Timaru HRC 26 April 2011 – R 7
ID: JCA12059
Meet Title:
Timaru HRC - 26 April 2011
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
PRosanowski
Race Date:
2011/04/26
Race Number:
R7
Decision:
The charge of driving improperly and the alternative chare of driving carelessly were both dismissed.
Charge:
Improper driving or careless driving.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 7, Monarchy Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr N M Ydgren, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr G D Smith, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (f) or 869 (3) (b) in that Mr Smith, as the driver of PATCH BROMAC in the race, “with approximately 620 metres remaining [he] allowed this horse when in a break to shift outwards which in turn caused tightening to MCBOBBY (D D McCormick) and CARNLEY (J D Lethaby) which allowed [his] stablemate SUNVASION an unobstructed passage to [his] inside”.
Mr Smith was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he did not admit the breach of either charge. Mr Smith declined the opportunity given to him by the Committee to have the hearing of the charges adjourned.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly;
(f) improperly.
Mr Ydgren explained that the charges had been brought in the alternative.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Ydgren said that Mr Smith was the trainer-driver of PATCH BROMAC (a 2-year-old colt) in Race 7. Mr Smith was also the trainer of another runner in the race, namely, SUNVASION which was driven by Mr D J Dunn.
Mr Ydgren showed a video replay of the race and pointed out SUNVASION, which had drawn barrier 1 at the 2600 metres standing start, make a good beginning to lead. After approximately 250 metres, PATCH BROMAC, which had drawn 5, took over the lead and maintained that position until surrendering it to ST PETERSBURG with a round to go, placing SUNVASION 3-back on the markers. Mr Smith would have been aware that SUNVASION was on his back, Mr Ydgren said.
It was the Stewards’ contention that, with approximately 620 metres to run, PATCH BROMAC galloped after contacting a pylon and, according to Mr Smith, “knuckling over in behind”. After the horse galloped, it was alleged Mr Smith had allowed it to shift outwards causing tightening to MCBOBBY and CARNLEY. His shift outwards had allowed SUNVASION an unobstructed run through on its inside. SUNVASION went on to win the race, Mr Ydgren said.
Mr N G McIntyre, Stipendiary Steward, pointed out on the video replays that PATCH BROMAC had knuckled over and gone into a break after striking a track marker. At that stage, Mr Smith had left the “pole line” and drifted to the one-out line, which had enabled stablemate SUNVASION full access to a run inside. He pointed out that Mr Smith had looked behind on two occasions prior to the incident.
When questioned by Mr Smith, Mr McIntyre said that he could see no evidence on any of the replays that the horse had run out. Mr McIntyre agreed that the horse had struck a pylon, ducked in and that Mr Smith had taken action to get it off the pylons. Mr Smith put it to Mr McIntyre that the horse had then knuckled over and “gone about three or four strides rough” (including one stride in a pace) and had then galloped and “run off himself”. His head could be seen turned back in, Mr Smith suggested, as he was attempting to remain on the markers. Mr McIntyre did not accept what Mr Smith had put to him.
Mr Smith acknowledged that he was aware that, earlier in the race, SUNVASION was on his back. He added that, later in the race, he could not hear it behind him and thought that something had gone wrong. It did not look like his breastplate when he looked behind. He pointed out that PATCH BROMAC is a 2-year-old colt having its second race start – in his first start he had galloped behind the gate and taken no part. This race was the horse’s first experience in a field. The horse is “just a baby’ and needs experience, Mr Smith said. He submitted that the head of the horse was “definitely turned in”. It was not his intention to run off the fence and, he submitted, he had not left sufficient room for SUNVASION to get through. Mr Dunn had got that horse’s legs into the gap and was yelling at Mr Smith as was Mr McCormick on his outside. Mr Smith submitted that he had nowhere to go and just tried to hold his line.
Mr Ydgren submitted that it was the obligation of a horseman to take that option which would be likely to cause the least interference. Having regard to the fact that Mr Smith had a number of horses on his outside and none on his inside, the obvious course of action would have been for Mr Smith to remain in his position or shift down the track instead of allowing the horse to drift outwards, as he had.
Mr Smith agreed with that. However, he stated that when the horse first galloped it moved out “probably half a cart width” and, when he tried to bring the horse back down, Mr Dunn had got his horse’s head inside him. With yelling from his inside and outside, Mr Smith said that he did not know which way to go after Mr Dunn had “poked up”. He submitted that he did not cause any interference – the only horse that received any interference was MCBOBBY, which was already stopping.
The horse’s first reaction to being pulled out after ducking in was to continue the outward movement but, Mr Smith said, as soon as he galloped he had taken hold and tried to take him back to the inside.
Mr Ydgren alleged, referring to one of the video replays, that there was no action apparent on Mr Smith’s part to take control of the horse. Mr Smith disagreed and suggested that he had “taken a big hold” of the horse and he pointed to the ground that the horse had lost after he had taken a hold of it – it had gone from trailing the leader to last in the space of 70-80 metres, he submitted.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee listened to the evidence and submissions of both parties and carefully viewed video replays of the incident from different angles, including a “close up” provided by the Trackside coverage of the race.
Mr Smith has been charged with driving improperly or, in the alternative, driving carelessly. In this context, the Committee takes “improperly” to mean “not suitably or correctly” or “in all the circumstances of a case in an inappropriate or incorrect way”.
To discharge the burden of proof in relation to the charge of driving improperly, the Committee is of the view that it is necessary for the Stewards to satisfy the Committee, firstly, that Mr Smith was aware that the stablemate, SUNVASION, was trailing immediately behind PATCH BROMAC and, secondly, that Mr Smith’s actions were designed to assist SUNVASION to obtain an advantage by securing a favourable run on the inside of PATCH BROMAC, when that horse broke with just over 600 metres to run in the race. The Committee sees the second of those requirements as being the more important. As for the standard of proof, the Committee takes the view that the charge of improper driving is of a serious nature and therefore the standard of proof which is on the Stewards is higher than the usual balance of probabilities.
Improper driving is a charge that is not often laid in relation to driving offences. There is no doubt that improper driving is a more serious offence than careless driving. Improper driving requires the mental element of a deliberate and intentional act. In this case, the Stewards were unable to demonstrate the necessary intent to the requisite degree.
The Committee is satisfied that, regardless of whether Mr Smith was aware that SUNVASION was trailing him, it was not Mr Smith’s intention, in attempting to handle the breaking of PATCH BROMAC, to assist SUNVASION by allowing it to obtain a run on the inside of PATCH BROMAC. There was no evidence that Mr Smith had allowed PATCH BROMAC to shift out to make room for SUNVASION to take an inside run. It was not enough for the Stewards to show that Mr Smith knew, or might have known, that SUNVASION was trailing him and that SUNVASION obtained a run on the inside when PATCH BROMAC broke and drifted out from the markers.
Therefore, we dismiss the charge that Mr Smith drove improperly.
In relation to the alternative charge that Mr Smith drove carelessly, the Committee finds that PATCH BROMAC hit a pylon and broke as a result of lugging in on the bend out of the back straight for the final time, while racing in the trail. This was not in dispute. Neither was it in dispute that Mr Smith had immediately taken action to pull the horse off the pylons. From this point the evidence of the Stewards and Mr Smith differs. According to the Stewards, Mr Smith had allowed PATCH BROMAC to shift outwards thereby causing interference to two runners on his outside. Mr Smith, on the other hand, referred to the fact that PATCH BROMAC is a 2-year-old trotting colt having its second raceday start. He described it as inexperienced and “just a baby”. The Committee must have regard to this factor. Mr Smith argued, essentially, that the horse was responsible and what happened was beyond Mr Smith’s control. Mr Smith said that he attempted to take the horse back down to the markers but was unable to do so when SUNVASION had “poked up” on his inside. Mr Smith argued that, at that point, he had nowhere to go and just tried to hold his line.
We found Mr Smith’s evidence to be quite credible and supported by the video evidence. His actions in dealing with what we would describe as a “racing incident” were, in the Committee’s view, those of a reasonable and prudent horseman. In particular, the Committee was satisfied, after studying a close up video replay of the galloping PATCH BROMAC, that Mr Smith was making all reasonable efforts to take hold of the horse in what was a difficult situation.
