Winton HRC 16 December 2018 – R 10 (penalty decision heard 4 January 2019 at Roxburgh) – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA12711
Meet Title:
Winton HRC - 16 December 2018
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
MConway
Race Date:
2018/12/16
Race Number:
R 10
Decision:
We thus find the charge proved.
We require submissions as to penalty. An appropriate time for oral submissions is the Roxburgh meeting on 4 January. Should this date not be acceptable, an alternative day is 6 January at Cromwell.
Penalty:
Mr Williamson is fined the sum of $300.
Facts:
Mr Munro, Stipendiary Steward, alleged that Mr Williamson (TOUCHE) drove carelessly near the 1300 metres by shifting inwards when insufficiently clear of ELEGANT JEWEL (J Morrison) and REFLECTIONSOFMYLIFE (J Cox) resulting in REFLECTIONSOFMYLIFE breaking.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Renault demonstrated on the videos that shortly after the start Mr Cox was racing on the pylons to the inside of Mr Morrison. Mr Cox galloped and lost his position. He believed this was due to Mr Cox being forced over a marker because the respondent had shifted inwards. He said Mr Williamson was chasing his horse with the reins and it had shifted downwards on the track. Mr Williamson can be seen to be jiggling in the cart to relieve the pressure on the horses to his inside. This was too late as the incident had occurred.
Mr Renault demonstrated that as Mr Williamson cleared the wheel of Mr Walkinshaw (RAZCAL ALLEY) he went forward. He said Mr Williamson’s outwards movement was after Mr Cox had been checked and was thus too little too late. Mr Williamson had looked and decided to chase his horse with the reins on two occasions.
Mr Munro said Mr Williamson was 4 wide at the winning post and shortly thereafter was trying to get to a 2 off position from the marker pegs.
Mr Munro called Mr Cox to give evidence. He said he had drawn 1 on the second line and initially could not keep up. Mr Morrison was on his outside. After some 20 metres it got tight and he went over a marker or two. He said he received pressure from Mr Morrison. He yelled but not until after he galloped. He demonstrated on the videos that the face of Mr Morrison’s horse was facing towards him at the time. He thought it was due to pressure on Mr Morrison’s horse from the outside.
Mr Munro questioned Mr Cox who agreed there was always a gap between Mr Williamson and Mr Larsen (AURELIA COTTA) who was racing to the outside of Mr Williamson. However, when Mr Williamson had the videos replayed Mr Cox agreed there was a time that Mr Larsen’s wheel line was inside that of the respondents. Mr Williamson said he believed Mr Larsen had marginally let his horse shift in on him. Mr Cox said yes that was possible and that Mr Williamson had placed pressure on Mr Morrison who had placed pressure on him. Mr Cox said he believed Mr Williamson’s horse was hanging in a touch. Mr Cox said Mr Morrison had said to him that he believed ELEGANT JEWEL had contributed to the incident. It had shied last start and, on this occasion, it may have shied away from Mr Williamson’s horse. Mr Cox thought Mr Morrison’s horse had ducked in marginally.
Mr Cox stated Mr Williamson’s horse was hanging and running in when Mr Williamson was urging it. He said Mr Morrison’s horse turned its head in, away from Mr Williamson’s horse. He said there was contact cart on cart with Mr Morrison and then he went over the markers. He believed Mr Morrison yelled out to Mr Williamson.
Mr Williamson asked Mr Cox if he could see on the video that he was receiving pressure from Mr Larsen. He said yes, that prior to the incident Mr Williamson was very close to Mr Larsen. They were racing very tight. He said Mr Walkinshaw had every right to be where he was and he was pulling back to assist. Mr Cox said in response to questioning by Mr Williamson that Mr Williamson was better to go forward and away from Mr Walkinshaw. He added that if he had been driving Mr Williamson’s horse, he believed he would have done the same thing. He noted again that Mr Williamson’s horse was hanging.
