Kiwi rower fled US police, hid in a bush
A top Kiwi rower who was arrested in Seattle after a post-regatta celebration bolted from police while being questioned over an alleged assault and then hid in a bush, official documents say.
As first reported by RNZ in May, Zack Rumble, a member of the New Zealand men's elite team, missed his flight home from the US with his team as he was in police custody. He has now admitted his actions were "not okay", is banned from drinking while representing Rowing NZ and is on a final warning.
The May 3 incident prompted Rowing NZ to launch an independent review of the tour. The review, led by Don Mackinnon, found Rumble's actions amounted to significant breaches of Rowing NZ's code of conduct and his athlete agreement.
In a statement, Rowing NZ chief executive Simon Wickham, said a range of sanctions will be imposed, including a "significant financial penalty" and a final written warning.
Rumble said he "deeply regrets" his actions.
"I take full responsibility for my actions, what I did was wrong, and I acknowledge that it was not okay, and will never be acceptable. I am doing everything possible to ensure that an event like this never happens again." What police say happened after the party
Rowing NZ has previously declined to provide any details of what led to one of its athletes being detained for nearly 48 hours at Washington State's King County Correctional Facility.
However, the official arrest report, obtained through the Seattle Police Department's public records office, has shed further light on the incident.
The report says Rumble was arrested on two counts of assault and one of obstructing a public officer following a dramatic escalation of events as a result of Rumble fleeing from police during questioning.
The charges against the young rower were later dismissed.
According to the documents, police were called to the Seattle Yacht Club at 10.43pm following reports of "two intoxicated guests fighting".
On arrival at the yacht club, officers were flagged down by staff and pointed in the direction of Rumble. The Kiwi was described by officers as initially being cooperative.
However, according to the officer questioning Rumble, while she was awaiting her colleague to gather witness statements, the young rower took a video call from a friend who encouraged him to join them at another party.
"About 30 seconds later, Rumble said, 'alright, bye', and pushed me on my left shoulder and took off running eastbound," the officer described in her report.
As her male colleague gave chase on foot, a member of the yacht club pulled up in their pick-up truck and offered the officer a ride. She climbed into the bed of the truck and joined the pursuit of the Kiwi athlete.
Rumble was found hiding under a bush in the front yard of a residential property about 400m away, according to the report.
The officer described Rumble as being "noncompliant in coming out with his hands up". He was eventually detained by another officer and taken into custody at 11.58pm. The scuffle
The New Zealand rowing team made up of a men's and women's eight had been invited guests of the yacht club having competed in the prestigious Windermere Cup, which is traditionally held on the opening day of the boating season in Seattle.
According to the event's website, prizegiving festivities kicked off at 12.30pm. Ten hours later, Rumble was at the yacht club.
According to witness reports obtained by Seattle Police, Rumble had been causing "multiple disturbances" at the party, including throwing empty cups at other patrons.
Eventually, Rumble left the group. When he attempted to go back inside the party, one of the patrons tried to talk to Rumble and advised him to go home as his teammates had left.
The report states: "Rumble then reached around and grabbed [the victim] around his waist. [The victim] advised that Rumble lifted him up off the ground" and he feared he would be thrown to the ground.
Another patron then intervened and pushed Rumble into the wall to stop him from hurting the victim, according to witness statements. The young Kiwi received a cut above the eye in the scuffle.
When questioned by officers, Rumble gave several different versions of events.
"When officers confronted Rumble about his changing story, he advised that he did not remember what happened."
The officer observed that Rumble appeared "highly intoxicated" but was "cooperative the entirety of the time of waiting" until he fled the scene. She said Rumble ignored several commands from Police to stop. The review
The "distressing" events in Seattle sparked major logistical and financial headaches for Rowing NZ officials.
The national body previously told RNZ one of the coaching staff remained in the US to support Rumble as he dealt with law enforcement.
"This was a distressing time for the athlete and our team members and Rowing NZ has worked hard to make sure the athletes and coaches in our care have the support around them they need," Wickham said.
Upon the team's return, Rowing NZ engaged prominent sports lawyer Don Mackinnon to lead an independent review of the tour to "seek learnings and recommendations".
But the national body's handling of the episode has reportedly caused division among the athletes in its elite squad.
Rumble was allowed to travel to Europe last month to compete in World Cup events in Italy and Switzerland as part of the men's four crew, leading to concerns it demonstrated a lack of accountability for bad behaviour.
Wickham said Rowing NZ's response had been measured and appropriate.
"Rowing NZ felt it was important to gather and consider all information before any decisions were made in regard to this tour and any future tours. The independent review ensured that any members of our team had the opportunity to express any views or concerns they had about the tour in confidence."
