Auckland TC 5 July 2013 – R 4
ID: JCA10751
Meet Title:
Auckland TC - 5 July 2013
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2013/07/05
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
For reasons outlined above the Committee finds the charge proved.
Penalty:
Having considered the factors outlined above we impose a fine of $250.
Charge:
The information alleged that Mr McCaffrey affected the chances of his own horse, OTO INVASION by driving carelessly.
Facts:
This charge arises from race number 4, the Swiss Deli Handicap Trot 2700m. At the commencement of the hearing Mr McCaffrey confirmed his denial of the charge to the Judicial Committee (the "Committee").
Evidence for the Informant
Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre demonstrated the alleged breach using head and side-on video footage. He said that ELLA’S SPEED, driven by Mr G Robb, was racing in the one by one position near the 600 metre mark following the weakening MOMENT OF TRUTH. He stated that Mr Robb eased out and made a gradual manoeuvre into a three wide position. Mr McCaffrey, who was following Mr Robb, shifted outwards into a four wide position. In doing so he made contact with the outside wheel of ELLA’S SPEED. This caused his own horse, OTO INVASION to break for approximately 100 metres. In turn BOIZEL, driven by Mr M McKendry was checked and disadvantaged.
Mr McCaffrey advised the Committee that he did not wish to cross examine Mr McIntyre. At that juncture, Mr McIntyre sought leave to be excused from the hearing to enable him to view the next race.
Mr Muirhead told the Committee that Mr McCaffrey could have moved wider on the track to avoid ELLA’S SPEED whose movement outward was slow and gradual. He said that he was travelling too close when he was easing onto the back of ELLA’S SPEED and in doing so he exercised bad judgement. He said that the consequences of this seriously affected the chance of his own horse as well as the chance of Mr McKendry’s drive. He said that OTO INVASION recovered after breaking and finished the race strongly into fifth place.
Under cross examination Mr McCaffrey objected to Mr Muirhead’s assessment of the incident and asked Mr Muirhead whether the breach was a fact or an allegation. Mr Muirhead conceded that at this point it is an allegation. Mr McCaffrey also asked Mr Muirhead to describe OTO INVASION'S racing manners. Mr Muirhead said that OTO INVASION had a warning on its record for breaking two starts ago.
Mr McCaffrey asked Mr Muirhead to clarify whether he believed that he 'steadied' OTO INVASION back as opposed to ‘pulled’ back. Mr Muirhead acknowledged that it was his interpretation that he steadied rather than pulled back.
Defendant
Mr McCaffrey stated that he was racing three wide and the horse on his inside (ELLA’S SPEED) shifted out. He demonstrated his interpretation of the incident using head-on video and said that he was mindful at this point that his horse had a warning for breaking. On that basis he took care when he steadied back. He accepts that there was contact between OTO INVASION and ELLA’S SPEED, but did not accept that he initiated the contact.
At this point the hearing was adjourned at the request of the Committee to enable Mr Robb, the driver of ELLA’S SPEED, to be summoned to give evidence. Whilst Mr Robb was being located, the hearing reconvened. Mr McCaffrey sought permission from the Committee to absent himself from the remainder of the hearing because he wanted leave the racecourse to return his horses to Cambridge. Mr Muirhead objected to the hearing being adjourned beyond race night.
The Committee advised Mr McCaffrey that the hearing would continue in his absence and explained to him that he would not be able to hear Mr Robb’s evidence or cross examine him. In response he indicated that he had no objection to the hearing continuing in his absence.
Rule 1111(1) provides for a hearing to continue where a Defendant absents himself without the leave of the Judicial Committee.
When the next part of the hearing resumed Mr Robb told the Committee that the field went hard early in the race and he was on the back of MOMENT OF TRUTH who was stopping. He said that he eased out gradually and heard a horse on his outer make contact with his sulky wheel. Mr Robb said that he had every right to ease out and Mr McCaffrey tried to get onto his back, but must have misjudged the distance.
Submissions for Decision:
In summing up Mr Muirhead submitted that the film of the incident clearly indicates that Mr Robb did ease out over a distance of 100 metres and that Mr McCaffrey steadied his horse intending to get onto the back of ELLA’S SPEED, but misjudged the distance. He said that Mr McCaffrey should have moved a little bit wider on the track and had he done so the incident would not have occurred.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered the evidence of the witnesses and viewed the relevant video footage several times. The Committee's assessment of the incident is that ELLA’S SPEED did ease out gradually between the 600 and 500 marker, a manoeuvre of at least 100 metres. Mr Robb was entitled to ease his horse out in the manner in which he did. Near the 500 metre marker Mr McCaffrey has moved four wide to the outer of ELLA’S SPEED who was maintaining a straight line. At this point Mr McCaffrey has steadied OTO INVASION in an attempt to get onto the back of ELLA’S SPEED, and in doing so has clipped the outer sulky wheel of that horse.