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: 33473516a73ae3cd9292a845f688cfb8
informantnumber: 69445
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 14/04/2011
hearing_title: Timaru HRC 26 April 2011 - R 7
charge:
Improper driving or careless driving.
facts:
Following the running of Race 7, Monarchy Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr N M Ydgren, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr G D Smith, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (f) or 869 (3) (b) in that Mr Smith, as the driver of PATCH BROMAC in the race, “with approximately 620 metres remaining [he] allowed this horse when in a break to shift outwards which in turn caused tightening to MCBOBBY (D D McCormick) and CARNLEY (J D Lethaby) which allowed [his] stablemate SUNVASION an unobstructed passage to [his] inside”.
Mr Smith was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he did not admit the breach of either charge. Mr Smith declined the opportunity given to him by the Committee to have the hearing of the charges adjourned.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly;
(f) improperly.
Mr Ydgren explained that the charges had been brought in the alternative.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Ydgren said that Mr Smith was the trainer-driver of PATCH BROMAC (a 2-year-old colt) in Race 7. Mr Smith was also the trainer of another runner in the race, namely, SUNVASION which was driven by Mr D J Dunn.
Mr Ydgren showed a video replay of the race and pointed out SUNVASION, which had drawn barrier 1 at the 2600 metres standing start, make a good beginning to lead. After approximately 250 metres, PATCH BROMAC, which had drawn 5, took over the lead and maintained that position until surrendering it to ST PETERSBURG with a round to go, placing SUNVASION 3-back on the markers. Mr Smith would have been aware that SUNVASION was on his back, Mr Ydgren said.
It was the Stewards’ contention that, with approximately 620 metres to run, PATCH BROMAC galloped after contacting a pylon and, according to Mr Smith, “knuckling over in behind”. After the horse galloped, it was alleged Mr Smith had allowed it to shift outwards causing tightening to MCBOBBY and CARNLEY. His shift outwards had allowed SUNVASION an unobstructed run through on its inside. SUNVASION went on to win the race, Mr Ydgren said.
Mr N G McIntyre, Stipendiary Steward, pointed out on the video replays that PATCH BROMAC had knuckled over and gone into a break after striking a track marker. At that stage, Mr Smith had left the “pole line” and drifted to the one-out line, which had enabled stablemate SUNVASION full access to a run inside. He pointed out that Mr Smith had looked behind on two occasions prior to the incident.
When questioned by Mr Smith, Mr McIntyre said that he could see no evidence on any of the replays that the horse had run out. Mr McIntyre agreed that the horse had struck a pylon, ducked in and that Mr Smith had taken action to get it off the pylons. Mr Smith put it to Mr McIntyre that the horse had then knuckled over and “gone about three or four strides rough” (including one stride in a pace) and had then galloped and “run off himself”. His head could be seen turned back in, Mr Smith suggested, as he was attempting to remain on the markers. Mr McIntyre did not accept what Mr Smith had put to him.
Mr Smith acknowledged that he was aware that, earlier in the race, SUNVASION was on his back. He added that, later in the race, he could not hear it behind him and thought that something had gone wrong. It did not look like his breastplate when he looked behind. He pointed out that PATCH BROMAC is a 2-year-old colt having its second race start – in his first start he had galloped behind the gate and taken no part. This race was the horse’s first experience in a field. The horse is “just a baby’ and needs experience, Mr Smith said. He submitted that the head of the horse was “definitely turned in”. It was not his intention to run off the fence and, he submitted, he had not left sufficient room for SUNVASION to get through. Mr Dunn had got that horse’s legs into the gap and was yelling at Mr Smith as was Mr McCormick on his outside. Mr Smith submitted that he had nowhere to go and just tried to hold his line.
Mr Ydgren submitted that it was the obligation of a horseman to take that option which would be likely to cause the least interference. Having regard to the fact that Mr Smith had a number of horses on his outside and none on his inside, the obvious course of action would have been for Mr Smith to remain in his position or shift down the track instead of allowing the horse to drift outwards, as he had.
Mr Smith agreed with that. However, he stated that when the horse first galloped it moved out “probably half a cart width” and, when he tried to bring the horse back down, Mr Dunn had got his horse’s head inside him. With yelling from his inside and outside, Mr Smith said that he did not know which way to go after Mr Dunn had “poked up”. He submitted that he did not cause any interference – the only horse that received any interference was MCBOBBY, which was already stopping.
The horse’s first reaction to being pulled out after ducking in was to continue the outward movement but, Mr Smith said, as soon as he galloped he had taken hold and tried to take him back to the inside.
Mr Ydgren alleged, referring to one of the video replays, that there was no action apparent on Mr Smith’s part to take control of the horse. Mr Smith disagreed and suggested that he had “taken a big hold” of the horse and he pointed to the ground that the horse had lost after he had taken a hold of it – it had gone from trailing the leader to last in the space of 70-80 metres, he submitted.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee listened to the evidence and submissions of both parties and carefully viewed video replays of the incident from different angles, including a “close up” provided by the Trackside coverage of the race.
Mr Smith has been charged with driving improperly or, in the alternative, driving carelessly. In this context, the Committee takes “improperly” to mean “not suitably or correctly” or “in all the circumstances of a case in an inappropriate or incorrect way”.
To discharge the burden of proof in relation to the charge of driving improperly, the Committee is of the view that it is necessary for the Stewards to satisfy the Committee, firstly, that Mr Smith was aware that the stablemate, SUNVASION, was trailing immediately behind PATCH BROMAC and, secondly, that Mr Smith’s actions were designed to assist SUNVASION to obtain an advantage by securing a favourable run on the inside of PATCH BROMAC, when that horse broke with just over 600 metres to run in the race. The Committee sees the second of those requirements as being the more important. As for the standard of proof, the Committee takes the view that the charge of improper driving is of a serious nature and therefore the standard of proof which is on the Stewards is higher than the usual balance of probabilities.
Improper driving is a charge that is not often laid in relation to driving offences. There is no doubt that improper driving is a more serious offence than careless driving. Improper driving requires the mental element of a deliberate and intentional act. In this case, the Stewards were unable to demonstrate the necessary intent to the requisite degree.
The Committee is satisfied that, regardless of whether Mr Smith was aware that SUNVASION was trailing him, it was not Mr Smith’s intention, in attempting to handle the breaking of PATCH BROMAC, to assist SUNVASION by allowing it to obtain a run on the inside of PATCH BROMAC. There was no evidence that Mr Smith had allowed PATCH BROMAC to shift out to make room for SUNVASION to take an inside run. It was not enough for the Stewards to show that Mr Smith knew, or might have known, that SUNVASION was trailing him and that SUNVASION obtained a run on the inside when PATCH BROMAC broke and drifted out from the markers.
Therefore, we dismiss the charge that Mr Smith drove improperly.
In relation to the alternative charge that Mr Smith drove carelessly, the Committee finds that PATCH BROMAC hit a pylon and broke as a result of lugging in on the bend out of the back straight for the final time, while racing in the trail. This was not in dispute. Neither was it in dispute that Mr Smith had immediately taken action to pull the horse off the pylons. From this point the evidence of the Stewards and Mr Smith differs. According to the Stewards, Mr Smith had allowed PATCH BROMAC to shift outwards thereby causing interference to two runners on his outside. Mr Smith, on the other hand, referred to the fact that PATCH BROMAC is a 2-year-old trotting colt having its second raceday start. He described it as inexperienced and “just a baby”. The Committee must have regard to this factor. Mr Smith argued, essentially, that the horse was responsible and what happened was beyond Mr Smith’s control. Mr Smith said that he attempted to take the horse back down to the markers but was unable to do so when SUNVASION had “poked up” on his inside. Mr Smith argued that, at that point, he had nowhere to go and just tried to hold his line.
We found Mr Smith’s evidence to be quite credible and supported by the video evidence. His actions in dealing with what we would describe as a “racing incident” were, in the Committee’s view, those of a reasonable and prudent horseman. In particular, the Committee was satisfied, after studying a close up video replay of the galloping PATCH BROMAC, that Mr Smith was making all reasonable efforts to take hold of the horse in what was a difficult situation.
Decision:
The charge of driving improperly and the alternative chare of driving carelessly were both dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869 (3) (f) or 869 (3) (b)
Informant: N M Ydgren, Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: G D Smith, Licensed Open Driver
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: fd9bae5d264f0996f47f68e2fe2fbc1a
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 121bb33de9a3341eb7badbb516e5c187
meet_expapproval: approved
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/04/2011
meet_title: Timaru HRC - 26 April 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "MemberRole": "Panel member 1 ", "MemberID": "PRosanowski", "Member": "", "OtherExpenses": "0", "KMs": "360", "Total": "223.2", "kmprice": 223.19999999999999, "Approved": "on"}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: timaru-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: PRosanowski
meet_pm2: none
name: Timaru HRC