Forbury Park TC 23 June 2016 – R 8 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA12604
Meet Title:
Forbury Park TC - 23 June 2016
Meet Chair:
GHall
Race Date:
2016/06/23
Race Number:
R 8
Decision:
As the breach was admitted, it is found to be proved.
Penalty:
Mr Williamson is fined the sum of $250.
Facts:
Mr Tidmarsh alleged that Mr Williamson, the driver of BETTORDEAN drove improperly when he contacted the off hind foot of his horse with his foot, which was out of the sulky footrest after the line.
Because of the nature of the charge, the Committee asked Mr Williamson whether he wanted it heard on race night. He was emphatic that he wanted the matter dealt with and confirmed he admitted the charge. As the charge on its face appeared to be a low-end example of the breach of r 869(3)(f), the hearing proceeded.
Mr Tidmarsh had Mr Renault demonstrate the incident on the videos. This showed that as the horses were easing down the respondent extended his right foot and kicked the hind foot of BETTORDEAN 3 times. The contact was well after the horses had crossed the finishing line.
Mr Williamson explained that he had obtained a soft lead and BETTORDEAN was traveling comfortably at the top of the straight with its ears pricked yet had failed to see out the race as he had hoped. He said he believed the horse did not try and had not gone as good as it should have. It had failed to give its best. When he pulled the earplugs it was like a brake had been applied to the horse. He said he touched the horse’s foot 3 times and the horse instantly took off. He said this confirmed to him the horse had not tried 100%, and he told the trainer this immediately after the race. He added he recommended a gear change by way of pull-down blinds.
Mr Williamson said he was not aware that the rule applied after the race. He now accepted it did and said he would not repeat his actions.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Tidmarsh produced the respondent’s record under this rule, which showed nothing this season. When questioned by the Committee, Mr Williamson stated he had never been in breach of this rule in his driving career. This was accepted.
Mr Tidmarsh drew to the Committee’s attention previous breaches of this rule. The only one of relevance to actions after the post was a fine of $500 imposed on Mr Phelan on 16 March 2013. However, this was his third breach of this particular rule, although his first breach where his actions were after the line.
Mr Tidmarsh noted the starting point for a breach of r 869(3)(f) in the Penalty Guide was a $1000 fine. He submitted this breach was low end and that a fine in the $300 to $400 range was appropriate.
Mr Williamson stated he preferred a fine to a suspension and submitted that this should take into account his record and admission of the breach.
Reasons for Penalty:
The charge itself by its nature is a serious one. However, the charge of improper driving can cover a multitude of driver actions and the Penalty Guide starting point has limited relevance in the context of the circumstances of this particular breach. This breach is, as both parties recognise, a low-end example. Mr Williamson foot has come into contact 3 times with the off-hind foot of BETTORDEAN on 3 occasions. They were not forceful kicks and the respondent has explained he wanted to see the horse’s response, as he believed it had not given its best. He has said that his suspicions were confirmed. However, despite the fact the horses were easing down, there are obvious safety issues in that it is impossible to foresee how a horse might react when contact is made by way of the kicking of a foot. BETTORDEAN was near to 2 horses at the time of the breach.
Mr Williamson is a very busy horseman and has an excellent record. This is his first breach of this rule. The Phelan case gives some guidance, as the circumstances are similar, although the driver’s records under this rule differ significantly.
Having regard to the low level nature of the breach, the respondent’s culpability and the need to factor the safety issue into the penalty, and the mitigating personal factors, the Committee is of the view that the matter can be appropriately dealt with by way of a fine of $250.
Mr Williamson’s ignorance of the fact that he could not drop his foot and make contact with the horse after the line is surprising, and he is reminded of his obligation to ensure that he is well acquainted with the Rules of Harness Racing.
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: 3e2376cd045db909a23e61eff63d3310
informantnumber: A7635
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Improper driving
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 26/06/2016
hearing_title: Forbury Park TC 23 June 2016 - R 8 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
Mr Tidmarsh alleged that Mr Williamson, the driver of BETTORDEAN drove improperly when he contacted the off hind foot of his horse with his foot, which was out of the sulky footrest after the line.
Because of the nature of the charge, the Committee asked Mr Williamson whether he wanted it heard on race night. He was emphatic that he wanted the matter dealt with and confirmed he admitted the charge. As the charge on its face appeared to be a low-end example of the breach of r 869(3)(f), the hearing proceeded.
Mr Tidmarsh had Mr Renault demonstrate the incident on the videos. This showed that as the horses were easing down the respondent extended his right foot and kicked the hind foot of BETTORDEAN 3 times. The contact was well after the horses had crossed the finishing line.
Mr Williamson explained that he had obtained a soft lead and BETTORDEAN was traveling comfortably at the top of the straight with its ears pricked yet had failed to see out the race as he had hoped. He said he believed the horse did not try and had not gone as good as it should have. It had failed to give its best. When he pulled the earplugs it was like a brake had been applied to the horse. He said he touched the horse’s foot 3 times and the horse instantly took off. He said this confirmed to him the horse had not tried 100%, and he told the trainer this immediately after the race. He added he recommended a gear change by way of pull-down blinds.
Mr Williamson said he was not aware that the rule applied after the race. He now accepted it did and said he would not repeat his actions.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
As the breach was admitted, it is found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Tidmarsh produced the respondent’s record under this rule, which showed nothing this season. When questioned by the Committee, Mr Williamson stated he had never been in breach of this rule in his driving career. This was accepted.
Mr Tidmarsh drew to the Committee’s attention previous breaches of this rule. The only one of relevance to actions after the post was a fine of $500 imposed on Mr Phelan on 16 March 2013. However, this was his third breach of this particular rule, although his first breach where his actions were after the line.
Mr Tidmarsh noted the starting point for a breach of r 869(3)(f) in the Penalty Guide was a $1000 fine. He submitted this breach was low end and that a fine in the $300 to $400 range was appropriate.
Mr Williamson stated he preferred a fine to a suspension and submitted that this should take into account his record and admission of the breach.
reasonsforpenalty:
The charge itself by its nature is a serious one. However, the charge of improper driving can cover a multitude of driver actions and the Penalty Guide starting point has limited relevance in the context of the circumstances of this particular breach. This breach is, as both parties recognise, a low-end example. Mr Williamson foot has come into contact 3 times with the off-hind foot of BETTORDEAN on 3 occasions. They were not forceful kicks and the respondent has explained he wanted to see the horse’s response, as he believed it had not given its best. He has said that his suspicions were confirmed. However, despite the fact the horses were easing down, there are obvious safety issues in that it is impossible to foresee how a horse might react when contact is made by way of the kicking of a foot. BETTORDEAN was near to 2 horses at the time of the breach.
Mr Williamson is a very busy horseman and has an excellent record. This is his first breach of this rule. The Phelan case gives some guidance, as the circumstances are similar, although the driver’s records under this rule differ significantly.
Having regard to the low level nature of the breach, the respondent’s culpability and the need to factor the safety issue into the penalty, and the mitigating personal factors, the Committee is of the view that the matter can be appropriately dealt with by way of a fine of $250.
Mr Williamson’s ignorance of the fact that he could not drop his foot and make contact with the horse after the line is surprising, and he is reminded of his obligation to ensure that he is well acquainted with the Rules of Harness Racing.
penalty:
Mr Williamson is fined the sum of $250.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(f)
Informant: Mr L Tidmarsh - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr N Williamson - Driver of BETTORDEAN
Otherperson: Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 5fa52f49fc24fc43ce0a6b43dce14758
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 3f116b3c3a1febead5b35c868d75e0a2
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 23/06/2016
meet_title: Forbury Park TC - 23 June 2016
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: forbury-park-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Forbury Park TC