Jason Lee

Somewhat following on from Lance Justice's sound off that the industry fails to promote its champions, I found it interesting that the day before his Adjourned Inquiry, Jason receives 2 different feature pieces on both HRV and Harnesslink. Coincidence? Good PR person? Manipulation?

http://www.harnesslink.com/Australia...-be-a-reinsman

http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=24541

Last night's Stewards report from Terang is not out yet (where I expect we will find the result) but I bet he got off

Stewards tonight concluded their inquiries into Jason Lee’s drive on Narra Operative in Race 8 at Ballarat on Tuesday 2 September 2014. After hearing further evidence from driver Jason Lee and considering all the evidence he tendered and hearing evidence from driver Daryl Douglas regarding the previous racing pattern of Narra Operative, driver Lee was charged under Rule 149(1): A driver shall take all reasonable and permissible measures during the course of a race to ensure that the horse driven by that driver is given full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible placing in the field. The particulars being that by going to the pegs at the 1300m mark when it was reasonable and permissible to remain one off he has diminished his chances for an opportunity to gain clear running and therefore afford the horse its best opportunity to win or obtain the best possible placing in the race. Driver Lee was found guilty as charged and his licence to drive in race was suspended for a period of 4 weeks. In assessing penalty stewards were satisfied that when positioning Narra Operative to the pegs at the 1300m mark they felt it was a culpable error of judgment with no intent but diminished the horse’s opportunity to gain clear running over the latter stages of the race and also took into account his good driving record and his forthright evidence.

The stewards must think we are infants and have to write fairytales for us

I am glad that he at least copped 4wks - the integrity of our sport does not just have to be upheld but also seen to be upheld

Whatever happened to the post/poster who told us the result of the inquiry before it was made public - post disappeared along with my post asking how he knew. Harness is a secretive little game

yes kev ,i was wondering how long that post was going to stay up.......the grape vine was mentioned .

By 1966, Barrett Strong, the singer on Motown Records' breakthrough hit, "Money (That's What I Want)", had the basics of a song he had started to write in Chicago, where the idea had come to him while walking down Michigan Avenue that people were always saying "I heard it through the grapevine"

Jason Lee has huge grounds for appeal here, rule 149 (1) does not mention anything about culpability or negligence. The mens rea element that needs to be proven by stewards is 'intention' for this rule. Stewards have admitted that their was no intention by Lee to diminish the horses chances, it doesn't matter if he was culpable, the rule does not cover negligence or culpability. To me this looks like another stuff up similar to the Cramp case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plunge Punter

Jason Lee has huge grounds for appeal here, rule 149 (1) does not mention anything about culpability or negligence. The mens rea element that needs to be proven by stewards is 'intention' for this rule. Stewards have admitted that their was no intention by Lee to diminish the horses chances, it doesn't matter if he was culpable, the rule does not cover negligence or culpability. To me this looks like another stuff up similar to the Cramp case.

---

It could well be the case Steve BECAUSE they have not got the balls to call a spade a spade - maybe they fluff it up so as not to hurt the image of the sport but I think the image would improve very quickly with some old fashioned authoritarianism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plunge Punter

Jason Lee has huge grounds for appeal here, rule 149 (1) does not mention anything about culpability or negligence. The mens rea element that needs to be proven by stewards is 'intention' for this rule. Stewards have admitted that their was no intention by Lee to diminish the horses chances, it doesn't matter if he was culpable, the rule does not cover negligence or culpability. To me this looks like another stuff up similar to the Cramp case.

---

On second thoughts I cannot agree Steve. See the rule below

149. (1) A driver shall take all reasonable and permissible measures during the course of a race to ensure that the horse driven by that driver is given full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible placing in the field.

I cannot see that intention has anything to do with this wording. If a driver was a dud (not Jason) and made some shocking decisions this rule would seem to cover it

Im very familiar with that rule! Well what is the mens rea element that the stewards need to prove then Kevin? The way the proof of mens rea works in the legal system is if the element is not specified in the rule the presumption is intention. If the burden of proof for the stewards was only culpable the rule would say culpable somewhere and give the stewards that option.