Following the completion of the review and discussions with Rumble, Rowing NZ imposed a range of sanctions and remedial actions.
The sanctions include a "significant financial penalty" and a final written warning, "understanding any further breaches of the athlete agreement, code of conduct or Rowing New Zealand's core values may jeopardise Zack's future in the programme".
Rumble has also agreed to undergo professional counselling and complete an alcohol education course. He will be barred from drinking any alcohol while representing Rowing NZ, at least until the education and counselling programmes are completed.
The young athlete will formally apologise to Rowing NZ and athletes and staff affected.
Wickham declined to release the full review, but he said findings indicate Rowing NZ can be confident the full squad up "behaved in accordance with expectations" on the tour, "the significant exception to that being Zack Rumble's behaviours on the last evening".
"Rowing NZ will continue to ensure that expectations around behaviours of our team (athletes, staff and all support team members) are clear and that being positive role models, being professional and maintaining high personal standards are a part of who we are and what we do," Wickham said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
26 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Supermarket pricing errors to be wary of
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ Consumer NZ says supermarkets are still making pricing errors, despite increasing pressure and scrutiny on them. Charges have been filed and a number of supermarkets have pleaded guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act due to inaccurate pricing and misleading specials. But Consumer NZ says misleading specials are still costing shoppers tens of millions of dollars a year and has launched a petition calling for tougher penalties for breaches of the act. It provided examples of a number of ways that people could be caught out by misleading signage in supermarkets. Dodgy multibuy A dodgy multibuy refers to a situation where the individual price and the multibuy price don't add up to a saving. Consumer NZ pointed to this mince special where a tray of meat was $4 or people could buy three for $20. In another case, packaging seemed to be making a confusing difference. Two individual backs of Gingernuts were selling for $5 but the club price for a 500g twin-pack was $5.59. Different pricing Sometimes the price on the shelf tag does not match what you pay at checkout. In this case, supplied by Consumer, the price tag on the shelf said $27, but the customer paid more than $35 at the checkout. Confusing Sometimes it's just hard to work out what the price is. Consumer provided an example of double cream brie was "reduced" to $10.60 for a quick sale - or was it on sale for $9.80? Mismatches Sometimes it seems as though there are multiple labels for the same item. In this case, two signs had two different prices for a single avocado. "One said $1.69. The other said $1.99," Consumer NZ spokesperson Abby Damen said. "The customer was charged $1.99. She returned two days later to ask what could be done about the pricing error. She was offered a refund of the price difference but after pointing out the supermarket's new refund policy, she was refunded $2 and also kept her avocado." Chief executive at Consumer Jon Duffy said anyone who was charged more than the shelf price was entitled by law to a refund of the difference. He said both supermarket chains promised a full refund in that scenario, but consumers sometimes had to know that was what was available. A Foodstuffs spokesperson said with more than 14,000 products in a typical supermarket, and prices changing frequently due to supplier costs, promotions or new product liens, pricing was a complex job. "But for our customers, it's simple. They rightly expect the price on the shelf to match what they pay at the checkout," he said. "We take pricing accuracy as seriously as health and safety, aiming for zero errors. "Across our local, family-owned stores, we manage tens of thousands of price labels and process millions of transactions every week, and we've invested in better systems, daily checks and electronic shelf labels to help get it right. "If we do get it wrong, our policy is that the customer gets a refund and keeps the product. We've also strengthened staff training and store processes to make sure pricing is clear and accurate." Woolworths said it had more 3.5 million transactions in our stores each week "and sometimes errors do occur". "When they do, we try to make things right, through our long-standing and market-leading refund policy. Under that policy, if a customer is charged more than the advertised price for a product, they get a full refund and can keep the product." Duffy said Consumer had received 20 complaints about supermarket pricing since Tuesday. A normal rate would be two a day, he said.
