Auckland TC 6 May 2011 – R8
ID: JCA12498
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 are satisfied that Mr Butcher’s actions do constitute careless driving and therefore we find the charge proved.
Penalty:
We impose a fine of $300 and remind Mr Butcher of his professional obligations.
Charge:
Mr Muirhead alleged that horseman Mr P Butcher drove BUNNYS GEM carelessly shifting ground inwards when insufficiently clear causing interference to THANESAN (A Butt) racing into the first bend.
Facts:
Mr Muirhead demonstrated on the videos that the defendant, on entering the first bend, had moved inwards, cramping up THANESAN, which broke. He said Mr Butt had had to take hold of his horse. He believed there had not been contact. He said THANESAN propped at a pylon and had run out of room. He acknowledged that Mr Holmes had crossed over in front of the defendant but demonstrated on a number of video angles that, when so doing, Mr Holmes was always clear of Mr Butcher.
Mr Muirhead called Mr Allison, stipendiary steward, to give evidence. He stated he was on patrol in the tower at the top of the straight. He said he observed that the defendant, when entering the first bend, had crossed too quickly in front of Mr Butt. He said the defendant was insufficiently clear of Mr Butt and that he did not believe there had been any pressure on the defendant from Mr Holmes.
Mr Butt stated that when entering the first bend his horse had galloped. He said this was because a couple of horses had come across. He identified these horses as being driven by the defendant and Mr Holmes. He said his horse had been tightened. It was a young horse in restricted room and it had become scared. He had called out to the defendant to give him room and Mr Butcher appeared at that time to have taken corrective action. He said his horse “had been trotting good before things got tight.” He said the defendant had not come into contact with his horse but THANESAN had less room than he was comfortable with. On viewing the video, he now believed it had nothing to do with Mr Holmes and that the reason THANESAN had a “smaller gap than normal” was due to the actions of Mr Butcher or his horse. In reply to a question from the defendant, he said he probably agreed with him that after he (Mr Butt) had called, the defendant had “backed up and tried to get out.”
Mr Butcher said he had done everything in his power to keep out. He said he had backed up because he thought he was “going to cop it” and he was “saving Mr Holmes’s arse and Mr Butt”. He said he never touched THANESAN. He said his horse was racing with a boring pole and he couldn’t get him out. He said he was doing his best to take hold and was pulling BUNNYS GEM back to get him out. He said he did not think that THANESAN should have broken. The horse had sufficient room.
In reply Mr Muirhead said the defendant’s actions in response to Mr Butt’s call were too late. THANESAN had run out of room and broke. He emphasised these were all inexperienced horses.
Mr Butcher reiterated there was no contact and that a hundred other horses would not have broken in these circumstances.
Submissions for Decision:
As above.
Reasons for Decision:
We understand that these are young horses going at high speed into a bend. In these circumstances it was necessary that the defendant take particular care to ensure that he did not crowd other runners by shifting ground inwards in breach of the rules. We do not believe that Mr Holmes’s actions had any impact. He was clear of the defendant at all times. We believe that Mr Butcher had chosen his line prior to Mr Holmes moving across. This line only changed when Mr Butt called out to Mr Butcher. We accept Mr Butcher endeavoured to take corrective action, as do both Mr Butt and Mr Muirhead, but unfortunately it was too late. Mr Butt was forced to race in tightened quarters and as a consequence his horse broke.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Muirhead has submitted that Mr Butcher’s actions caused interference in a major race and that a $600 fine or 3 weeks’ suspension is recommended in the Penalty Guide as a starting point. He stated he believed either a fine or a suspension was appropriate.
Mr Butcher reiterated that he did not believe he was at fault in that Mr Butt had sufficient room and that he was trying to protect other drivers by his actions. He emphasised he had taken corrective action. He referred to his financial circumstances and asked that a suspension not be imposed as he had 5 or 6 drives at a meeting. He said he believed, in fact, that no penalty should be imposed.
Reasons for Penalty:
The stake of the race is $80,000 and we note Mr Butt’s horse, which finished 5th, lost significant ground due to breaking.
We believe this breach is far from being top end. We accept, as Mr Butt has said, that his horse panicked as a consequence of racing in tightened quarters, most probably because it was a young and inexperienced horse. He says, in Mr Butcher’s favour, that a more experienced horse might not have reacted in this manner.
A significant mitigating factor is that Mr Butcher took corrective action immediately he heard Mr Butt yell out to him. Unfortunately, as we have found, so far as the breach of the rule was concerned, this was too late. A further mitigating factor is Mr Butcher’s excellent record of no breaches of any rule this season. We also take into account Mr Butcher’s personal circumstances.
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: 6327f18c693c796d3d4bf9fe0c8003af
informantnumber: 66770
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 P Butcher drove BUNNYS GEM carelessly shifting ground inwards when insufficiently clear causing interference to THANESAN (A Butt) racing into the first bend.
facts:
Mr Muirhead demonstrated on the videos that the defendant, on entering the first bend, had moved inwards, cramping up THANESAN, which broke. He said Mr Butt had had to take hold of his horse. He believed there had not been contact. He said THANESAN propped at a pylon and had run out of room. He acknowledged that Mr Holmes had crossed over in front of the defendant but demonstrated on a number of video angles that, when so doing, Mr Holmes was always clear of Mr Butcher.
Mr Muirhead called Mr Allison, stipendiary steward, to give evidence. He stated he was on patrol in the tower at the top of the straight. He said he observed that the defendant, when entering the first bend, had crossed too quickly in front of Mr Butt. He said the defendant was insufficiently clear of Mr Butt and that he did not believe there had been any pressure on the defendant from Mr Holmes.
Mr Butt stated that when entering the first bend his horse had galloped. He said this was because a couple of horses had come across. He identified these horses as being driven by the defendant and Mr Holmes. He said his horse had been tightened. It was a young horse in restricted room and it had become scared. He had called out to the defendant to give him room and Mr Butcher appeared at that time to have taken corrective action. He said his horse “had been trotting good before things got tight.” He said the defendant had not come into contact with his horse but THANESAN had less room than he was comfortable with. On viewing the video, he now believed it had nothing to do with Mr Holmes and that the reason THANESAN had a “smaller gap than normal” was due to the actions of Mr Butcher or his horse. In reply to a question from the defendant, he said he probably agreed with him that after he (Mr Butt) had called, the defendant had “backed up and tried to get out.”
Mr Butcher said he had done everything in his power to keep out. He said he had backed up because he thought he was “going to cop it” and he was “saving Mr Holmes’s arse and Mr Butt”. He said he never touched THANESAN. He said his horse was racing with a boring pole and he couldn’t get him out. He said he was doing his best to take hold and was pulling BUNNYS GEM back to get him out. He said he did not think that THANESAN should have broken. The horse had sufficient room.
In reply Mr Muirhead said the defendant’s actions in response to Mr Butt’s call were too late. THANESAN had run out of room and broke. He emphasised these were all inexperienced horses.
Mr Butcher reiterated there was no contact and that a hundred other horses would not have broken in these circumstances.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
As above.
reasonsfordecision:
We understand that these are young horses going at high speed into a bend. In these circumstances it was necessary that the defendant take particular care to ensure that he did not crowd other runners by shifting ground inwards in breach of the rules. We do not believe that Mr Holmes’s actions had any impact. He was clear of the defendant at all times. We believe that Mr Butcher had chosen his line prior to Mr Holmes moving across. This line only changed when Mr Butt called out to Mr Butcher. We accept Mr Butcher endeavoured to take corrective action, as do both Mr Butt and Mr Muirhead, but unfortunately it was too late. Mr Butt was forced to race in tightened quarters and as a consequence his horse broke.
Decision:
We are satisfied that Mr Butcher’s actions do constitute careless driving and therefore we find the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Muirhead has submitted that Mr Butcher’s actions caused interference in a major race and that a $600 fine or 3 weeks’ suspension is recommended in the Penalty Guide as a starting point. He stated he believed either a fine or a suspension was appropriate.
Mr Butcher reiterated that he did not believe he was at fault in that Mr Butt had sufficient room and that he was trying to protect other drivers by his actions. He emphasised he had taken corrective action. He referred to his financial circumstances and asked that a suspension not be imposed as he had 5 or 6 drives at a meeting. He said he believed, in fact, that no penalty should be imposed.
reasonsforpenalty:
The stake of the race is $80,000 and we note Mr Butt’s horse, which finished 5th, lost significant ground due to breaking.
We believe this breach is far from being top end. We accept, as Mr Butt has said, that his horse panicked as a consequence of racing in tightened quarters, most probably because it was a young and inexperienced horse. He says, in Mr Butcher’s favour, that a more experienced horse might not have reacted in this manner.
A significant mitigating factor is that Mr Butcher took corrective action immediately he heard Mr Butt yell out to him. Unfortunately, as we have found, so far as the breach of the rule was concerned, this was too late. A further mitigating factor is Mr Butcher’s excellent record of no breaches of any rule this season. We also take into account Mr Butcher’s personal circumstances.
penalty:
We impose a fine of $300 and remind Mr Butcher of his professional obligations.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr J Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr P Butcher
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: bcdbcef689c285b17edef8d19ab76b0f
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