This is the equivalent of a judge finding a defendant guilty of murder but saying the defendant did not intend to murder the victim! That is a ridiculous proposition! That is why manslaughter was brought in because the burden of proof of intent was too high but proving recklessness and negligence was easier where the homicide was not intentional. Im telling you Kevin this is a balls up by the stewards. This is pretty basic stuff for the stewards to mess up. If Jason Lee argues his case properly he will get off at the RADB.

Under these circumstances you would make the distinction that he broke a rule not a law the two are completely different things. Mens Rea may apply to a murder but not for a racing infraction. If I was travelling 115km/in a 80km zone but didn't see the change in speed sign doesn't make me any less culpable for the offense. Stewards make decisions based on the balance of reasonable probability which is different to the rule of law which indicates beyond all reasonable doubt. Otherwise nobody would infringe because the defence I didn't know sir would be the only words you heard out of anyone's mouth in response to any infraction. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I can't agree. I think you have confused the point I was trying to make, sorry if my legal language was incorrect! I was not trying to make any comment on the burden of proof, I was focusing on the elements of mens rea. If mens rea is not relevant why are the stewards distinguishing between intention and culpability in their report? The stewards will need to convince the RABD in probability that Jason Lee 'intended' not to take all reasonable and permissible measures during the course of the race.

I agree with you on that point. I assume the stewards thought to put that phrase into the report to highlight their belief that he did not have an alteria motive to drive poorly but was indeed guilty of not giving the horse every possible chance through his actions. I can only surmise they are reacting to criticism about a lack of consistency and discretion in implementing penalties re. John Justice suspension. In the end the stewards shouldn't make judgements onto motive unless backed with evidence and just hand out their penalties regardless of criticism. I think they thought they were doing it to protect Jason's integrity and reputation. In the end the penalty will still stand regardless. I have a lot of sympathy for stewards. They enforce regulations because it's their job. It's the job of the controlling bodies to update the racing policy and subsequent suspension policies. I get the same nonsense from parents when I teach saying they aren't happy with aspects of the curriculum. In the end I have a job to do. I'm sure stewards would feel the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astoevelaar

I agree with you on that point. I assume the stewards thought to put that phrase into the report to highlight their belief that he did not have an alteria motive to drive poorly but was indeed guilty of not giving the horse every possible chance through his actions. I can only surmise they are reacting to criticism about a lack of consistency and discretion in implementing penalties re. John Justice suspension. In the end the stewards shouldn't make judgements onto motive unless backed with evidence and just hand out their penalties regardless of criticism. I think they thought they were doing it to protect Jason's integrity and reputation. In the end the penalty will still stand regardless. I have a lot of sympathy for stewards. They enforce regulations because it's their job. It's the job of the controlling bodies to update the racing policy and subsequent suspension policies. I get the same nonsense from parents when I teach saying they aren't happy with aspects of the curriculum. In the end I have a job to do. I'm sure stewards would feel the same.

---

I value your fair minded opinion Arjuna. I have been to a few appeal hearings in my time but I think you are drawing a long bow by saying stewards were protecting Jason's integrity. When stewards are handing out a suspension they know that there is a fair chance that it will be going to appeal and every word they and the driver say will appear on the transcript to be presented at the appeal hearing. I can bet my bottom dollar when the stewards said Jason was culpable it wasn't to protect Jason's integrity. If this goes to appeal I am certain these comments will return to haunt them.

One other point I will make is that the Chairman of the RADB is Brian Collis QC, he is no pushover and he makes sure the stewards have applied the correct rule to the letter. Will be interesting to see if Jason appeals. I think he was hard done by, the horse hadn't won for 25 starts and the horses racing pattern had been until then was to drive him with one run at the finish. I guess Jason can tell that story to the RADB if he wants!

It will be interesting either way Steve. When I said protecting his integrity wasn't exactly what I was going for. I think they are trying to make a strong distinction between this instance and say certain cases the latest being in Queensland recently where the horse in question was laid and the horse deliberately buried, which I don't think you can argue in this instance as you rightly point out about Narra Operatives natural racing pattern. I just see an issue with the difficulty for stewards to weed out those who tarnish the fabric of the Industry because we still live in the shadow of the red hots. If we move to a system that's based to beyond all reasonable doubt, it reduces the ability of stewards to take necessary action to protect the integrity of the industry. It is bad enough when appeals are taken to VCAT that operate on a completely different burden of proof. It would not surprise me if Jason appealed and the sentence reduced, however I can't see how the decision could be overturned. In the end time will tell. Maybe we will pick up again next suspension ;) nice to meet you steve.

I think this appeal will be upheld, I can't see how it can be dismissed! The stewards are already making concessions in their steward's report. I wouldn't know Jason Lee if I fell over him but any trainer I talk to that he has driven for say he is straight up and down. Owners and trainers soon give a driver a bad name if they are crooked!

Im all for stewards having more power, my issue here with this case is how the rule is written. I have been banging on for 6 months on Twitter for rule 149 (1) to have the words 'intentionally, recklessly or negligently' included. This would make it so much easier for the stewards to hand down water-tight penalties.

Nice chatting Arjuna!

I'll come at this from another angle. I don't think he should have been charged under 149(1). To me, it was either 147(1) or 168(1).

With the stewards saying they thought there was no intent, that knocks out 147. Probably fair enough as these are very difficult to prove. But I'd like to think the stewards did consider charging Lee under this rule.
147. (1) A driver shall race a horse on its merits.

That leaves 168. IMHO, if no intent then the drive was not an error of judgement but incompetent. I'm thinking even someone with the very poorest judgement would not move to the pegs at that stage of the race. It just defied belief and logic.
168. (1) A person shall not before, during or after a race drive in a manner which in the opinion of the Stewards is careless, reckless, incompetent, intimidatory, improper, foul or likely to endanger persons or horses.

As for all the legalities mentioned by Steve and Arjuna I'll pass on that. But would be interested to hear whether they think a 168 would stick better than a 149 on appeal.

Rule 168 refers to driving in a dangerous manner more so than rules 147-149 which are referring to competitive driving. The way rule 149 (1) written it is a very wishy washy rule. With the stewards saying there was no intent, only culpability (negligence), the stewards are saying the driver made an omission not a positive, direct, voluntary action. I think the stewards meant to say Lee was reckless not culpable, two words with similar meaning but important differences in legal definitions.

So which rule do you feel deals simply with an "error of judgement" or "poor decision" in the heat of the race?

"Error of judgement" or "poor decision" are not really the points being argued here but I understand what you mean. The way rule 149 (1) reads is that drivers who are reckless or negligent/culpable are not covered under this rule. Any driver who has been charged and found guilty with this rule for miscounting laps or been caught 3 wide for the race and have appealed to RADB have in the past have only had to go to the RADB and say I didn't intend the "error in judgement" or "poor decision". Jim O'Sullivan got off for miscounting the laps and Michelle Wight got of for being caught 3 wide have successfully argued the case that they never intended to breach rule 149 (1). The rule is so sloppily written it is unbelievable.

It all seems to come down to words and I'll add my 10c worth of bush lawyering. Steve, you say 149 is badly written, what about 168?? The way it is worded covers reckless as I read it. Two small words with a big difference: "and" and "or". eg. "A or B", A and B".

168. (1) A person shall not before, during or after a race drive in a manner which in the opinion of the Stewards is careless, reckless, incompetent, intimidatory, improper, foul or likely to endanger persons or horses.

The highlighted "or" is the issue. So up to and including the word "foul" is A and after is B.
Steve, you say 168 refers to driving in a dangerous manner but where does A? To cover dangerous I reckon the highlighted "or" should be "and".

