Non Raceday Inquiry – HRNZ v KA Hill 4 August 2011 – Decision 18 August 2011

hearingid: 016938dc1af56ffe57ea14652dd3ece7

informantnumber: 68597

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 22/08/2011

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - HRNZ v KA Hill 4 August 2011 - Decision 18 August 2011

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: NG McIntyre - Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Ms KA Hill - Graduation Driver (Assisted by R Holmes - Licensed Horseman)
Information No: 68597
Date: 4th August 2011
Venue: Addington Raceway
Race No: 4 - New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club on 24th June 2011
Judicial Committee: KG Hales, Chairman - RG McKenzie, Committee Membert
Rule No: 868(2)
Plea: Not Admitted
Also Present: NM Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward

CHARGE:

That on 24th June 2011 in Race 4, at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club’s race meeting at Addington, KA Hill failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures passing the 500 metres when allowing “Diedre’s Flash” to improve on the outside, therefore not giving “Ruby n Diamonds” a clear run to obtain the best possible position and being in breach of Rule 868(2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing.

Ms Hill was assisted in the hearing by Mr R Holmes, Licensed Horseman.

RULE 868(2):

“Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.”

FACTS:

Mr McIntyre opened the Stipendiary Stewards’ case by stating that Ms Hill did not give her horse every opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place. He said that the Stipendiary Stewards were not required to prove any deliberate intent not to win the race, and that all the Stipendiary Stewards needed to prove was that there was more than an error of judgement. For culpability to attach there must be some carelessness or incompetence involved and that all they needed to prove was that the driver had failed to take some measure or measures which were reasonably and permissibly open to her.

Mr McIntyre told the hearing that “Ruby n Diamonds” is co-owned by the defendant and that it has had over 70 race day starts. He said that Ms Hill had driven the horse in 40 of those race day starts. He said that the usual tactic was for the horse to be kept for one run in the last two to three hundred metres, but did say that the horse does behave erratically. He said that it had only trotted for the entire race in 21 out of its 70 starts, and has had 19 warnings or stand-downs in its racing career.

Mr McIntyre then requested Mr NM Ydgren, Stipendiary Steward, to demonstrate the incident using the video coverage, which gave rise to the charge.

Mr Ydgren pointed out how “Ruby n Diamonds” had showed good gate speed at the start of the 2600 metres mobile start event and had positioned itself in the one-out and one-back position. The horse immediately in front of “Ruby n Diamonds” was “Yaldy Boyz”, driven by RW Todd. The field ran on with the order of other runners unchanged until about the 500 metres mark. However, at approximately the 600 metres mark, “Yaldy Boyz” began to improve forward up outside the leader, Ms Hill elected not to improve out with “Ruby n Diamonds” from the 600 metres to the 500 metres when, to all intents and purposes, there appeared to be the opportunity for her to do so. However, at the 500 metres, other runners began to improve including “Deirdre’s Flash”, driven by SR McNally, which had been on the back of “Ruby n Diamonds” and improved very quickly. The end result was that, by the time the field reached the turn for home, “Ruby n Diamonds” had been passed by most other runners in the field and had gone to the outside where, for no apparent reason, it went into a break and finished completely out of the running.

The Stipendiary Stewards therefore alleged that by virtue of the fact that Ms Hill had taken no positive steps to have her horse improve from the 600 metre mark onwards, that she had failed to give the horse every opportunity to finish in a better place as was alleged. It was said that she showed no vigour in her driving and failed to put her horse in a position where it could have competed on better terms with the rest of the field, and finished in a higher finishing position.

The Stipendiary Stewards produced a large volume of Stipendiary Steward reports in relation to the horse’s previous starts. The combined effect of these reports was to demonstrate the erratic behaviour of “Ruby n Diamonds”. In particular, it demonstrated that there were a number of occasions when “Ruby n Diamonds” was racing in the clear and for unknown reasons, broke from its gait.

Ms. HILL’S RESPONSE:

Ms Hill was assisted in the hearing by Mr R Holmes, Public Trainer and Open Horseman. In her evidence, she stated that she had driven “Ruby n Diamonds” in 40 of her race day starts and she believed she had the best knowledge of how the horse needs to be driven, given its erratic behaviour in the majority of its race day starts. . She said that the horse has been driven in the same way in the majority of its races, and that is, where it is kept for one run inside the last 200 to 300 metres. Ms Hill told us that “Ruby n Diamonds” had only trotted the entire race out of its 70 starts, some 21 times.

Ms Hill then asked the Committee to view 9 previous races that the horse had competed in, which races were over approximately an 18 month period. In 6 of the 9 races that were shown to the hearing, “Ruby n Diamonds” was shown to be racing out in the clear when for no apparent reason; it broke from its gait. In the two races that the horse won, it was positioned so that it had to chase other horses in the field in the last 200 to 300 hundred metres and that, was when, Ms Hill said, the horse performed at its best.

