Archive Decision

This decision has been migrated from the JCA website. Information is accurate but formatting may differ from contemporary decisions. Please contact us for any further enquiries.

Canterbury JC 5 November 2011 – R 10 (heard 9 November 2011)

ID: JCA11666

Applicant:
CJ George - Chief Stipendiary Steward

Respondent(s):
JT Hay - Licensed Trainer (Class A)

Information Number:
A5315

Hearing Type:
Hearing

Rules:
616(3)

Plea:
denied

Code:
Thoroughbred

Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 5 November 2011

Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie

Meet Committee Member 1:
KHales

Race Date:
2011/11/05

Race Number:
R 10

Decision:

The charge was dismissed.

Charge:

Horse presented in incorrect gear

Facts:

Information No.A5315 was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr C J George, against Licensed Trainer, Mrs J T Hay, the trainer of AND SHE WAS, a runner in race 10, Blue Star Taxis Premier, alleging a breach of Rule 616 (3) in that AND SHE WAS, trained by her, was presented to race in blinkers which are not part of that mare’s "approved racing gear”.

The information was put before the Judicial Committee on the raceday and, in Mrs Hay’s absence, was adjourned to be heard on the second day of the meeting on 9 November 2011. The information was served on Mrs Hay at that meeting and heard on that day.

Mrs Hay was present at the hearing of the information and she indicated that she denied the breach.

Rule 616 provides:
(3) When permission has been obtained in accordance with sub-Rule (2) of this Rule 616 for the use of an item or items of Notifiable Gear on a horse, such item or items of Notifiable Gear will continue to be used without variation on the horse concerned in consecutive subsequent Races unless permission has been obtained from a Stipendiary Steward before the horse is accepted or is deemed to be accepted for a subsequent Race, or the Trainer is otherwise approved or instructed by a Stipendiary Steward to change or adjust the Notifiable Gear that is to be used for that horse.

Submissions for Decision:

Mr George said that it had come to the attention of the Stewards that AND SHE WAS was presented, prior to Race 10 on the first day of the meeting, wearing blinkers. It was established by both parties that the horse was not to be wearing blinkers.

Mrs Hay said that she was not at the meeting. She had left the horse in the care of a staff member who had worked for her for 17 years, during which time that staff member had not made such an error. The horse had raced in blinkers in its previous start. She said that the horse had not been “presented to the public”. It was approaching the plate inspection area when the attendant noticed the blinkers and proceeded to remove them. She was told by Mr McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward, that it was too late as the horse had been presented.

Mr George said that the horse had been presented for inspection.

Mr McLaughlin told the Committee that the horse had been presented to him near the entrance to the plating inspection area. He had read out his list of gear and the attendant had then realised that the horse should not be wearing blinkers. Mr McLaughlin could not recall whether he had read the list out loud.

Reasons for Decision:

Mrs Hay has been charged with presenting the horse AND SHE WAS, trained by her, to race in Race 10 on the first day of the meeting on 5 November 2011 wearing blinkers, which were not part of the horse’s notified gear.

Those facts that are agreed are that the horse was taken from its stall prior to Race 10 to be checked at the plating inspection area before entering the parade ring. It is also agreed that the horse was wearing blinkers when it ought not to have been.

From this point, the facts are not so clear. Mr McLaughlin told the Committee that he went through the list of gear approved for the horse when the horse was presented to him just prior to its entering the plating inspection area. Mr McLaughlin was not able to clearly recall whether or not he had read the list aloud to the horse’s attendant.

Mrs Hay told the Committee that she had been told by her employee that it had been noticed by that employee before her attention was drawn to it by Mr McLaughlin and she immediately removed the blinkers.

So, from the evidence, it is not clear to us exactly what took place when the horse was presented to Mr McLaughlin.

This raises the next point. Rule 616 (2) does not use the word “presented”. It states that a trainer “shall not start or attempt to start a horse in a Race” with an item of gear for which permission has not been obtained.

We are not satisfied that presenting a horse to a Stipendiary Steward prior to entering the plating inspection area constitutes an attempt to start a horse in a Race. We are not sure at what point it could be said that an attempt to start a horse has been made but, for the purposes of the present case, we do not need to determine that. We are satisfied that, in the present case, that point had not been reached.

So, we are dismissing the charge. It is possible that the blinkers were removed by the attendant before Mr McLaughlin drew attention to it and, in any event, we are not satisfied that before a horse enters the plating inspection area can it be said that an attempt has been made to start the horse in a race.

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: 2e8d9ede8b669056995834dd22706bae


informantnumber: A5315


horsename:


hearing_racingtype:


startdate: no date provided


newcharge:


plea: denied


penaltyrequired: 0


decisiondate: 04/11/2011


hearing_title: Canterbury JC 5 November 2011 - R 10 (heard 9 November 2011)


charge:

Horse presented in incorrect gear


facts:

Information No.A5315 was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr C J George, against Licensed Trainer, Mrs J T Hay, the trainer of AND SHE WAS, a runner in race 10, Blue Star Taxis Premier, alleging a breach of Rule 616 (3) in that AND SHE WAS, trained by her, was presented to race in blinkers which are not part of that mare’s "approved racing gear”.