The heading above rule 168 (1) saying it relates to 'careless' driving. In rule 168 (1) the word 'and' should definitely not be there because it would change the whole meaning of the rule. If 'and' was put there the stewards would have to prove every word in that rule to find a driver guilty! You are right though, it is significant the word 'reckless' is thrown in there and means the stewards don't have to prove intention for rule 168 (1).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astoevelaar

I agree with you on that point. I assume the stewards thought to put that phrase into the report to highlight their belief that he did not have an alteria motive to drive poorly but was indeed guilty of not giving the horse every possible chance through his actions. I can only surmise they are reacting to criticism about a lack of consistency and discretion in implementing penalties re. John Justice suspension. In the end the stewards shouldn't make judgements onto motive unless backed with evidence and just hand out their penalties regardless of criticism. I think they thought they were doing it to protect Jason's integrity and reputation. In the end the penalty will still stand regardless. I have a lot of sympathy for stewards. They enforce regulations because it's their job. It's the job of the controlling bodies to update the racing policy and subsequent suspension policies. I get the same nonsense from parents when I teach saying they aren't happy with aspects of the curriculum. In the end I have a job to do. I'm sure stewards would feel the same.

---

100% agree Arjuna - give the judgement without the fairy floss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plunge Punter

I value your fair minded opinion Arjuna. I have been to a few appeal hearings in my time but I think you are drawing a long bow by saying stewards were protecting Jason's integrity. When stewards are handing out a suspension they know that there is a fair chance that it will be going to appeal and every word they and the driver say will appear on the transcript to be presented at the appeal hearing. I can bet my bottom dollar when the stewards said Jason was culpable it wasn't to protect Jason's integrity. If this goes to appeal I am certain these comments will return to haunt them.

One other point I will make is that the Chairman of the RADB is Brian Collis QC, he is no pushover and he makes sure the stewards have applied the correct rule to the letter. Will be interesting to see if Jason appeals. I think he was hard done by, the horse hadn't won for 25 starts and the horses racing pattern had been until then was to drive him with one run at the finish. I guess Jason can tell that story to the RADB if he wants!

---

I totally disagree Steve - they were sugar coating it for the young pin-up boy (who drove a MOST suspicious race - by the way, a horse can stay in the running line and still be saved for one sprint instead of buried on the fence at a track with no sprint lane). If you think they were concious of the ramifications of sugar-coating it ARE you suggesting they were setting it up for him to get off on appeal (not that I agree with your argument about the rule - he is blameworthy which should be end of story under the rule)

Saying I have an axe to grind with Jason Lee - who is making ridiculous assumptions now!

I am not a punter and do not know him or any of his family

As for "go and have it out with him not me" are you trying to exclude me from the debate/thread that I started just because I do not agree with you. If you want to start a thread about clarifying the rules - go ahead

Going on about mens rea - just read the rule

149. (1) A driver shall take all reasonable and permissible measures during the course of a race to ensure that the horse driven by that driver is given full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible placing in the field.

and have a look at the race again

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...&fromstate=vic

If slowing in the death and getting the 1x1 and about to go 1x2 (which may be a better spot in a 7 horse race) THEN deciding to bury yourself 3fence on a track with no sprint lane is fulfilling 149(1) - Sheez. Please do not go on about your opinion of the rule as that is not what this thread is about.

The thread actually started out to question the timing of the stories on Jason coinciding with the resumption of this inquiry. I have a daughter who has a high position in one of the worlds leading PR firms and you have no idea how we are manipulated by the media - including editorials. I am not talking about Rupert influencing his editors either - I am talking about (all) media agreeing to marketing peoples requests for 'placement'. This thread is concerned about the integrity of this industry.

I was surprised he did not get off with a warning after these pieces appeared but would not rule out the Stewards 'qualifying' of their ruling may not have somehow been a result of his profile and family
Just my opinion of course but that is what we do on forums - express them. Sure they are not always right or wrong, they are just ours

At this stage I have not heard of an appeal but you can lecture me on law in your rules thread if it happens and I will happily read it. You have a bee in your bonnet about the laws - not what this thread is about

Once again I say - have a look at the drive again and explain it

While this is getting away from the original topic of this thread which those who know me know it's something I don't particularly care for I feel a little obliged to offer some clarity to those who are getting a little lost with some of the terms and how they relate.


