Rangitikei RC 20 November 2021 – R6 – Brian Clement

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Following the running of Race 6, the Respondent Mr B Clement admitted a breach of Rule 802(1)(a) in that being the Attendant of TAVIS COURT he failed to comply with a directive from a Steward.

The Respondent acknowledged he understood the Rule and confirmed his admission of the breach.

Rule 802 (1)  provides: A person commits a breach of these Rules who:
(a) acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules or any Regulations made thereunder, or any policy, notice, direction, instruction, guideline, restriction, requirement or condition given, made or imposed under these Rules;

EVIDENCE:

Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin outlined the events that led to the charge. At the beginning of today’s races the Vet advised the Stewards that he was on his own and it would help if any horses requiring vetting could be done up in the kiosk area rather than further away in the tie-ups. This way he could carry on with his other duties.

After the running of Race 6, and following viewing of the films, Mr Bateup became aware that TAVIS COURT had run last. In his opinion this was disappointing and the horse should be vetted. By this time Mr Clement, who was the Attendant with the horse, was on his way back to the tie-ups with TAVIS COURT.  Mr Bateup asked the Clerk of the Course, Mr Lammas, to go down and ask Mr Clement to bring his horse back for the vet to check it out. Mr Lammas did this and Mr Bateup could see him stop Mr Clement 3/4 of the way down the lane. Mr Bateup expected Mr Clement to turn around and come back but he carried on down to the tie-ups. Mr Lammas came back and told Mr Bateup that Mr Clement had said “they’re not wasting my time, they can come and see the horse down here”. Mr Goodwin then rang Mr Clement and asked him to come up to the Stewards’ room which he did.

In response Mr Clement agreed that was what happened. He said he didn’t know that when the Clerk of the Course spoke to him the directive had come from the Stewards. He was looking after the horse for his wife and he didn’t see why he should have to come back. He said if there was something wrong with his horse it was better off back in its tie-up area. The horse was subsequently vetted and nothing untoward was found.

REASON FOR DECISION:

As the Respondent admitted the breach the Adjudicative Committee finds the breach proved.

SUBMISSION FOR PENALTY:

Mr Goodwin said it was difficult when he, Mr Bateup and Mr Clement had a close working relationship but it was important for the fabric of racing that a charge was laid. The Stewards submitted a fine of $100 was appropriate. Mr Clement agreed and said as an Official he knew the Rules. He was very sorry for his behaviour and had just become annoyed with the Clerk of the Course.

REASON FOR PENALTY

The only other recent charge under this Rule the Committee could find was a $400 fine against Rider Mr C Studd for “failing to comply with a directive in not retiring his horse from the race when failing to complete.”

Mr Clement was contrite and embarrassed by his actions which resulted in the charge against him. Mr Goodwin and Mr Clement both agreed that if the directive had come directly from Stipendiary Steward Mr Bateup, Mr Clement would have complied. There was no abuse or bad language directed at the Clerk of the Course and no suggestion that Mr Clement was trying to avoid a vet check. He was also unaware of the Vet’s request earlier in the day that horses preferably be checked in the kiosk area rather than the tie-ups. A small fine is appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

Mr Clement is fined $100.