The information was put before the Judicial Committee on the raceday and, in Mrs Hay’s absence, was adjourned to be heard on the second day of the meeting on 9 November 2011. The information was served on Mrs Hay at that meeting and heard on that day.

Mrs Hay was present at the hearing of the information and she indicated that she denied the breach.

Rule 616 provides:
(3) When permission has been obtained in accordance with sub-Rule (2) of this Rule 616 for the use of an item or items of Notifiable Gear on a horse, such item or items of Notifiable Gear will continue to be used without variation on the horse concerned in consecutive subsequent Races unless permission has been obtained from a Stipendiary Steward before the horse is accepted or is deemed to be accepted for a subsequent Race, or the Trainer is otherwise approved or instructed by a Stipendiary Steward to change or adjust the Notifiable Gear that is to be used for that horse.


appealdecision:


isappeal:


submissionsfordecision:

Mr George said that it had come to the attention of the Stewards that AND SHE WAS was presented, prior to Race 10 on the first day of the meeting, wearing blinkers. It was established by both parties that the horse was not to be wearing blinkers.

Mrs Hay said that she was not at the meeting. She had left the horse in the care of a staff member who had worked for her for 17 years, during which time that staff member had not made such an error. The horse had raced in blinkers in its previous start. She said that the horse had not been “presented to the public”. It was approaching the plate inspection area when the attendant noticed the blinkers and proceeded to remove them. She was told by Mr McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward, that it was too late as the horse had been presented.

Mr George said that the horse had been presented for inspection.

Mr McLaughlin told the Committee that the horse had been presented to him near the entrance to the plating inspection area. He had read out his list of gear and the attendant had then realised that the horse should not be wearing blinkers. Mr McLaughlin could not recall whether he had read the list out loud.


reasonsfordecision:

Mrs Hay has been charged with presenting the horse AND SHE WAS, trained by her, to race in Race 10 on the first day of the meeting on 5 November 2011 wearing blinkers, which were not part of the horse’s notified gear.

Those facts that are agreed are that the horse was taken from its stall prior to Race 10 to be checked at the plating inspection area before entering the parade ring. It is also agreed that the horse was wearing blinkers when it ought not to have been.

From this point, the facts are not so clear. Mr McLaughlin told the Committee that he went through the list of gear approved for the horse when the horse was presented to him just prior to its entering the plating inspection area. Mr McLaughlin was not able to clearly recall whether or not he had read the list aloud to the horse’s attendant.

Mrs Hay told the Committee that she had been told by her employee that it had been noticed by that employee before her attention was drawn to it by Mr McLaughlin and she immediately removed the blinkers.

So, from the evidence, it is not clear to us exactly what took place when the horse was presented to Mr McLaughlin.

This raises the next point. Rule 616 (2) does not use the word “presented”. It states that a trainer “shall not start or attempt to start a horse in a Race” with an item of gear for which permission has not been obtained.

We are not satisfied that presenting a horse to a Stipendiary Steward prior to entering the plating inspection area constitutes an attempt to start a horse in a Race. We are not sure at what point it could be said that an attempt to start a horse has been made but, for the purposes of the present case, we do not need to determine that. We are satisfied that, in the present case, that point had not been reached.

So, we are dismissing the charge. It is possible that the blinkers were removed by the attendant before Mr McLaughlin drew attention to it and, in any event, we are not satisfied that before a horse enters the plating inspection area can it be said that an attempt has been made to start the horse in a race.


Decision:

The charge was dismissed.


sumissionsforpenalty:


reasonsforpenalty:


penalty:


hearing_type: Hearing


Rules: 616(3)


Informant: CJ George - Chief Stipendiary Steward


JockeysandTrainer: JT Hay - Licensed Trainer (Class A)


Otherperson:


PersonPresent:


Respondent:


StipendSteward:


raceid: c649cc69ad665248e87b45dd1932612b


race_expapproval:


racecancelled: 0


race_noreport: 0


race_emailed1: 0


race_emailed2: 0


race_title: R 10


submittochair:


race_expappcomment:


race_km:


race_otherexp:


race_chair:


race_pm1:


race_pm2:


meetid: 2049bd4236fc4d02ca34bdcdffca2164


meet_expapproval:


meet_noreport: 0


waitingforpublication: 0


meet_emailed1: 0


meet_emailed2: 0


meetdate: 05/11/2011


meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 5 November 2011


meet_expappcomment:


meet_km:


meet_otherexp:


tracklocation: canterbury-racing


meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing


meet_chair: RMcKenzie


meet_pm1: KHales


meet_pm2: none


name: Canterbury Racing