Marlborough HRC 22 June 2018 – R 1 – Chair, Mr P Williams
ID: JCA11859
Meet Title:
Marlborough HRC - 22 June 2018
Meet Chair:
PWilliams
Meet Committee Member 1:
GClapp
Race Date:
2018/06/22
Race Number:
R1
Decision:
Penalty:
Facts:
Following the running of Race 1, the “Monaro Mia Group 1 Runner Up Handicap Trot”, Information A9959 was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N Ydgren alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) and the Passing Lane Regulations by Junior Horseman Mr M Anderson. The Information stated “M Anderson (NOBLE MISTRESS) allowed his horse to shift inwards into the passing lane when having a clear and unimpeded run to the finish resulting in MADELINE STOWE being blocked for clear running”.
Mr Anderson signed the Information stating he admitted the breach and at the beginning of the hearing confirmed that was correct and that he understood the Rule under which he was charged. He was assisted by Open Horseman Mr J Dunn.
Rule 869 (4) states:- “No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress”.
Clause 4 of the Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations states:- “In the last lap of any race the leading horse on the running line shall, upon entering the home straight, maintain as straight a course as possible parallel to the running line and allow the trailing horses full access to the expanded inside lane”.
Clause 6 of the Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations states:- “Subject to clause 4 hereof, in the last lap of any race no horse shall move inwards into the expanded inside lane (or any part thereof) when it has an unimpeded run to the finish line”.
This hearing was a follow up to the earlier protest hearing which resulted in “Noble Mistress” driven by Mr Anderson being relegated from 2nd to 4th for not allowing full access to the Passing Lane to “Madeline Stowe” driven by Mr Davis.
Mr Ydgren using the head on film from the top of the straight identified Mr Anderson (Noble Mistress) in the trail behind Mr Cox (Deauville) with Mr Davis (Madeline Stowe) 3 back on the inside. He said Mr Anderson obtained a run to the inside of Mr Cox when that horse moved out just prior to the start of the Passing Lane which meant Mr Anderson became the established leader with an unobstructed run and an obligation to maintain a straight line to the finish. Soon after the Passing Lane commenced Mr Ydgren said Mr Anderson allowed his horse to drift inwards into the lane thereby impeding Mr Davis who was entitled to a clear run through to the finish of the race. Mr Ydgren pointed out that as well as moving inwards Mr Anderson was able to use his whip on 10 occasions when he would have been better served in attempting to shift his horse out of the lane.
To a question from the Committee Mr Ydgren said that Mr Davis had access to the Passing Lane for approximately the first 30m but was then placed in restricted room for the remainder of the run to the line because of Mr Anderson allowing his horse to shift inwards.
Mr Dunn agreed the film showed there was not a clear run for Mr Davis. He said because “Deauville” - the lead horse at the top of the straight - had drifted out at the top of the straight “Noble Mistress” had become the lead horse but Mr Anderson had then failed to realise his responsibility to maintain a straight line to the finish.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Ydgren said the starting point penalty for a breach of the Rule was a 6 drive suspension or a $300 fine. He said Mr Anderson’s actions had actually caused (rather than were likely to have caused) interference which at the earlier protest hearing had led to his horse being relegated from fourth to second. He said for that reason the Stewards believed an uplift in the starting point penalty to 15 drives was appropriate. He added that, given Mr Anderson’s clear record under this Rule and his admission of the breach, the figure of 15 drives be then reduced to 10 drives which the Stewards believed, based on Mr Anderson’s driving record, was the equivalent of a 2 day suspension.
Mr Anderson said he was a busy Junior Driver who was currently leading the Junior Driver premiership being 5 wins in front to the second placed driver. He asked that if the penalty was to be a suspension that part of it be offset by a fine to minimise the risk of him losing the Junior Drivers premiership. To a question from the Committee and after considerable deliberation Mr Anderson decided not to seek a deferment of any suspension should one be imposed.
Mr Dunn said that given Mr Anderson was leading the Junior Drivers premiership a 2 days suspension at this part of the season would be a big blow to his chances of winning it.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee has reviewed the films of the race from the top of the straight and also had the benefit of viewing them several times during the earlier protest hearing. The films show Mr Cox, who was leading the race, drifted out and began to weaken which meant that Mr Anderson, who was in the trail, became the lead horse and therefore had an obligation to maintain a straight line to the finish. When the Passing Lane commenced Mr Davis, who was trailing Mr Anderson, commenced to move into the lane and began to get established before Mr Anderson shifted down preventing Mr Davis from the full access he was entitled to. Mr Davis then had to restrain his horse and sit quietly for the remainder of the Passing Lane because he did not have the clear run he was entitled to.
Mr Anderson has a clear record in relation to the Rule and has admitted the breach although given the earlier protest decision that is not surprising. The starting point penalty is a 6 drive suspension or $300 fine for a driver who is likely to cause interference to another horse. Mr Anderson actually did cause interference and the Committee agrees that justifies an uplift to the starting point penalty even more so given that Mr Anderson’s actions have led to him being relegated from 2nd to 4th.
Taking all of the above into account the Committee believes on this occasion a period of suspension (not partially offset as requested by Mr Anderson by a fine) is an appropriate penalty. On the basis that Mr Anderson usually has 5 drives per meeting we impose a penalty of 10 drives or 2 days.