Mr Morrison gave evidence. He stated he had drawn 3 on the second line and was racing outside Mr Cox. His recollection of the incident was that he received pressure from runners to his outside. His horse had a history of galloping during the race. There was tightening and he believed his horse over-reacted a little, which tightened up the horse on his inside. Mr Williamson’s horse had ducked in and he yelled for room. Mr Cox went over the markers and galloped at the same time. He believed Mr Williamson took evasive action straight away. There was no severe contact. Mr Morrison agreed with Mr Munro that outside pressure from Mr Williamson had caused Mr Cox to gallop.
Mr Williamson questioned Mr Morrison. He asked whether Mr Morrison believed there were 5 horses in a space for 4. Mr Morrison said this was correct. He asked Mr Morrison whether the safest movement to avoid contact in the incident was to move forward. Mr Morrison said, “Yes, definitely.” Mr Morrison said he believed Mr Williamson’s only option was to go forward. If he went out there would be contact with Mr Larsen; if he went back Mr Walkinshaw was there. He put this proposition to Mr Morrison who accepted that Mr Larsen was putting pressure on Mr Williamson at the time and this had contributed to the incident. He agreed with Mr Williamson that Mr Larsen at the winning post was 5 wide and was angling his horse into the bend aiming for the position that Mr Williamson was trying to take. He then further agreed with Mr Williamson that Mr Larsen might have been only 4 to 4 ½ horse widths out in that the horses were not wheel to wheel and the margin could be closer when the horses were leg to leg.
Mr Williamson said his questioning of the witnesses had indicated the nature of his defence. He had been tightened by Mr Larsen prior to the incident and in the interests of safety the only option he had was to go forward. He accepted TOUCHE had come in a touch when he tried to urge it forward. Mr Williamson said, “At the time, to be honest, I would have put more blame on my own horse’s actions.” He said the horse had pulled up sore. It had been vetted on the Tuesday before the meeting and the horse was okay. Mr Williamson emphasised that Mr Morrison had said that his horse had over-reacted and had contributed to the incident.
Mr Williamson believed that with Mr Larsen’s wheel to his outside, he had no option to come out otherwise there would have been severe contact. Mr Williamson said, “I don’t believe that myself as a driver had any choice to come out from Mr Morrison’s wheel prior to the event…. I believe that I could have come into severe contact with Mr Larsen’s cart and my horse would have been climbing in it with its front legs.” The footage was not helpful, he said, as it was difficult to see exactly where the horses were when Mr Cox went over the markers. It was impossible to see where everyone was in relation to each other. He said it was only possible to make educated guesses. He said Mr Larsen had placed pressure on his runner almost the whole way during the event.
Mr Munro said that at no stage of the interview with Mr Williamson before he was charged had Mr Williamson said that Mr Larsen was the issue. He asked, “So why has that changed?” Mr Williamson replied, “At the time I felt like my horse was the problem but I said, after watching the films, I do believe that there has been tightening from my outside as well. I don’t solely place the blame on Mr Larsen. I do believe that other horses have contributed, but to say that he hasn’t contributed to this incident at all I believe is not correct.”
Mr Williamson said his horse was hanging in. He believed his horse was the furthest away from Mr Larsen at the point of Mr Cox’s contact with the markers. He believed TOUCHE was reacting to the pressure from Mr Larsen. He accepted he was urging his horse forward prior to the incident as there was “a heap of room in front of me.”
Despite the comments made by Mr Cox and Mr Morrison, Mr Williamson said that he did not believe TOUCHE had ducked in. He believed his horse was “moving in on the track grid” as he was “forcing it [TOUCHE] to go forward.” Mr Larsen, he said, was moving his (Mr Williamson’s) horse inwards as he was easing him down in order to save ground on the bend. He thought it was probably to get to a spot ahead of Mr Morrison. He said he had gone forward in the interests of safety. He said his horse and that of Mr Morrison’s had not touched and he believed the racing manners of Mr Morrison’s horse had contributed to the incident. There was only one option, and that was to go forward. He believed no blame attached to him as he was trying to keep everyone safe.
Mr Munro said TOUCHE had been vetted and no lameness had been identified.
Mr Munro told the committee that when Mr Larsen had an opportunity to view the films, he said, “I heard the boys yelling but there was no pressure from me.” Mr Munro added, “We did not believe and still do not believe he was involved.”
Mr Munro stated that the Stewards were of the belief that Mr Larsen’s horse had followed Mr Williamson’s horse (across) in a safe manner with always a visible gap between them.
Mr Williamson said TOUCHE did gallop free of interference later in the race. The horse was hanging in and out and had locked a wheel some 300 metres after the incident. The horse was racing unfavourably. Mr Williamson believed that the horse was sore and that was why it had been vetted on the Tuesday. The trainer believed the issue was in the knee.
Mr Williamson said he believed he was being tightened from inside and out. Mr Larsen and his horse’s soundness had contributed to the incident. The two wide gap was where there was the most room so he attempted to clear the legs of the horse inside him. He believed if Mr Larsen was not there he “would not be in the room”.
Reasons for Decision:
Mr Williamson’s defence to the charge was three-fold: his horse was hanging, he had no other choice but to push forward; and Mr Larsen was crowding him for room, as Mr Larsen was shifting in approaching the bend.
That Mr Larsen was crowding him for room, as Mr Williamson has acknowledged, was not his first thought at the time of the incident or later when he spoke to the Stewards. He was aware that he had shifted in on Mr Morrison and he believed his own horse was at fault. This awareness of his shifting in is evident from the videos where Mr Williamson can be seen to be jiggling in the cart in an effort to get away from Mr Morrison. It was only after viewing the videos that Mr Williamson believed Mr Larsen was shifting in. As Mr Munro stated, and Mr Williamson did not disagree, when the issue was first discussed with Mr Williamson, and we understand when Mr Morrison and Mr Cox were also in the Stipendiary Stewards’ room, the fact that Mr Larsen had shifted inwards was not raised. When viewing the videos, the angles suggested to Mr Williamson that he had not been given as much room as he thought he had by Mr Larsen. The video angles are far from helpful with respect to this assertion. One angle is a side-on; the other is a head-on but angled view. They are in fact side and rear on views of the incident due to where the horses are positioned on the track at the time.
Mr Williamson stated that when he entered the Stipendiary Stewards’ room he believed his own horse was the problem, whereas at the hearing he believed it was tightening from Mr Larsen.
Mr Williamson looked at various times to slow and freeze the videos in order to show how close he believed the wheel of Mr Larsen’s cart had come to his legs or outside wheel. He questioned both Mr Cox and Mr Morrison, who on viewing the videos, agreed with his assertion that Mr Larsen had placed pressure on him, although Mr Morrison stated at one point when questioned by Mr Munro, that he believed Mr Williamson had shifted in, but later he attributed this to the outside pressure from Mr Larsen and the reaction of Mr Williamson’s horse.
Despite the responses of Mr Cox and Mr Morrison to Mr Williamson’s questioning, and we give weight to the fact they are respectively an experienced senior and experienced junior horseman, we are of the view, as are the Stewards, that Mr Larsen never placed pressure on Mr Williamson such that led to his shifting in and tightening Mr Morrison. We note, for example, that just before Mr Williamson jiggles in his cart and TOUCHE moves outwards, this is the time there is the greatest distance between the carts of Mr Larsen and Mr Williamson.
Mr Williamson stated that he knew that there was tightening on his inside and he believed that his horse contributed to the tightening by coming inwards away from Mr Larsen’s runner. He believed that his horse hung in and also that it “wasn’t pacing sweetly either.”
It is evident to us that Mr Williamson is correct when he said he decided to urge TOUCHE forward. We do not believe he did this in the interests of safety. Mr Walkinshaw had eased and this alleviated any safety concerns. Mr Williamson was 3 wide and could have remained where he was positioned in the field. He saw a gap 2 wide and decided to take it. As he said himself he forced TOUCHE forward. In moving into this position, we accept that TOUCHE began to hang but this was after Mr Williamson had urged the horse with the reins. There is nothing in the video evidence that leads us to the view that Mr Williamson’s actions were due to safety concerns. Mr Morrison was crowded as a result of Mr Williamson’s inwards movement. ELEGANT JEWEL may have over-reacted, as Mr Morrison has stated, but this was due to his horse running out of racing room, as it was already racing wheel to wheel with Mr Cox. The consequence was that Mr Cox was forced over the markers. Mr Williamson simply allowed TOUCHE to shift in when making a forwards move. In so doing, we believe he was careless.
Submissions for Penalty:
In our decision of 3 January last we found Mr Williamson to be in breach of r 869(3)(b) in that he drove carelessly in race 10 at Winton HRC meeting on 16 December 2018 when near the 1300 metres he shifted inwards when insufficiently clear of ELEGANT JEWEL (J Morrison) and REFLECTIONSOFMYLIFE (J Cox) resulting in REFLECTIONSOFMYLIFE breaking.
We heard oral penalty submissions at the Roxburgh TC meeting on 4 January.
Mr Munro, Stipendiary Steward, produced the respondent’s record which he described as excellent with no breach of this rule for at least 12 months. Mr Williamson has had 2777 lifetime starts, 173 drives this season, and 452 last season.
Mr Munro stated the starting point in the Penalty Guide was 10 drives or a $500 fine. He submitted a fine in the vicinity of $300 was appropriate on this occasion.
Mr Williamson stated he preferred a fine to a suspension and accepted the Informant’s submission.
Reasons for Penalty:
We take a $500 starting point. The breach is at the low end of mid-range. Mr Cox’s horse galloped briefly after going over the markers but in essence lost only one position in the field. Mr Williamson’s horse was also hanging in, although this was after the damage had been done as a consequence of his breach of the careless driving rule. Factoring in this and Mr Williamson’s record, which is indeed excellent, we believe a significant discount from our starting point is appropriate.
Decision Date: 07/01/2019
Publish Date: 07/01/2019
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: 4d1f1a5dbebeedc1ec22e87053ccd2c6
informantnumber: A12463
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 07/01/2019
hearing_title: Winton HRC 16 December 2018 - R 10 (penalty decision heard 4 January 2019 at Roxburgh) - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
Mr Munro, Stipendiary Steward, alleged that Mr Williamson (TOUCHE) drove carelessly near the 1300 metres by shifting inwards when insufficiently clear of ELEGANT JEWEL (J Morrison) and REFLECTIONSOFMYLIFE (J Cox) resulting in REFLECTIONSOFMYLIFE breaking.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Renault demonstrated on the videos that shortly after the start Mr Cox was racing on the pylons to the inside of Mr Morrison. Mr Cox galloped and lost his position. He believed this was due to Mr Cox being forced over a marker because the respondent had shifted inwards. He said Mr Williamson was chasing his horse with the reins and it had shifted downwards on the track. Mr Williamson can be seen to be jiggling in the cart to relieve the pressure on the horses to his inside. This was too late as the incident had occurred.
Mr Renault demonstrated that as Mr Williamson cleared the wheel of Mr Walkinshaw (RAZCAL ALLEY) he went forward. He said Mr Williamson’s outwards movement was after Mr Cox had been checked and was thus too little too late. Mr Williamson had looked and decided to chase his horse with the reins on two occasions.
Mr Munro said Mr Williamson was 4 wide at the winning post and shortly thereafter was trying to get to a 2 off position from the marker pegs.
Mr Munro called Mr Cox to give evidence. He said he had drawn 1 on the second line and initially could not keep up. Mr Morrison was on his outside. After some 20 metres it got tight and he went over a marker or two. He said he received pressure from Mr Morrison. He yelled but not until after he galloped. He demonstrated on the videos that the face of Mr Morrison’s horse was facing towards him at the time. He thought it was due to pressure on Mr Morrison’s horse from the outside.
