Invercargill HRC 11 August 2013 – R 4
ID: JCA11902
Meet Title:
Invercargill HRC - 11 August 2013
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
DSteel
Race Date:
2013/08/11
Race Number:
R 4
Decision:
We find the breach under r 869(6)(c) proved.
Penalty:
We believe the matter can be dealt with by way of a fine of $150 and Mr Williamson is reminded of his professional obligations.
Charge:
Alleged breach of rule 869(3)(b),(c)
Facts:
Mr Allison, stipendiary steward, alleged that with approximately 1400 metres to run in race 4, the INTERIOR GIRLS OF WINDSOR DISCRETIONARY HANDICAP TROT, B Williamson (LEFT RIGHT ANDCENTRE) shifted ground outwards forcing SO KING (B Norman) wider on the track.
Rule 869(6) provides:
(b) a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track;
(c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Allison demonstrated on three video angles that LEFT RIGHT ANDCENTRE and SO KING were racing near the rear of the main bunch at the 1400 metres mark. Mr Norman was one out following Mr N Williamson (BET’S BEST) when that horse moved three wide and made a forward move. Mr B Williamson moved from the rail and took the position that Mr N Williamson had vacated. Mr Allison alleged that in so doing the respondent was in breach of the “push out rule” as the head of Mr Norman’s horse was up outside or past the wheel of the cart of the respondent when the respondent moved out two wide.
Mr Allison called Mr Norman, the driver of SO KING, to give evidence. Mr Norman said that he was following BET’S BEST two wide near the 1400 metres when that horse made a forward move three wide. He said he was also forced to move three wide as Mr Williamson moved out into the space vacated when Mr N Williamson moved forward. Mr Norman said he did not want to go three wide and he would have been happy to follow Ms Buchan (who was driving the horse that was one out and had been immediately in front of Mr N Williamson) as that horse had won well at its previous start. He said he had yelled out to the respondent that the gap was his but there was no response from Mr Williamson who had kept moving out. He said the feet of his horse were outside the wheel of Mr Williamson when Mr Williamson moved. He said the respondent was coming out under the legs of his horse and he had no option but to go out with the respondent.
Mr Williamson demonstrated on the videos that Mr Norman had been hard on the helmet of Mr N Williamson when that driver made his forward move. He said Mr Norman had lost 1 /2 a length at that time and he thought he was already out when the head of Mr Norman’s horse was outside his cart. He later agreed Mr Norman was level with his cart but he submitted that Mr Norman was losing ground therefore he was not in breach of the rule when he came out. He also stated that he believed Mr Norman was intending to follow Mr N Williamson three wide and he endeavoured to demonstrate this on the various video angles. He further alleged that Mr Norman was out three wide and had come back in.
Mr Jones said in his opinion for there to be a breach of the rule the outside horse has to be improving. He said Mr Norman had dropped back half a length when the respondent made his move. There was no forward movement at the time and the video evidence supported that. Mr Barclay made a similar observation.
Reasons for Decision:
We are satisfied that Mr Norman’s intention was always to take the position vacated by Mr N Williamson and was never to follow that horseman three wide. We cannot agree with the respondent’s interpretation of the videos in this regard. In addition, Mr Norman has given very clear evidence that he only moved three wide because he was pushed there by the respondent and not through any choice on his part.
We do not find the breach under r 869(6)(b) to be proved as we are not satisfied Mr Norman was making a forward movement as provided in that rule in that he was not seeking to make ground on the rest of the field. However, we are satisfied SO KING was coming/ going forward in accordance with r 869(6)(c) in that Mr Norman was progressing forward to occupy the gap left by Mr N Williamson after that driver made a three wide forward move. There is no doubt Mr N Williamson made the move relatively quickly and his horse was going forward at a faster rate than that of Mr Norman’s but there is no evidence to support the contention that Mr Norman was losing ground on the field. Significantly, the neck of SO KING was outside the wheel of the cart of LEFT RIGHT ANDCENTRE when the respondent moved outwards into the two wide line forcing Mr Norman wider on the track.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Allison described the breach as being at the low end of the scale. He said there had been no protest because of the 6 ¾ length margin between 2nd and 3rd. He produced the respondent’s record, which was clear under this rule last season. Mr Williamson had had 551 lifetime drives and had only one previous breach of this rule. He said he did not believe the respondent should be penalised for his defence of the charge as he had raised a relevant defence.
Mr Williamson asked for a fine at the bottom end. Mr Barron emphasised the respondent was a junior driver with a fine record.
Reasons for Penalty:
We agree the breach is at the lower end. Mr Williamson provided a spirited defence, in that he believed his actions were not contrary to the rule and that Mr Norman had left him a space to fill. Unfortunately for Mr Williamson, we disagreed with his interpretation of the rule and the videos. However, we do not intend to reflect the fact that the charge was not admitted in our penalty.
The respondent has an excellent record and is a very busy and promising junior driver.
