Jason Lee

[Plunge Punter]

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).

[Messenger]

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

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)

[Messenger]

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

[teecee]

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.

[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?

[teecee]

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.

[Messenger]

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

[Race For Fun]

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

[Messenger]

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

[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)