The Committee believes that this caused OTO INVASION to dip, go off stride and gallop for approximately 100 metres. ELLA’S SPEED finished in 3rd place and OTTO INVASION ran on strongly to finish in 5th place, a short margin behind the 4th placed horse.
The Committee finds that Mr S McCaffrey did not exercise the required level of care when he was seeking to ease onto the back of ELLA'S SPEED. In our view he made an error of judgement and miscalculated the distance between his horse and the sulky of ELLA’S SPEED. We do not accept Mr McCaffrey’s proposition that the incident occurred because ELLA’S SPEED shifted outwards. The video evidence clearly indicates that ELLA'S SPEED’S eased out very gradually over at least 100 metres. On that basis Mr McCaffrey ought to have factored this in to his own decision making.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Muirhead submitted that the JCA guidelines recommend a fine of $400 or a suspension of 8 drives. He said that Mr McCaffrey has a good driving record and has had 58 drives during this current season. He said that Stewards have assessed the breach as being medium, but the consequences were dramatic given that it caused Mr McCaffrey’s own horse to break.
Mr Muirhead submitted that although Mr McCaffrey is entitled to defend the charge, he could not be given any credit for an early admission of the breach. He submitted that a fine in the vicinity of $300 would be appropriate.
Due to the fact that Mr McCaffrey had left the course the Committee initiated telephone contact with him, through the Registrar and advised him that the charge was upheld and invited him to make submissions as to penalty. As a result he submitted that he would like the Committee to take into account his clear record and that OTO INVASION has a record of breaking. He said that it was a minor breach.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee assessed the breach as low end, but the consequences of the incident were such that it clearly affected the chances of OTO INVASION of finishing in a better place, and we particularly noted the close margin between 4th and 5th place.
In fixing penalty the Committee has taken cognisance of the Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees as well as recent penalties for similar breaches. We have taken into account Mr McCaffrey’s very good driving record and noted his limited driving opportunities (58 drives this season).
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 0abb499ccb8a3fecba95579dde7c42ec
informantnumber: A3807
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 24/06/2013
hearing_title: Auckland TC 5 July 2013 - R 4
charge:
The information alleged that Mr McCaffrey affected the chances of his own horse, OTO INVASION by driving carelessly.
facts:
This charge arises from race number 4, the Swiss Deli Handicap Trot 2700m. At the commencement of the hearing Mr McCaffrey confirmed his denial of the charge to the Judicial Committee (the "Committee").
Evidence for the Informant
Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre demonstrated the alleged breach using head and side-on video footage. He said that ELLA’S SPEED, driven by Mr G Robb, was racing in the one by one position near the 600 metre mark following the weakening MOMENT OF TRUTH. He stated that Mr Robb eased out and made a gradual manoeuvre into a three wide position. Mr McCaffrey, who was following Mr Robb, shifted outwards into a four wide position. In doing so he made contact with the outside wheel of ELLA’S SPEED. This caused his own horse, OTO INVASION to break for approximately 100 metres. In turn BOIZEL, driven by Mr M McKendry was checked and disadvantaged.
Mr McCaffrey advised the Committee that he did not wish to cross examine Mr McIntyre. At that juncture, Mr McIntyre sought leave to be excused from the hearing to enable him to view the next race.
Mr Muirhead told the Committee that Mr McCaffrey could have moved wider on the track to avoid ELLA’S SPEED whose movement outward was slow and gradual. He said that he was travelling too close when he was easing onto the back of ELLA’S SPEED and in doing so he exercised bad judgement. He said that the consequences of this seriously affected the chance of his own horse as well as the chance of Mr McKendry’s drive. He said that OTO INVASION recovered after breaking and finished the race strongly into fifth place.
Under cross examination Mr McCaffrey objected to Mr Muirhead’s assessment of the incident and asked Mr Muirhead whether the breach was a fact or an allegation. Mr Muirhead conceded that at this point it is an allegation. Mr McCaffrey also asked Mr Muirhead to describe OTO INVASION'S racing manners. Mr Muirhead said that OTO INVASION had a warning on its record for breaking two starts ago.
Mr McCaffrey asked Mr Muirhead to clarify whether he believed that he 'steadied' OTO INVASION back as opposed to ‘pulled’ back. Mr Muirhead acknowledged that it was his interpretation that he steadied rather than pulled back.