Ms Hill then called Mr Blair Orange, an Open Horseman, who had driven the horse in 21 of its race day starts. He told the hearing that the horse was an enigma but considered that it was the type of horse which should be saved until the last 200 to 300 hundred metres as quite clearly; it had an unenviable habit of breaking from its gait when racing in the open and not under any particular pressure.

Ms Hill also called Junior Horseman Mr Regan Todd, to give evidence. Mr Todd was driving “Yaldy Boyz” in the race in question. He said that the improvement of “Yaldy Boyz” in the race was short lived, and that other runners, in particular “Diedre’s Flash” came around him and Ms Hill giving neither of them any further opportunity.

SUMMARY - Ms HILL:

In summary, Ms Hill said that “Ruby n Diamonds” has only won 2 races from 70 starts and in 19 of those 70 she has been warned or stood down from racing. It had finished second on six occasions, and third on seven occasions. She emphasised that the horse has only trotted an entire race 21 times. Of particular emphasis was the fact that Ms Hill said that she had driven the mare in over 40 of her race day starts, so Ms Hill considered that she knows the best how to drive the horse, and that is to save her for one run in the last 200 to 300 metres and to not endeavour to push out.

She observed that “Ruby n Diamonds” can break from its gait without warning.

SUMMARY - STIPENDIARY STEWARD:

In summary, among other things, Mr McIntyre stated that it was not necessary for the Stipendiary Stewards to prove any intent on the part of Ms Hill and that the test is an objective test and an alleged breach of the rule falls to be considered by objective standards and not by the subjective reactions of the driver. He said that we must consider whether or not Ms Hill had driven in a manner which was reasonable and permissible in all of the circumstances in order to give her horse every chance of winning or obtaining a better position.

DECISIONS AND REASONS:

“Ruby n Diamonds” has had some 70 race day starts. Ms Hill has driven the horse in some 40 of those starts. She is a part owner and the trainer. In its career, “Ruby n Diamonds” has won twice, finished 2nd six times and finished 3rd on seven occasions. Thus, it is a horse of some indifferent performance. We note that it has trotted for the duration of the race on at least 21 occasions in its 70 starts. However, it is also a horse with indifferent racing manners and as Mr Blair Orange said, he having driven the horse in 21 of its starts, the horse is an enigma.

Two points of significance arise from the evidence. This horse does break from its gait quite readily when racing in the open, for no apparent reason. On the other hand, the horse does seem to respond well when it has other horses to chase. Why then did Ms Hill not urge “Ruby n Diamonds” on when “Yaldy Boyz” improved in front of her and when she had at least 100 metres in which to improve on its outside before “Deirdre’s Flash” attacked with some vigour? Ms Hill’s explanation for that was that she was saving her horse for a run in the concluding stages, which in terms of her knowledge of the horse, is when it performs at its best. Thus, she elected to sit and not demonstrate any vigour which, as it transpired, was a mistake on her part because the rest of the field then proceeded to swamp “Ruby n Diamonds”, leaving it on the outside with nowhere to go, on the turn for home. Then again, for no apparent reason, “Ruby n Diamonds” broke from its gait.

The question for us to answer is this: “Does Ms Hill’s apparent error of judgement lead us to the conclusion that she failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that her horse was given full opportunity to win the race, or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place?”

It has been established by the cases of Harness Racing New Zealand v M and Harness Racing New Zealand v C that when considering such a charge, that the character of a horse is very much a relevant factor when a driver determines his or her driving plan. A driver is entitled to determine his or her relevant plan based on his or her knowledge of the horse. As was said in the decision of Harness Racing New Zealand v M:

“We accept that Mr May’s electing not to pull out when he had the opportunity to do so was based on his knowledge of the horse’s ability, and how its chances in the race could be maximised. We believe that the horse’s failure to finish in a higher position was the result of bad luck in the home straight in failing to secure a run, rather than Mr May’s decision to wait until the home straight for a run. Where “Boogies Barnett” would have finished had Mr May pulled it out at the 400 metres can only be a matter of speculation. It was, at worst, a permissible error of tactics on Mr May’s part, but it did not amount to bad judgment that could be said to have resulted in a disadvantage to his horse”.

Therefore, we take the view, that Ms Hill’s decision, whilst possibly an error on her part, was not sufficient to prove to the appropriate standard that she failed to ensure that her horse was given full opportunity to win the race or finish in a better position and the charge is dismissed accordingly.

There will be no order as to costs.

KG Hales        RG McKenzie
CHAIRMAN      Committee Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

N/A refer above.

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 868(2)

Informant: Mr NG McIntyre - Stipendiary Steward

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr R Holmes - Licensed Horseman assisting Ms Hill, Mr N Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward

Respondent: Ms K Hill - Graduation Driver

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: