Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v C B Ford 5 May 2013 – Decision dated 6 May 2013

hearingid: 5249792c223f617d567fa4e1780a6562

informantnumber: A1602

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 07/05/2013

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v C B Ford 5 May 2013 - Decision dated 6 May 2013

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: NM Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: CB Ford - Graduation Horseman

Information Number: A1602

Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club

Venue: Addington Raceway

Date: 25 April 2013 (heard on 5 May 2013 at Ashburton)

Race: 10

Rules: 869 (3) (b)

Judicial Committee: SC Ching, Chairman - RG McKenzie, Committee Member

Also Present: KM Barron - Open Horseman

Plea: Not Admitted

Charge: Careless driving

Evidence:

This inquiry was heard at the Ashburton Trotting Club’s meeting at Ashburton on 5 May 2013 after being adjourned by the Registrar from the NZMTC meeting on 25 April 2013.

Following the running of Race 10, the Clarkson Sign Studio The Complete Sign Studio Mobile Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr N M Ydgren against Graduation Horseman, Mr C B Ford, alleging a breach of Rule 869(3) (b) in that he drove carelessly when driving CHARLIE KAOS near the 1000m.

Mr Ford had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted and that he understood the Rule he was charged with.

The charge reads as follows:

I, the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(3) (b) in that you drove carelessly by allowing CHARLIE KAOS to shift ground inwards when not clear of GOLD HARMONY which in turn caused GOLD HARMONY to break and lose its chance”.

Rule 869(3)(b) reads as follows:

“(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly:-

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Ydgren gave evidence and used video coverage to show that near the 1000m, Mr Ford, driving CHARLIE KAOS, when racing in the parked position on the outside of GOLD HARMONY, driven by Mr K Barron, attempted to assume the lead and shifted in when not clear of GOLD HARMONY. As a result the near fore leg of GOLD HARMONY struck the near sulky wheel of CHARLIE KAOS and broke, losing all chance.

Mr Ydgren submitted that Mr Ford had misjudged the space available to him, has shifted down when not quite clear, and that is all it has taken on this occasion for this interference to occur.

Mr Barron gave evidence that, approaching the 1000 metres, he was racing in the lead and was challenged for that position by CHARLIE KAOS. He was reluctant at first to give the leaders position away but conceded to Mr Ford and allowed him to improve forward to assume the lead. As Mr Ford attempted to assume the lead his horse shifted in and as a result the near side sulky wheel of CHARLIE KAOS struck the near fore leg of GOLD HARMONY. He stated that GOLD HARMONY began to race keenly when CHARLIE KAOS improved past and initially said that he thought this may have contributed to the incident. Mr Barron was adamant, however, although GOLD HARMONY was racing keenly, off the running line and laying out around the bend, the horse did not shift out and stayed parallel to the pylons. He believed his horse did not contribute to the incident. Mr Barron stated that had GOLD HARMONY not struck the sulky wheel of CHARLIE KAOS his horse would not have broken and he would have stayed trotting. He also stated that it was not unusual for a horse to get keen when another horse passed and that drivers needed to take this into consideration when crossing other runners.

Mr Ford in defence submitted that GOLD HARMONY had contributed to the incident due to the horse shifting out slightly around the bend when hanging out, and racing keenly when being passed by CHARLIE KAOS. He also stated that CHARLIE KAOS when assuming the lead had dropped the bit and eased and in conjunction with GOLD HARMONY racing keenly, caused the incident.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee carefully considered the evidence presented and the video coverage of the incident. We were satisfied that with about 1000m to run, CHARLIE KAOS shifted in when attempting to take the lead and caused GOLD HARMONY to strike the sulky wheel of CHARLIE KAOS and break, losing all chance.

Mr Barron was very clear in his evidence that although GOLD HARMONY was racing keenly, off the running line and hanging out around the bend, GOLD HARMONY did not shift out and stayed parallel to the pylons. He also said that the reason GOLD HARMONY had broken, was due to CHARLIE KAOS shifting in when not clear and the sulky of CHARLIE KAOS striking the near leg of GOLD HARMONY.

Mr Ford had stated in defence that GOLD HARMONY had contributed to the incident by hanging out around the bend and shifting out slightly just prior to the alleged interference. He also stated that his horse, CHARLIE KAOS, had dropped the bit when assuming the lead and had eased slightly. GOLD HARMONY, he said was racing keenly at this point, and had also contributed to the incident.

Mr Ydgren submitted that the evidence and video films were clear and showed that Mr Ford had misjudged the space available to him. He has shifted down when not quite clear and caused the interference to GOLD HARMONY.

Decision:

The Committee are satisfied that approaching the 1000m CHARLIE KAOS, driven by Mr Ford, shifted in when attempting to take the lead and caused GOLD HARMONY, driven by Mr Barron, to strike the sulky wheel of CHARLIE KAOS and break, losing all chance.

We are also satisfied that Mr Ford was not clear in this manoeuvre and has misjudged the room required to give GOLD HARMONY clear racing room. We could find no merit in Mr Ford’s evidence that GOLD HARMONY had contributed to the incident. Mr Barron was clear in his evidence that his horse was not racing unduly keenly at the time and would not have broken but for the sulky wheel of Mr Ford's horse striking the near fore leg of GOLD HARMONY. Our own observations of the video relays confirmed this.

It is the obligation of the driver crossing another runner that they use all reasonable care when doing so, to ensure that no interference occurs to any other runner during this manoeuvre.

The Committee find that, as alleged on the Information, Mr Ford did drive carelessly when driving CHARLIE KAOS causing GOLD HARMONY to break and lose all chance. We therefore find the charge proved.

Submissions on Penalty:

Mr Ydgren submitted that the consequential effects of Mr Ford’s driving was that a favoured runner, GOLD HARMONY, was removed from the race and did not have its chance to compete. The JCA penalty guide recommends a starting point of an 8 drive suspension or a $400 fine. He stated that Mr Ford had a clear record over the past 12 months but added that Mr Ford’s first drive for this season was on CHARLIE KAOS at Addington on 25 April. Mr Ydgren stated that the level of carelessness was just above mid- range and that the Committee consider a penalty no lower than the JCA Penalty Guide starting point of 8 drives or a $400 fine.

Mr Ford submitted that he was a Graduation Driver and would prefer a suspension as penalty. He stated that he usually only drove once a day and when questioned stated he only drove at Canterbury meetings excluding Premier days as well as at Nelson and Marlborough meetings.

The matter of deferment was discussed with Mr Ford, with him opting not to seek any deferment of penalty.

Reasons for Penalty:

In determining penalty, the Committee gave consideration to all factors including the level of carelessness, which the Committee deemed to be mid - range. We also took into consideration the consequential effect of Mr Ford’s driving, which extinguished the chances of GOLD HARMONY, a favoured runner, in the event. The Committee was satisfied that this incident was just an error of judgement on Mr Ford’s part and took into account Mr Ford’s statement that he only drove once per race day. We determined, after taking all factors into consideration, that a suspension of 8 days would be an appropriate penalty in this case.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

Accordingly, Mr Ford was suspended from the close of racing on 5 May up to and including 23 June 2013. (8 effective driving days). This suspension encompasses the meetings at Timaru 12 May, Christchurch 23 May, Ashburton 3 June, Nelson 7 and 9 June, Christchurch 14 June and Marlborough 21 and 23 June.

SC Ching             RG McKenzie
Chairman             Committee Member

6 May 2013

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 869(3)(b)

Informant: N M Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: K M Barron - Open Horseman

Respondent: C B Ford - Graduation Horseman

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: