Auckland TC 6 May 2011 – R8
ID: JCA12453
Meet Title:
Auckland TC - 6 May 2011
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
JHolloway
Race Date:
2011/05/06
Race Number:
R8
Decision:
We find the breach proved.
Penalty:
Having regard to these circumstances and giving credit to the defendant’s excellent record in respect of this rule, we impose a fine of $350.
Charge:
Mr Muirhead alleged that horseman Mr M Jones improved KING KENNY outwards from the running line forcing SAPPHIRE CASTLETON (J Stormont) to race wider on the track with approximately 1750 metres to run.
Facts:
Mr Muirhead called Mr Stormont to give evidence. Mr Stormont said that between the 1700 and 1800 metre mark he was forced from a two wide position to a three wide position by Mr Jones. He said he had called to Mr Jones that he was not allowed to push out but Mr Jones had ignored him. He said at the time he was improving on the outside of Mr Jones and was following Mr Purdon. He demonstrated on the video that he was always hard up behind Mr Purdon. He said Mr Jones had leaned on him before Mr Purdon had moved out. The movement from Mr Jones was gradual and it occurred when he was level pegging with Mr Jones.
Mr Muirhead used a number of video angles to show that Mr Jones had pushed out Mr Stormont in order to move off the running line to a one off position between the 1700 and 1800 metre mark. He demonstrated that the defendant was “leaning on” Mr Stormont before Mr Purdon moved out and that the wheel of Mr Stormont’s cart was progressing ahead of that of Mr Jones when Mr Jones pushed Mr Stormont out.
Mr Jones stated that he was allowed to improve outwards before the 1000 metres if the horse on his outside was not improving. He used the videos in an attempt to demonstrate to us that Mr Stormont was never improving. He said his was a gradual movement and that Mr Stormont was losing ground when he pushed out.
In response to this, Mr Muirhead stated, with reference to the videos, that the defendant’s outwards movement had commenced some 50 to 60 metres earlier than the time Mr Jones was alleging he had moved out.
Submissions for Decision:
As above.
Reasons for Decision:
We are satisfied that Mr Jones is in breach of Rule 869(6)(b) in that he pushed Mr Stormont, who was making a forward movement, wider on the track. Mr Stormont called out to him that he could not push out, but Mr Jones continued to place pressure on him, forcing him wider on the track.
We accept Mr Stormont’s evidence that he was trailing as hard up as he could on Mr Purdon when the defendant commenced to push him out. Mr Jones submits that he did not push out until Mr Purdon had moved 3 wide. It is clear to us from the videos that he commenced to push Mr Stormont out prior to this. We believe Mr Jones’s interpretation of the video to the effect that he had an advantage on Mr Stormont when he pushed out is explained by the fact that Mr Stormont relented as the defendant has placed pressure on him.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Muirhead produced Mr Jones’s record. He has had no breach of the push out rule in the previous 12 months. Mr Muirhead submitted that the Penalty Guide recommended a starting point of a $750 fine in a major race. He said in his view this was too high and did not fit the facts of this case. He thought a starting point of $500 was appropriate and emphasised Rule 1114 and the need for the committee to have regard to the status of the race. In this regard, we note the stake was $80,000.
Mr Jones said the usual penalty for a defended breach of the push out rule was $250 and asked that we not exceed this by too great an amount. He said $500 was “steep” when there was no interference. He pointed to the fact he had about a thousand drives per year and a clear record.
Reasons for Penalty:
The breach is aggravated by the fact that Mr Jones’s decision to push out was deliberate and premeditated. He continued to push out, ignoring the fact that the driver affected by his actions was telling him he was being pushed out in breach of the Rules. A further factor to consider in determining the gravity of the breach is that the horse forced 3 wide was not caught out wide for the remainder of the race but was able to obtain a sit one out, one back. But as Mr Muirhead submitted, that driver (Mr Stormont) had had to work earlier than he had intended in order to obtain a prominent position in the 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: 5e2cfe601d7c39a118799d23ef496861
informantnumber: 66771
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 14/04/2011
hearing_title: Auckland TC 6 May 2011 - R8
charge:
Mr Muirhead alleged that horseman Mr M Jones improved KING KENNY outwards from the running line forcing SAPPHIRE CASTLETON (J Stormont) to race wider on the track with approximately 1750 metres to run.
