Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v R Holmes – Written decision dated 19 December 2019 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: 681b0bb4aabca54a6fa22cecfcbe4240

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 20/12/2019

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v R Holmes - Written decision dated 19 December 2019 - Chair, Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF

THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing

BETWEEN-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Informant

AND-ROBBIE HOLMES

Open Horseman/ Licensed Trainer

Respondent

Information: ----A9041

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman

Appearing: -Mr S Renault, for the Informant

The Respondent in person

Date of hearing and oral decision:-18 December 2019

WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1]-The informant, the RIU, has laid information A9041 with respect to the respondent, Mr R Holmes.

[2]-This information alleges that at a race meeting conducted by the NZ Metropolitan Harness Racing Club at Addington on 13 December 2019 in race 6, as the driver of SILK, Mr Holmes drove in a manner causing interference to his own runner when jostling for a position with SAM’S TOWN (Mr Close). This is an alleged breach of r 869(4) of the NZ Rules of Harness Racing.

[3]-Rule 869(4) states: “No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.”

[4]-At the hearing Mr Holmes confirmed that he admitted the breach.

[5]-Mr Munro, Stipendiary Steward, identified the horses concerned in the incident on the videos. Mr Holmes was racing 3 wide inside the final 400 metres. SAM’S TOWN was the last horse and was 2 out and to the inside of SILK.

[6]-Mr Renault stated that in the early stages of the home straight Mr Close forced the respondent wider on the track. The respondent resisted this and initially neither driver had an advantage over the other and they jostled for position for some distance. Eventually SILK made contact with the outside wheel of SAM’S TOWN and galloped losing some ground.

[7]-Mr Renault emphasised that at the time of contact Mr Close was ahead of Mr Holmes, as SAM’S TOWN was going the better. Despite this, Mr Holmes was still trying to hold Mr Close in, whereas he should have conceded his position as Mr Close had an advantage over him. He demonstrated that Mr Holmes had used the whip to hold his position. He said there was no issue until Mr Close had obtained an advantage; prior to that it was competitive driving.

[8]-Mr Holmes acknowledged the videos were clear. He accepted he had been trying to hold Mr Close in and they had been jostling for position. He could see now that Mr Close had obtained an advantage and he should have conceded. He emphasised, however, that Mr Close should not have pushed out when he did, as at that time SAM’S TOWN had no advantage over SILK. It was Mr Close that had created the situation that had arisen, not him.

[9]-Mr Holmes said that for a time he was successful in holding Mr Close in, but SILK had sat parked for the last 1000 metres and that had taken its toll on the horse.

[10]-Mr Renault replied that both drivers had been charged over the incident. The charge against Mr Close was still to be heard.

Penalty submissions

[11]-Mr Renault produced Mr Holmes’ record, which was clear under this rule and the related careless driving rule. The respondent has had 106 drives this season and 306 last season.

[12]-Mr Renault referred the Committee to the starting point in the JCA Penalty Guide of a $300 fine or a 6 drive suspension. He submitted a fine of $300 to $350 was appropriate in this instance. He noted that SILK had galloped as a consequence of Mr Holmes’ actions and the horse had sustained a cut to a leg.

[13]-Mr Holmes said he doubted SILK would have run 4th as the horse had been one out without a trail for the best part of 1000 metres. He said if it were not for Mr Close’s actions he would not be in the room. He confirmed he preferred a fine to a suspension and asked that the mitigating circumstances of the breach be taken into consideration.

Penalty

[14]-The starting point in the Penalty Guide is a fine of $300. Both parties agree a suspension is not called for in this case. The aggravating factor is that SILK has galloped as a consequence of the respondent’s actions but Mr Holmes has expressed his doubt that the horse would have run better than 4th. Mr Renault said it might have finished 3rd, but agreed 4th was the more likely finishing position. The Committee’s view is that it is unlikely SILK would have finished better than 4th. It also accepts the respondent’s submission that had Mr Close not attempted to push out when he did, Mr Holmes would not have ended up in breach of the Rules. But as Mr Holmes now accepts, once Mr Close got an advantage on him, his obligation under the Rules was to allow Mr Close to shift wider on the track. There was no horse to Mr Holmes’ outside preventing him from doing this. Balancing these matters, the starting point remains at $300; there is no uplift. A discount of $50 is given for record and admission of the breach.

[15]-The penalty is thus a fine of $250.

Dated at Dunedin this 19th day of December 2019.

Geoff Hall, Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

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: