The National Horseracing Authority confirms that an Appeal was held in Johannesburg on 4 December 2017, against the finding and the penalty imposed on Jockey Teaque Gould by an Inquiry Board on 18 August 2017.
Teaque Gould – this is a file pic and the horse and personnel are unrelated to the charges
For the sake of some background, jockey Gould was charged with a contravention of Rule 72.1.40, in that as a licensed jockey he failed to comply with a reasonable order from a licensed official, and a contravention of Rule 72.1.10 in that he ill-treated the horse called Eviction by failing to dismount from this colt whilst in full knowledge that the horse was lame, after the running of the 5th race run at the Fairview racecourse on 28 July 2017.
Jockey Gould pleaded guilty to the charges and the Board imposed a penalty of a fine of R1 500 and R10 000, respectively.
Jockey Gould appealed against the findings and penalties imposed in respect of both charges.
The Appeal Board found as follows:
- The appeal against the findings and penalty relating to the charge under Rule 72.1.40 was dismissed.
- The appeal against the findings and penalty relating to the charge under Rule 72.1.10 was successful and the conviction was set aside.
- In terms of Rule 85.5.8 Jockey Gould’s appeal deposit fee was refunded.
Attorney Robert Bloomberg comments:
Mr Gould was always going to plead guilty to the 1st charge prior to the Inquiry and in respect of which he was initially offered an AOG, but declined to signed based on the quantum of R5k which we believed to be excessive in view of the mitigating factors. This was proved to be correct as he was only fined R1500 in respect hereof at the Inquiry
The basis of the entire Appeal centred around the procedural irregularities pertaining to the 2nd charge and the wrongful allegation of “ill-treating and abusing” a horse attached thereto
The NHA declined the offer of a “plea bargain” in our accepting the 1st charge and the fine of R1500 and that the 2nd charge be set aside in its entirety. This is what ultimately resulted at the Appeal at unnecessary and wasteful cost to both parties. The Coastal Jockeys Association understandably and justifiably were not prepared to let this 2nd charge serve as an irregular precedent and in praiseworthy fashion financially backed one of their members.