Mr Munro questioned Mr Cox who agreed there was always a gap between Mr Williamson and Mr Larsen (AURELIA COTTA) who was racing to the outside of Mr Williamson. However, when Mr Williamson had the videos replayed Mr Cox agreed there was a time that Mr Larsen’s wheel line was inside that of the respondents. Mr Williamson said he believed Mr Larsen had marginally let his horse shift in on him. Mr Cox said yes that was possible and that Mr Williamson had placed pressure on Mr Morrison who had placed pressure on him. Mr Cox said he believed Mr Williamson’s horse was hanging in a touch. Mr Cox said Mr Morrison had said to him that he believed ELEGANT JEWEL had contributed to the incident. It had shied last start and, on this occasion, it may have shied away from Mr Williamson’s horse. Mr Cox thought Mr Morrison’s horse had ducked in marginally.
Mr Cox stated Mr Williamson’s horse was hanging and running in when Mr Williamson was urging it. He said Mr Morrison’s horse turned its head in, away from Mr Williamson’s horse. He said there was contact cart on cart with Mr Morrison and then he went over the markers. He believed Mr Morrison yelled out to Mr Williamson.
Mr Williamson asked Mr Cox if he could see on the video that he was receiving pressure from Mr Larsen. He said yes, that prior to the incident Mr Williamson was very close to Mr Larsen. They were racing very tight. He said Mr Walkinshaw had every right to be where he was and he was pulling back to assist. Mr Cox said in response to questioning by Mr Williamson that Mr Williamson was better to go forward and away from Mr Walkinshaw. He added that if he had been driving Mr Williamson’s horse, he believed he would have done the same thing. He noted again that Mr Williamson’s horse was hanging.
Mr Morrison gave evidence. He stated he had drawn 3 on the second line and was racing outside Mr Cox. His recollection of the incident was that he received pressure from runners to his outside. His horse had a history of galloping during the race. There was tightening and he believed his horse over-reacted a little, which tightened up the horse on his inside. Mr Williamson’s horse had ducked in and he yelled for room. Mr Cox went over the markers and galloped at the same time. He believed Mr Williamson took evasive action straight away. There was no severe contact. Mr Morrison agreed with Mr Munro that outside pressure from Mr Williamson had caused Mr Cox to gallop.
Mr Williamson questioned Mr Morrison. He asked whether Mr Morrison believed there were 5 horses in a space for 4. Mr Morrison said this was correct. He asked Mr Morrison whether the safest movement to avoid contact in the incident was to move forward. Mr Morrison said, “Yes, definitely.” Mr Morrison said he believed Mr Williamson’s only option was to go forward. If he went out there would be contact with Mr Larsen; if he went back Mr Walkinshaw was there. He put this proposition to Mr Morrison who accepted that Mr Larsen was putting pressure on Mr Williamson at the time and this had contributed to the incident. He agreed with Mr Williamson that Mr Larsen at the winning post was 5 wide and was angling his horse into the bend aiming for the position that Mr Williamson was trying to take. He then further agreed with Mr Williamson that Mr Larsen might have been only 4 to 4 ½ horse widths out in that the horses were not wheel to wheel and the margin could be closer when the horses were leg to leg.
Mr Williamson said his questioning of the witnesses had indicated the nature of his defence. He had been tightened by Mr Larsen prior to the incident and in the interests of safety the only option he had was to go forward. He accepted TOUCHE had come in a touch when he tried to urge it forward. Mr Williamson said, “At the time, to be honest, I would have put more blame on my own horse’s actions.” He said the horse had pulled up sore. It had been vetted on the Tuesday before the meeting and the horse was okay. Mr Williamson emphasised that Mr Morrison had said that his horse had over-reacted and had contributed to the incident.
Mr Williamson believed that with Mr Larsen’s wheel to his outside, he had no option to come out otherwise there would have been severe contact. Mr Williamson said, “I don’t believe that myself as a driver had any choice to come out from Mr Morrison’s wheel prior to the event…. I believe that I could have come into severe contact with Mr Larsen’s cart and my horse would have been climbing in it with its front legs.” The footage was not helpful, he said, as it was difficult to see exactly where the horses were when Mr Cox went over the markers. It was impossible to see where everyone was in relation to each other. He said it was only possible to make educated guesses. He said Mr Larsen had placed pressure on his runner almost the whole way during the event.
Mr Munro said that at no stage of the interview with Mr Williamson before he was charged had Mr Williamson said that Mr Larsen was the issue. He asked, “So why has that changed?” Mr Williamson replied, “At the time I felt like my horse was the problem but I said, after watching the films, I do believe that there has been tightening from my outside as well. I don’t solely place the blame on Mr Larsen. I do believe that other horses have contributed, but to say that he hasn’t contributed to this incident at all I believe is not correct.”
Mr Williamson said his horse was hanging in. He believed his horse was the furthest away from Mr Larsen at the point of Mr Cox’s contact with the markers. He believed TOUCHE was reacting to the pressure from Mr Larsen. He accepted he was urging his horse forward prior to the incident as there was “a heap of room in front of me.”
Despite the comments made by Mr Cox and Mr Morrison, Mr Williamson said that he did not believe TOUCHE had ducked in. He believed his horse was “moving in on the track grid” as he was “forcing it [TOUCHE] to go forward.” Mr Larsen, he said, was moving his (Mr Williamson’s) horse inwards as he was easing him down in order to save ground on the bend. He thought it was probably to get to a spot ahead of Mr Morrison. He said he had gone forward in the interests of safety. He said his horse and that of Mr Morrison’s had not touched and he believed the racing manners of Mr Morrison’s horse had contributed to the incident. There was only one option, and that was to go forward. He believed no blame attached to him as he was trying to keep everyone safe.
Mr Munro said TOUCHE had been vetted and no lameness had been identified.
Mr Munro told the committee that when Mr Larsen had an opportunity to view the films, he said, “I heard the boys yelling but there was no pressure from me.” Mr Munro added, “We did not believe and still do not believe he was involved.”
Mr Munro stated that the Stewards were of the belief that Mr Larsen’s horse had followed Mr Williamson’s horse (across) in a safe manner with always a visible gap between them.
Mr Williamson said TOUCHE did gallop free of interference later in the race. The horse was hanging in and out and had locked a wheel some 300 metres after the incident. The horse was racing unfavourably. Mr Williamson believed that the horse was sore and that was why it had been vetted on the Tuesday. The trainer believed the issue was in the knee.
Mr Williamson said he believed he was being tightened from inside and out. Mr Larsen and his horse’s soundness had contributed to the incident. The two wide gap was where there was the most room so he attempted to clear the legs of the horse inside him. He believed if Mr Larsen was not there he “would not be in the room”.
reasonsfordecision:
Mr Williamson’s defence to the charge was three-fold: his horse was hanging, he had no other choice but to push forward; and Mr Larsen was crowding him for room, as Mr Larsen was shifting in approaching the bend.
That Mr Larsen was crowding him for room, as Mr Williamson has acknowledged, was not his first thought at the time of the incident or later when he spoke to the Stewards. He was aware that he had shifted in on Mr Morrison and he believed his own horse was at fault. This awareness of his shifting in is evident from the videos where Mr Williamson can be seen to be jiggling in the cart in an effort to get away from Mr Morrison. It was only after viewing the videos that Mr Williamson believed Mr Larsen was shifting in. As Mr Munro stated, and Mr Williamson did not disagree, when the issue was first discussed with Mr Williamson, and we understand when Mr Morrison and Mr Cox were also in the Stipendiary Stewards’ room, the fact that Mr Larsen had shifted inwards was not raised. When viewing the videos, the angles suggested to Mr Williamson that he had not been given as much room as he thought he had by Mr Larsen. The video angles are far from helpful with respect to this assertion. One angle is a side-on; the other is a head-on but angled view. They are in fact side and rear on views of the incident due to where the horses are positioned on the track at the time.
Mr Williamson stated that when he entered the Stipendiary Stewards’ room he believed his own horse was the problem, whereas at the hearing he believed it was tightening from Mr Larsen.
Mr Williamson looked at various times to slow and freeze the videos in order to show how close he believed the wheel of Mr Larsen’s cart had come to his legs or outside wheel. He questioned both Mr Cox and Mr Morrison, who on viewing the videos, agreed with his assertion that Mr Larsen had placed pressure on him, although Mr Morrison stated at one point when questioned by Mr Munro, that he believed Mr Williamson had shifted in, but later he attributed this to the outside pressure from Mr Larsen and the reaction of Mr Williamson’s horse.
Despite the responses of Mr Cox and Mr Morrison to Mr Williamson’s questioning, and we give weight to the fact they are respectively an experienced senior and experienced junior horseman, we are of the view, as are the Stewards, that Mr Larsen never placed pressure on Mr Williamson such that led to his shifting in and tightening Mr Morrison. We note, for example, that just before Mr Williamson jiggles in his cart and TOUCHE moves outwards, this is the time there is the greatest distance between the carts of Mr Larsen and Mr Williamson.
Mr Williamson stated that he knew that there was tightening on his inside and he believed that his horse contributed to the tightening by coming inwards away from Mr Larsen’s runner. He believed that his horse hung in and also that it “wasn’t pacing sweetly either.”
It is evident to us that Mr Williamson is correct when he said he decided to urge TOUCHE forward. We do not believe he did this in the interests of safety. Mr Walkinshaw had eased and this alleviated any safety concerns. Mr Williamson was 3 wide and could have remained where he was positioned in the field. He saw a gap 2 wide and decided to take it. As he said himself he forced TOUCHE forward. In moving into this position, we accept that TOUCHE began to hang but this was after Mr Williamson had urged the horse with the reins. There is nothing in the video evidence that leads us to the view that Mr Williamson’s actions were due to safety concerns. Mr Morrison was crowded as a result of Mr Williamson’s inwards movement. ELEGANT JEWEL may have over-reacted, as Mr Morrison has stated, but this was due to his horse running out of racing room, as it was already racing wheel to wheel with Mr Cox. The consequence was that Mr Cox was forced over the markers. Mr Williamson simply allowed TOUCHE to shift in when making a forwards move. In so doing, we believe he was careless.
Decision:
We thus find the charge proved.
We require submissions as to penalty. An appropriate time for oral submissions is the Roxburgh meeting on 4 January. Should this date not be acceptable, an alternative day is 6 January at Cromwell.
sumissionsforpenalty:
In our decision of 3 January last we found Mr Williamson to be in breach of r 869(3)(b) in that he drove carelessly in race 10 at Winton HRC meeting on 16 December 2018 when near the 1300 metres he shifted inwards when insufficiently clear of ELEGANT JEWEL (J Morrison) and REFLECTIONSOFMYLIFE (J Cox) resulting in REFLECTIONSOFMYLIFE breaking.
We heard oral penalty submissions at the Roxburgh TC meeting on 4 January.
Mr Munro, Stipendiary Steward, produced the respondent’s record which he described as excellent with no breach of this rule for at least 12 months. Mr Williamson has had 2777 lifetime starts, 173 drives this season, and 452 last season.
Mr Munro stated the starting point in the Penalty Guide was 10 drives or a $500 fine. He submitted a fine in the vicinity of $300 was appropriate on this occasion.
Mr Williamson stated he preferred a fine to a suspension and accepted the Informant’s submission.
reasonsforpenalty:
We take a $500 starting point. The breach is at the low end of mid-range. Mr Cox’s horse galloped briefly after going over the markers but in essence lost only one position in the field. Mr Williamson’s horse was also hanging in, although this was after the damage had been done as a consequence of his breach of the careless driving rule. Factoring in this and Mr Williamson’s record, which is indeed excellent, we believe a significant discount from our starting point is appropriate.
penalty:
Mr Williamson is fined the sum of $300.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr V Munro - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr B Williamson - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward, Mr J Cox - Open Horseman, Mr J Morrison - Junior Horseman
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 54cd2469368b82506e58e0f0d21643ac
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 8af01e4e03a34b544d57e0ecd6379d30
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 16/12/2018
meet_title: Winton HRC - 16 December 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: winton-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: MConway
meet_pm2: none
name: Winton HRC