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: 268a12ab7d54d56a86dd80ee3e3daab6
informantnumber: A9959
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Causing Interference
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 25/06/2018
hearing_title: Marlborough HRC 22 June 2018 - R 1 - Chair, Mr P Williams
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 1, the “Monaro Mia Group 1 Runner Up Handicap Trot”, Information A9959 was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N Ydgren alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) and the Passing Lane Regulations by Junior Horseman Mr M Anderson. The Information stated “M Anderson (NOBLE MISTRESS) allowed his horse to shift inwards into the passing lane when having a clear and unimpeded run to the finish resulting in MADELINE STOWE being blocked for clear running”.
Mr Anderson signed the Information stating he admitted the breach and at the beginning of the hearing confirmed that was correct and that he understood the Rule under which he was charged. He was assisted by Open Horseman Mr J Dunn.
Rule 869 (4) states:- “No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress”.
Clause 4 of the Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations states:- “In the last lap of any race the leading horse on the running line shall, upon entering the home straight, maintain as straight a course as possible parallel to the running line and allow the trailing horses full access to the expanded inside lane”.
Clause 6 of the Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations states:- “Subject to clause 4 hereof, in the last lap of any race no horse shall move inwards into the expanded inside lane (or any part thereof) when it has an unimpeded run to the finish line”.
This hearing was a follow up to the earlier protest hearing which resulted in “Noble Mistress” driven by Mr Anderson being relegated from 2nd to 4th for not allowing full access to the Passing Lane to “Madeline Stowe” driven by Mr Davis.
Mr Ydgren using the head on film from the top of the straight identified Mr Anderson (Noble Mistress) in the trail behind Mr Cox (Deauville) with Mr Davis (Madeline Stowe) 3 back on the inside. He said Mr Anderson obtained a run to the inside of Mr Cox when that horse moved out just prior to the start of the Passing Lane which meant Mr Anderson became the established leader with an unobstructed run and an obligation to maintain a straight line to the finish. Soon after the Passing Lane commenced Mr Ydgren said Mr Anderson allowed his horse to drift inwards into the lane thereby impeding Mr Davis who was entitled to a clear run through to the finish of the race. Mr Ydgren pointed out that as well as moving inwards Mr Anderson was able to use his whip on 10 occasions when he would have been better served in attempting to shift his horse out of the lane.
To a question from the Committee Mr Ydgren said that Mr Davis had access to the Passing Lane for approximately the first 30m but was then placed in restricted room for the remainder of the run to the line because of Mr Anderson allowing his horse to shift inwards.
Mr Dunn agreed the film showed there was not a clear run for Mr Davis. He said because “Deauville” - the lead horse at the top of the straight - had drifted out at the top of the straight “Noble Mistress” had become the lead horse but Mr Anderson had then failed to realise his responsibility to maintain a straight line to the finish.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Ydgren said the starting point penalty for a breach of the Rule was a 6 drive suspension or a $300 fine. He said Mr Anderson’s actions had actually caused (rather than were likely to have caused) interference which at the earlier protest hearing had led to his horse being relegated from fourth to second. He said for that reason the Stewards believed an uplift in the starting point penalty to 15 drives was appropriate. He added that, given Mr Anderson’s clear record under this Rule and his admission of the breach, the figure of 15 drives be then reduced to 10 drives which the Stewards believed, based on Mr Anderson’s driving record, was the equivalent of a 2 day suspension.
Mr Anderson said he was a busy Junior Driver who was currently leading the Junior Driver premiership being 5 wins in front to the second placed driver. He asked that if the penalty was to be a suspension that part of it be offset by a fine to minimise the risk of him losing the Junior Drivers premiership. To a question from the Committee and after considerable deliberation Mr Anderson decided not to seek a deferment of any suspension should one be imposed.
Mr Dunn said that given Mr Anderson was leading the Junior Drivers premiership a 2 days suspension at this part of the season would be a big blow to his chances of winning it.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee has reviewed the films of the race from the top of the straight and also had the benefit of viewing them several times during the earlier protest hearing. The films show Mr Cox, who was leading the race, drifted out and began to weaken which meant that Mr Anderson, who was in the trail, became the lead horse and therefore had an obligation to maintain a straight line to the finish. When the Passing Lane commenced Mr Davis, who was trailing Mr Anderson, commenced to move into the lane and began to get established before Mr Anderson shifted down preventing Mr Davis from the full access he was entitled to. Mr Davis then had to restrain his horse and sit quietly for the remainder of the Passing Lane because he did not have the clear run he was entitled to.
Mr Anderson has a clear record in relation to the Rule and has admitted the breach although given the earlier protest decision that is not surprising. The starting point penalty is a 6 drive suspension or $300 fine for a driver who is likely to cause interference to another horse. Mr Anderson actually did cause interference and the Committee agrees that justifies an uplift to the starting point penalty even more so given that Mr Anderson’s actions have led to him being relegated from 2nd to 4th.
Taking all of the above into account the Committee believes on this occasion a period of suspension (not partially offset as requested by Mr Anderson by a fine) is an appropriate penalty. On the basis that Mr Anderson usually has 5 drives per meeting we impose a penalty of 10 drives or 2 days.
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(4) and Passing Lane Regulations
Informant: Mr N Ydgren - Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr M Anderson - Junior Horseman
Otherperson: Mr J Dunn - Open Horseman assisting Mr Anderson
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: a9718d433488c94a9fee397063091973
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: ceecec3e550d1e3b2064dd628dde3bd4
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 22/06/2018
meet_title: Marlborough HRC - 22 June 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: marlborough-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: PWilliams
meet_pm1: GClapp
meet_pm2: none
name: Marlborough HRC