facts:
Mr Muirhead called Mr Stormont to give evidence. Mr Stormont said that between the 1700 and 1800 metre mark he was forced from a two wide position to a three wide position by Mr Jones. He said he had called to Mr Jones that he was not allowed to push out but Mr Jones had ignored him. He said at the time he was improving on the outside of Mr Jones and was following Mr Purdon. He demonstrated on the video that he was always hard up behind Mr Purdon. He said Mr Jones had leaned on him before Mr Purdon had moved out. The movement from Mr Jones was gradual and it occurred when he was level pegging with Mr Jones.
Mr Muirhead used a number of video angles to show that Mr Jones had pushed out Mr Stormont in order to move off the running line to a one off position between the 1700 and 1800 metre mark. He demonstrated that the defendant was “leaning on” Mr Stormont before Mr Purdon moved out and that the wheel of Mr Stormont’s cart was progressing ahead of that of Mr Jones when Mr Jones pushed Mr Stormont out.
Mr Jones stated that he was allowed to improve outwards before the 1000 metres if the horse on his outside was not improving. He used the videos in an attempt to demonstrate to us that Mr Stormont was never improving. He said his was a gradual movement and that Mr Stormont was losing ground when he pushed out.
In response to this, Mr Muirhead stated, with reference to the videos, that the defendant’s outwards movement had commenced some 50 to 60 metres earlier than the time Mr Jones was alleging he had moved out.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
As above.
reasonsfordecision:
We are satisfied that Mr Jones is in breach of Rule 869(6)(b) in that he pushed Mr Stormont, who was making a forward movement, wider on the track. Mr Stormont called out to him that he could not push out, but Mr Jones continued to place pressure on him, forcing him wider on the track.
We accept Mr Stormont’s evidence that he was trailing as hard up as he could on Mr Purdon when the defendant commenced to push him out. Mr Jones submits that he did not push out until Mr Purdon had moved 3 wide. It is clear to us from the videos that he commenced to push Mr Stormont out prior to this. We believe Mr Jones’s interpretation of the video to the effect that he had an advantage on Mr Stormont when he pushed out is explained by the fact that Mr Stormont relented as the defendant has placed pressure on him.
Decision:
We find the breach proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Muirhead produced Mr Jones’s record. He has had no breach of the push out rule in the previous 12 months. Mr Muirhead submitted that the Penalty Guide recommended a starting point of a $750 fine in a major race. He said in his view this was too high and did not fit the facts of this case. He thought a starting point of $500 was appropriate and emphasised Rule 1114 and the need for the committee to have regard to the status of the race. In this regard, we note the stake was $80,000.
Mr Jones said the usual penalty for a defended breach of the push out rule was $250 and asked that we not exceed this by too great an amount. He said $500 was “steep” when there was no interference. He pointed to the fact he had about a thousand drives per year and a clear record.
reasonsforpenalty:
The breach is aggravated by the fact that Mr Jones’s decision to push out was deliberate and premeditated. He continued to push out, ignoring the fact that the driver affected by his actions was telling him he was being pushed out in breach of the Rules. A further factor to consider in determining the gravity of the breach is that the horse forced 3 wide was not caught out wide for the remainder of the race but was able to obtain a sit one out, one back. But as Mr Muirhead submitted, that driver (Mr Stormont) had had to work earlier than he had intended in order to obtain a prominent position in the race.
penalty:
Having regard to these circumstances and giving credit to the defendant’s excellent record in respect of this rule, we impose a fine of $350.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(4), (6)(b) and (c)
Informant: Mr J Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr M Jones
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 5c398249fe25f8f52cd3ee4569857f1c
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: bdb0f7c1a69f7bfc6d2fec897f9f04e4
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 06/05/2011
meet_title: Auckland TC - 6 May 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: JHolloway
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland TC