Facts, Appointment, Charge, Rule and Penalty Provisions. Also provided were an audio and transcript from 13 March 2025.

EVIDENCE:

Salient details from the Summary of Facts are as follows:

(1) On race night, Mr Pyers was asked to attend the the Stewards Room to discuss a minor driving infringement. (The resultant Information in relation to same is dealt with within that Written Decision dated 5 May 2025).

(2) He disputed the charge (as it related to the aforementioned infringement) and left the Stewards Room before the matter could be addressed.

(3) As he left the room, he became angry, raising his voice and swearing.

(4) The interaction was recorded by Steward Mr M Sole and later transcribed:

(Mr Pyers) I’m sick of coming up here for f—–g trivial s–t.

(Mr Sole) Mr Pyers

(Mr Pyers) No, I will not come up here for trivial s–t like that.

(5) When spoken to later by the RIB Investigator, Mr Pyers advised that he was defending the charge on the basis that he did not like the way he was addressed in the room, he did not feel all Drivers were treated equitably and he felt the explanation he had been given of the breach verbally, did not match the written Information.

By way of written submission, the Respondent provided the following:

(1) After being pulled away from my responsibilities with my horses to go into the judicial room and face accusations about something as trivial as brushing a marker – only to be changed to running down the middle of the marker – I felt the official did not understand the situation. His approach was purely accusatory. As I responded assertively, I didn’t realise I used the F word.

(2) Considering it was only a six horse field, brushing the marker had no bearing on the race and I did not directly insult the official.

(3) All I did was express my frustration with his lack of professionalism. He only had to ask me to sit down and explain what had happened. Instead he accused, accused, accused.

The transcript of that audio of the conversation between Mr Sole and Mr Pyers as recorded on raceday, was read to the Adjudicative Committee.

When asked, Mr Pyers confirmed that he had no contention with the content of the audio or transcript. He did convey that he did not directly abuse the Steward, with his language directed at the situation, which he reiterated was in his view, trivial. There was no apology for his demeanor. He was not initially aware that he had used the F word and did offer apology in this respect.

When asked for comment, Mr Sole remained adamant that there are standards to be met within the industry, particularly as it relates to dealings within the Stewards Room – it is not appropriate to enter the room, express what you want and leave.

DECISION:

As the charged has been admitted, it has been proved.

SUBMISSIONS AS TO PENALTY – INFORMANT:

A Written Submission as to Penalty was provided by Ms Murrow on behalf of the RIB.

The RIB sought that penalty be by way of a fine of no less than $500.

In support of the aforementioned, the submission referred to precedent as follows:

(1) RIB v Jones – June 2024 – $1,000 fine

(2) RIB v Purvis – February 2024 – $900 fine

(3)  RIB v Cameron – April 2022 – $500 fine

Other cases noted as of interest were O’Malley ($600 fine), Pender ($500 fine) and Lambert ($500).

Aggravating factors noted were that the Respondent has shown no insight into his wrongdoing, nor has he demonstrated any remorse. His has remained belligerent throughout the process, with it being suggested that his behaviour has fallen below that expected of a Licence Holder. Mr Pyers had received a warning in relation to similar behaviour in 2021.  There were no mitigating factors noted.

SUBMISSIONS AS TO PENALTY – RESPONDENT:

A Written Submission as to Penalty was received by the Respondent.

It is contended that Jones, Purvis and Cameron are not comparable. The Respondent also contends that the Informant’s aggravating factors, as they relate to remorse and belligerence, are biased and false. The warning issued in 2021 cannot be accepted as an aggravating factor, in the absence of detail surrounding the incident.

PENALTY DETERMINATION:

In determining penalty, the Adjudicative Committee is required to suitably deliberate upon the Summary of Facts, respective submissions, along with precedent.

In referencing precedent, it is accepted that in each case, penalty was set upon individual circumstance, including aggravating/mitigating circumstance. As would be expected, there is no one historical precedent where circumstance remains identical. Examples denoted, all provide some assistance in determining current penalty.  Jones and Purvis remain more serious in nature given, whilst Cameron does remains comparable, given circumstance.

While Mr Pyers has admitted the charge, his submissions regarding the lack of professionalism and unfairness by the Steward, are not supported by the available audio and transcript evidence, which demonstrate that Mr Sole acted appropriately.

The Adjudicative Committee recognises that the use of strong language, particularly in the context of the raceday judicial room, undermines those standards expected of Licenced participants. Although Mr Pyers has expressed frustration with the process, he has shown limited remorse and has maintained a confrontational attitude throughout proceedings.

On balance, and after due consideration, a fine of $500 has been set as a starting point. However, the Adjudicative Committee feels compelled to settle penalty suitably reflecting aggravating factors. The Respondent’s conduct throughout the hearing, his derogatory reference to RIB staff, along with the content of subsequent correspondence, highlights a belligerence that is not acceptable from a long standing Licence Holder. An uplift of 30% is applied. Accordingly, a fine of $650 is imposed.

PENALTY AND COSTS:

A fine of $650 is imposed. Given that the hearing took place on raceday, no award as to cost is made.