Otago Daily Times
26 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Four common supermarket price errors to look out for
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ Consumer NZ says supermarkets are still making pricing errors, despite increasing pressure and scrutiny on them. Charges have been filed and a number of supermarkets have pleaded guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act due to inaccurate pricing and misleading specials. But Consumer NZ says misleading specials are still costing shoppers tens of millions of dollars a year and has launched a petition calling for tougher penalties for breaches of the act. It provided examples of a number of ways that people could be caught out by misleading signage in supermarkets. Dodgy multibuy A dodgy multibuy refers to a situation where the individual price and the multibuy price don't add up to a saving. Consumer NZ pointed to this mince special where a tray of meat was $4 or people could buy three for $20. In another case, packaging seemed to be making a confusing difference. Two individual backs of Gingernuts were selling for $5 but the club price for a 500g twin-pack was $5.59. Different pricing Sometimes the price on the shelf tag does not match what you pay at checkout. In this case, supplied by Consumer, the price tag on the shelf said $27, but the customer paid more than $35 at the checkout. Confusing Sometimes it's just hard to work out what the price is. Consumer provided an example of double cream brie was "reduced" to $10.60 for a quick sale - or was it on sale for $9.80? Mismatches Sometimes it seems as though there are multiple labels for the same item. In this case, two signs had two different prices for a single avocado. "One said $1.69. The other said $1.99," Consumer NZ spokesperson Abby Damen said. "The customer was charged $1.99. She returned two days later to ask what could be done about the pricing error. She was offered a refund of the price difference but after pointing out the supermarket's new refund policy, she was refunded $2 and also kept her avocado." Chief executive at Consumer Jon Duffy said anyone who was charged more than the shelf price was entitled by law to a refund of the difference. He said both supermarket chains promised a full refund in that scenario, but consumers sometimes had to know that was what was available. A Foodstuffs spokesperson said with more than 14,000 products in a typical supermarket, and prices changing frequently due to supplier costs, promotions or new product liens, pricing was a complex job. "But for our customers, it's simple. They rightly expect the price on the shelf to match what they pay at the checkout," he said. "We take pricing accuracy as seriously as health and safety, aiming for zero errors. "Across our local, family-owned stores, we manage tens of thousands of price labels and process millions of transactions every week, and we've invested in better systems, daily checks and electronic shelf labels to help get it right. "If we do get it wrong, our policy is that the customer gets a refund and keeps the product. We've also strengthened staff training and store processes to make sure pricing is clear and accurate." Woolworths said it had more 3.5 million transactions in our stores each week "and sometimes errors do occur". "When they do, we try to make things right, through our long-standing and market-leading refund policy. Under that policy, if a customer is charged more than the advertised price for a product, they get a full refund and can keep the product." Duffy said Consumer had received 20 complaints about supermarket pricing since Tuesday. A normal rate would be two a day, he said.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Submissions for bill criminalising migrant exploitation set to close
Several high-profile cases of migrant exploitation have been uncovered in Auckland in recent years. Photo: RNZ / Blessen Tom Public submissions for a bill that seeks to criminalise migrant exploitation close on Monday. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford introduced the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill on 7 April, proposing several amendments relating to offences, penalties and proceedings, among others. The bill passed its first reading on 24 June and was referred to the Education and Workforce Select Committee. Introducing the bill in Parliament, Stanford outlined 10 amendments the bill sought to make in the Immigration Act 2009, noting its focus on tackling migrant exploitation. "The bill addresses a gap in New Zealand's migrant exploitation settings by creating a new offence, which is to knowingly seek or receive a monetary premium for an offer of employment," Stanford said. "Charging premiums for employment is an increasing form of migrant exploitation and it causes real harm. Often premiums are in the realm of tens of thousands of dollars," she said. "Currently, the legislation does not cover premiums that are paid before the employment commences, premiums that are made offshore, or situations where a premium is sought or received by someone other than the employer," she said. "This change makes it even clearer that this behaviour is not tolerated in New Zealand. It will enable us to prosecute more instances of migrant exploitation and hold exploitative behaviour to account." The bill proposes inserting a new section in the Immigration Act 2009 that creates a new offence. "It will be an offence for an employment-related person to knowingly seek or receive a premium in respect of the employment or potential employment in New Zealand of a victim," the draft bill reads. "New section 351A(1) applies before the victim starts work in New Zealand and whether or not they actually start work in New Zealand." Under the proposed section, a person is defined as a victim if they are domiciled in New Zealand or based overseas and fall within the category of an unlawful worker, a temporary entry class visa holder, a potential temporary entry class visa holder or a potential residence class visa holder. If approved, section 351A would make it an offence to charge premiums for employment, irrespective of whether a worker has started employment. At present, the offence only captures situations in which people are actively working in New Zealand and where the employer is the one charging the premium. The proposed bill widens the scope to include a potential employer, agent or any person involved in the recruitment of a victim. The penalty for the new offence will be imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, a fine not exceeding $100,000 or both. Arunjeev Singh, general secretary of the New Zealand Forum for Immigration Professionals, criticised some of the bill's content, arguing it gave "unfettered power" to immigration officers and went beyond the relationship of an employer and employee. Other immigration advisors told RNZ they questioned whether such legislation could be enforced in another jurisdiction if passed into law.