Jason Lee was charged under rule 149a which states...
149. (1) A driver shall take all reasonable and permissible measures during the course of a race to ensure that the horse driven by that driver is given full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible placing in the field.


Although some posts suggest that this rule is poorly or sloppily constructed, the wording of this rule is to be found in the rulebooks of nearly all racing jurisdictions worldwide. It is there because it specifies what a driver SHALL do. What a driver doesn't do or whyso is not part of this rule.


The term MENS REA is used throughout this thread and its relationship to this particular rule.
Mens Rea means...
mens rea (menz ray-ah) n. Latin for a guilty mind, or criminal intent in committing the act


Further..

Mens Rea
As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.
A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.
The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind.
Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.
Sometimes a statute creates criminal liability for the commission or omission of a particular act without designating a mens rea. These are called Strict Liability statutes. If such a statute is construed to purposely omit criminal intent, a person who commits the crime may be guilty even though he or she had no knowledge that his or her act was criminal and had no thought of committing a crime. All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since involuntary acts are not criminal.
Occasionally mens rea is used synonymously with the words general intent, although general intent is more commonly used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. Specific Intent, another term related to mens rea, describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required.


As the majority of rules governing racing (excepting serious racing offences) are based on the principles of Strict Liability, the principles of Mens Rea do not apply.


So from this, IMO stewards appear to have charged and convicted Mr Lee for what he has not done rather than what he has done.
This rule is clearly one of strict liability as it does not require (nowhere in its wording) to know his reasoning for not doing what he shall do.
The rulebooks of most racing jurisdictions are full of Strict Liability. Mens Rea or the mental considerations, intent nor reasoning need not be proven.
The rule is akin to those governing prohibited substances along with.
The stewards do not have to prove any intent. They just have to be satisfied that the analyst detected an illegal substance in the horse's sample. How or why is irrelevant.

For someone who doesn't care about the topic you certainly have spent a lot of time researching the topic? If the mental elements do not matter to rule 149 (1) why was culpability and intention mentioned in the steward's report for this case?

These terms are consistent in their finding of Lee not doing what he shall do under the rule. It also provides guidance as to why they have chosen to charge under this rule rather than any other.
By definition these terms do not hold relevance to mental elements related..
Culpable
Blameworthy when involving the commission of a fault or the breach of a duty imposed by law.
Culpability generally implies that an act performed is wrong but does not involve any evil intent by the wrongdoer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plunge Punter

For someone who doesn't care about the topic you certainly have spent a lot of time researching the topic? If the mental elements do not matter to rule 149 (1) why was culpability and intention mentioned in the steward's report for this case?

---

Steve, TeeCee said he did not care for people going off topic - he did not say how he felt about the side-topic you have raised.
Maybe you should thank our most active moderator for doing the research for you ;)
As TC once again pointed out - there is no mention of intention for good reason (a minefield of proof)
Why the stewards waffled on was what I questioned in what is now the second post of this thread - they were just waffling Steve

Hope you backed Narra Operative Kev, just won. Worked hard to lead and won well.

Well I'll be ....
Same track, same horse, same position (found himself settling in the Death) and Jason pushes on to the front to Lead and Win on $2.60 favourite Narra Operative
Cannot be going to appeal if he is undermining his chances like that

http://www.harnesslink.com/mobile#ur...festive-season

"Rising harness racing star Jason Lee must have been a good boy this year."

http://www.harnesslink.com/mobile#ur...festive-season

I dont think so (Elephant's memory here)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Messenger

http://www.harnesslink.com/mobile#ur...festive-season

"Rising harness racing star Jason Lee must have been a good boy this year."

http://www.harnesslink.com/mobile#ur...festive-season

I dont think so (Elephant's memory here)

---

Select "Full Website" to view these links

Thanks Tony, I am new at this tablet stuff.

Jason had drives in the last 5 races at Terang tonight and won them all

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...E110215&ms=vic