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: 2b6084aad867c9887552e900cd33bdd4
informantnumber: A5931
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 09/08/2013
hearing_title: Invercargill HRC 11 August 2013 - R 4
charge:
Alleged breach of rule 869(3)(b),(c)
facts:
Mr Allison, stipendiary steward, alleged that with approximately 1400 metres to run in race 4, the INTERIOR GIRLS OF WINDSOR DISCRETIONARY HANDICAP TROT, B Williamson (LEFT RIGHT ANDCENTRE) shifted ground outwards forcing SO KING (B Norman) wider on the track.
Rule 869(6) provides:
(b) a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track;
(c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Allison demonstrated on three video angles that LEFT RIGHT ANDCENTRE and SO KING were racing near the rear of the main bunch at the 1400 metres mark. Mr Norman was one out following Mr N Williamson (BET’S BEST) when that horse moved three wide and made a forward move. Mr B Williamson moved from the rail and took the position that Mr N Williamson had vacated. Mr Allison alleged that in so doing the respondent was in breach of the “push out rule” as the head of Mr Norman’s horse was up outside or past the wheel of the cart of the respondent when the respondent moved out two wide.
Mr Allison called Mr Norman, the driver of SO KING, to give evidence. Mr Norman said that he was following BET’S BEST two wide near the 1400 metres when that horse made a forward move three wide. He said he was also forced to move three wide as Mr Williamson moved out into the space vacated when Mr N Williamson moved forward. Mr Norman said he did not want to go three wide and he would have been happy to follow Ms Buchan (who was driving the horse that was one out and had been immediately in front of Mr N Williamson) as that horse had won well at its previous start. He said he had yelled out to the respondent that the gap was his but there was no response from Mr Williamson who had kept moving out. He said the feet of his horse were outside the wheel of Mr Williamson when Mr Williamson moved. He said the respondent was coming out under the legs of his horse and he had no option but to go out with the respondent.
Mr Williamson demonstrated on the videos that Mr Norman had been hard on the helmet of Mr N Williamson when that driver made his forward move. He said Mr Norman had lost 1 /2 a length at that time and he thought he was already out when the head of Mr Norman’s horse was outside his cart. He later agreed Mr Norman was level with his cart but he submitted that Mr Norman was losing ground therefore he was not in breach of the rule when he came out. He also stated that he believed Mr Norman was intending to follow Mr N Williamson three wide and he endeavoured to demonstrate this on the various video angles. He further alleged that Mr Norman was out three wide and had come back in.
Mr Jones said in his opinion for there to be a breach of the rule the outside horse has to be improving. He said Mr Norman had dropped back half a length when the respondent made his move. There was no forward movement at the time and the video evidence supported that. Mr Barclay made a similar observation.
reasonsfordecision:
We are satisfied that Mr Norman’s intention was always to take the position vacated by Mr N Williamson and was never to follow that horseman three wide. We cannot agree with the respondent’s interpretation of the videos in this regard. In addition, Mr Norman has given very clear evidence that he only moved three wide because he was pushed there by the respondent and not through any choice on his part.
We do not find the breach under r 869(6)(b) to be proved as we are not satisfied Mr Norman was making a forward movement as provided in that rule in that he was not seeking to make ground on the rest of the field. However, we are satisfied SO KING was coming/ going forward in accordance with r 869(6)(c) in that Mr Norman was progressing forward to occupy the gap left by Mr N Williamson after that driver made a three wide forward move. There is no doubt Mr N Williamson made the move relatively quickly and his horse was going forward at a faster rate than that of Mr Norman’s but there is no evidence to support the contention that Mr Norman was losing ground on the field. Significantly, the neck of SO KING was outside the wheel of the cart of LEFT RIGHT ANDCENTRE when the respondent moved outwards into the two wide line forcing Mr Norman wider on the track.
Decision:
We find the breach under r 869(6)(c) proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Allison described the breach as being at the low end of the scale. He said there had been no protest because of the 6 ¾ length margin between 2nd and 3rd. He produced the respondent’s record, which was clear under this rule last season. Mr Williamson had had 551 lifetime drives and had only one previous breach of this rule. He said he did not believe the respondent should be penalised for his defence of the charge as he had raised a relevant defence.
Mr Williamson asked for a fine at the bottom end. Mr Barron emphasised the respondent was a junior driver with a fine record.
reasonsforpenalty:
We agree the breach is at the lower end. Mr Williamson provided a spirited defence, in that he believed his actions were not contrary to the rule and that Mr Norman had left him a space to fill. Unfortunately for Mr Williamson, we disagreed with his interpretation of the rule and the videos. However, we do not intend to reflect the fact that the charge was not admitted in our penalty.
The respondent has an excellent record and is a very busy and promising junior driver.
penalty:
We believe the matter can be dealt with by way of a fine of $150 and Mr Williamson is reminded of his professional obligations.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b),(c)
Informant: Mr C Allison - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr B Williamson - Junior Horseman
Otherperson: Mr M Jones and Mr B Barclay assisting Mr Williamson at the hearing as to breach of the rule, Mr C Barron - Open Horseman, assisting Mr Williamson at the penalty hearing
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 0df0f9669f96af8b8cff1b4759cf24a5
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 8865ddc277c076cf9771a1024ef10d42
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 11/08/2013
meet_title: Invercargill HRC - 11 August 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: invercargill-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: DSteel
meet_pm2: none
name: Invercargill HRC