Cambridge-Te Awamutu HRC 7 June 2011 – R5

 An Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr JM Muirhead alleging that Horseman Mr MD Paris committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(a) in that he drove RONDO incompetently when he allowed his horse to continue in an incorrect gait for approximately 1000 metres after switching to the Pacing Gait 200 metres after the start.

Mr Paris was present at the Hearing and assisted by his employer Mr McCaffery who is also the Trainer and part Owner of RONDO.

Rule 869(3)(a) states: “No Horseman in any race shall drive incompetently.”

Messrs Paris and McCaffery understood the Rule.

At the outset of this Hearing the Committee requested an indication from Mr Muirhead as to how he viewed the seriousness of the charge bearing in mind that it is a serious charge and also bearing in mind the penalty imposed by a JCA Appeal Committee on another Professional Horseman some months ago for a breach of the same Rule. Mr Muirhead advised this Committee that in his view the two situations were totally different because today we were dealing with an inexperienced Junior Horseman in his first season of driving.

The Committee also raised with Messrs Paris and McCaffery that this was a serious charge and drew to their attention the previous case that had been raised with Mr Muirhead. The Committee pointed to Messrs Paris and McCaffery that because of the nature of the charge and notwithstanding that Mr Paris had pleaded guilty that he could have the matter adjourned to consider issues relating to penalty.

Messrs Paris and McCaffery acknowledged the Committee’s comments and warnings to them but requested that the Committee deal with the matter today.

In evidence Mr Muirhead demonstrated the incident by use of the video films. The films clearly show that after approximately 200 metres RONDO simply switched into a pace and then it paced perfectly for approximately another 1000 metres until Mr Paris finally restrained it and then got it trotting again. Mr Muirhead did point out that Mr Paris had looked at his horses legs a couple of times but it took some time before he worked out that it was pacing. Mr Muirhead suggested that another Driver may have called out to Mr Paris and he showed where this may have happened. He did acknowledge that once Mr Paris realised fully what the problem was that he did something about it.

Mr McCaffery, assisting Mr Paris acknowledged that RONDO had paced for approximately 1000 metres as was shown on the film. He did however point out that the horse slipped smoothly into a pace and there was no prior warning sign for Mr Paris that it was going to do that. He also told the Committee that this horse had never done that before and therefore Mr Paris would not be on the alert for that happening. Mr McCaffery then pointed out to the two or three occasions when Mr Paris tried to look at his horses legs. He said that Mr Paris clearly knew that something was wrong but because of his inexperience he did not know exactly what was wrong. He also pointed out that the dust sheet on the sulky hindered his ability to look properly at his horses legs. He said that Mr Paris is a Junior Horseman in his first season of driving and is inexperienced but once he was aware of exactly what the problem was then he did something about it.
 

N/A

Mr Muirhead reiterated his earlier comments and he said that he considered that this incident was at the lower end of the scale. He acknowledged the fact that Mr Paris was an inexperienced Junior Horseman and he said that this situation was totally different to the previous case raised earlier at the Hearing because the experience of that other Driver was vastly superior to that of Mr Paris. He suggested that a suspension of Mr Paris’ Junior Horseman’s License for four to six weeks would be appropriate and he did not think that a fine would be appropriate because he considered that that would be draconian.

Mr McCaffery on behalf of Mr Paris referred to the evidence that he had given concerning the horse, the incident and Mr Paris’ initial awareness that something was wrong but as a result of his inexperience he did not know exactly what was wrong. He said that it is hard for a Junior Horseman to get established and Mr Paris had had 43 drives this season and any suspension would of course mean that he might miss out on drives that will go to other Drivers. He submitted that a suspension of his license would have quite an impact on Mr Paris.

The Committee looked at the films on numerous times and it is clear to see that the horse slipped into a pace very smoothly. There could not have been any prior warning to Mr Paris. The films do show that Mr Paris did look at his horses legs a couple of times and then later he did realise exactly what the problem was and did something about it. We are aware of the prior charge under this Rule which was dealt with by an Appeal Committee and we are also aware that there is a vast difference in experience between that Driver and Mr Paris.

Mr Paris is an inexperienced Junior Horseman who will no doubt learn from this incident today. We take this into account.

We propose to deal with matter by way of suspension of Mr Paris’ Junior Horseman’s License but bearing in mind the nature of the charge any suspension needs to be effective. We are aware that as a Junior Horseman Mr Paris does not drive very often.