Defendant
Mr McCaffrey stated that he was racing three wide and the horse on his inside (ELLA’S SPEED) shifted out. He demonstrated his interpretation of the incident using head-on video and said that he was mindful at this point that his horse had a warning for breaking. On that basis he took care when he steadied back. He accepts that there was contact between OTO INVASION and ELLA’S SPEED, but did not accept that he initiated the contact.
At this point the hearing was adjourned at the request of the Committee to enable Mr Robb, the driver of ELLA’S SPEED, to be summoned to give evidence. Whilst Mr Robb was being located, the hearing reconvened. Mr McCaffrey sought permission from the Committee to absent himself from the remainder of the hearing because he wanted leave the racecourse to return his horses to Cambridge. Mr Muirhead objected to the hearing being adjourned beyond race night.
The Committee advised Mr McCaffrey that the hearing would continue in his absence and explained to him that he would not be able to hear Mr Robb’s evidence or cross examine him. In response he indicated that he had no objection to the hearing continuing in his absence.
Rule 1111(1) provides for a hearing to continue where a Defendant absents himself without the leave of the Judicial Committee.
When the next part of the hearing resumed Mr Robb told the Committee that the field went hard early in the race and he was on the back of MOMENT OF TRUTH who was stopping. He said that he eased out gradually and heard a horse on his outer make contact with his sulky wheel. Mr Robb said that he had every right to ease out and Mr McCaffrey tried to get onto his back, but must have misjudged the distance.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
In summing up Mr Muirhead submitted that the film of the incident clearly indicates that Mr Robb did ease out over a distance of 100 metres and that Mr McCaffrey steadied his horse intending to get onto the back of ELLA’S SPEED, but misjudged the distance. He said that Mr McCaffrey should have moved a little bit wider on the track and had he done so the incident would not have occurred.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered the evidence of the witnesses and viewed the relevant video footage several times. The Committee's assessment of the incident is that ELLA’S SPEED did ease out gradually between the 600 and 500 marker, a manoeuvre of at least 100 metres. Mr Robb was entitled to ease his horse out in the manner in which he did. Near the 500 metre marker Mr McCaffrey has moved four wide to the outer of ELLA’S SPEED who was maintaining a straight line. At this point Mr McCaffrey has steadied OTO INVASION in an attempt to get onto the back of ELLA’S SPEED, and in doing so has clipped the outer sulky wheel of that horse.
The Committee believes that this caused OTO INVASION to dip, go off stride and gallop for approximately 100 metres. ELLA’S SPEED finished in 3rd place and OTTO INVASION ran on strongly to finish in 5th place, a short margin behind the 4th placed horse.
The Committee finds that Mr S McCaffrey did not exercise the required level of care when he was seeking to ease onto the back of ELLA'S SPEED. In our view he made an error of judgement and miscalculated the distance between his horse and the sulky of ELLA’S SPEED. We do not accept Mr McCaffrey’s proposition that the incident occurred because ELLA’S SPEED shifted outwards. The video evidence clearly indicates that ELLA'S SPEED’S eased out very gradually over at least 100 metres. On that basis Mr McCaffrey ought to have factored this in to his own decision making.
Decision:
For reasons outlined above the Committee finds the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Muirhead submitted that the JCA guidelines recommend a fine of $400 or a suspension of 8 drives. He said that Mr McCaffrey has a good driving record and has had 58 drives during this current season. He said that Stewards have assessed the breach as being medium, but the consequences were dramatic given that it caused Mr McCaffrey’s own horse to break.
Mr Muirhead submitted that although Mr McCaffrey is entitled to defend the charge, he could not be given any credit for an early admission of the breach. He submitted that a fine in the vicinity of $300 would be appropriate.
Due to the fact that Mr McCaffrey had left the course the Committee initiated telephone contact with him, through the Registrar and advised him that the charge was upheld and invited him to make submissions as to penalty. As a result he submitted that he would like the Committee to take into account his clear record and that OTO INVASION has a record of breaking. He said that it was a minor breach.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee assessed the breach as low end, but the consequences of the incident were such that it clearly affected the chances of OTO INVASION of finishing in a better place, and we particularly noted the close margin between 4th and 5th place.
In fixing penalty the Committee has taken cognisance of the Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees as well as recent penalties for similar breaches. We have taken into account Mr McCaffrey’s very good driving record and noted his limited driving opportunities (58 drives this season).
penalty:
Having considered the factors outlined above we impose a fine of $250.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: R869(3)(b) Careless Driving
Informant: Mr J Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr S McCaffrey - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr G Robb - Open Horseman
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 9a973e3cb52525134098d9c741a780ab
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 83eae35b3c643ddd901b90cabeb6a0ef
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 05/07/2013
meet_title: Auckland TC - 5 July 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland TC