Rangiora HRC 3 July 2011 – R 10
ID: JCA13218
Meet Title:
Rangiora HRC - 3 July 2011
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
JMillar
Race Date:
2011/07/03
Race Number:
R 10
Decision:
The charge was dismissed.
Charge:
Drove in a manner likely to cause interference.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 10, “Rangataua Ray” Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S W Wallis, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr T S Chmiel, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (4) and the Easing Down Regulations in that Mr Chmiel, as the driver of AZIZA in the Race, “drove in a manner likely to cause interference when attempting to shift DATMYMULLIGAN (K P O’Connor) down the track for approximately 200 metres rounding the first bend”.
Mr Chmiel was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(4) 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.
The Easing Down Regulations provide as follows:
Subject to Rule 869 (3) Careless Driving, 869 (4) Causing Interference, horsemen shall be permitted to make moves with safety, provided they are in a position to do so by having a “clear advantage” over the horse they are about to move inwards, and the horse is clear of other horses on its inside so it can be moved in and that the manoeuvre is conducted in a gradual and acceptable manner.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward, showed video replays of the incident, shortly after the start of the 2600 metres mobile start event. He pointed out Mr Chmiel and Mrs O’Connor racing towards the rear of the field after some 200 metres. He then pointed out CLOSE SHAVE (R T May), which was racing just in front of Mr Chmiel, move down into the one-out line. Mrs O’Connor was following Mr May in the one-out line and Mr Chmiel was racing 3-wide. Mr Chmiel then attempted to shift Mrs O’Connor down onto the markers, there being no other runner on her inside, Mr Renault said. However, Mr Chmiel had no clear advantage and Mrs O’Connor was able to hold her position in the one-out line at all stages. The manoeuvre went on for approximately 200 metres, Mr Renault alleged. Mr Chmiel eventually ceased and eased back to the rear of the field.
Mrs O’Connor stated that she was following Mr May and Mr Chmiel was 3-wide. At no stage did Mr Chmiel have a clear advantage to be able to ease her down in a gradual manner. She said that she was entitled to stay where she was and she had told Mr Chmiel that she intended to hold her position. Mrs O’Connor said that she accepted that Mr Chmiel was wishing to ease her down – that was “racing”, she said, but she objected to how long Mr Chmiel had persisted.
Mr Chmiel stated that he had attempted to ease Mrs O’Connor down and had desisted when he realised that he was going to be unable to do so. Mr Chmiel said that the sulky wheels of the two horses were “level pegging” and there was no risk of either horse galloping. Such incidents were common, Mr Chmiel said. Further, he did not believe that the distance was excessive. He would not have kept going if he did not believe it was safe to do so. Mrs O’Connor agreed with him that it was only the “carts pushing” and she did not believe that there was any chance of either horse galloping.
Mr Chmiel submitted that he did have an advantage early in the manoeuvre but Mrs O’Connor’s horse was too good and held him out. He referred to the video replays. He said that the two horses had “fought for the gap”.
Reasons for Decision:
The onus is on the Stipendiary Stewards to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr Chmiel drove in a manner causing or likely to cause interference. In this instance, there was no allegation that he caused actual interference and it was clear that he did not, so we needed to consider the risk or likelihood of interference.
While Mr Chmiel did attempt for some distance to ease Mrs O’Connor down and while he may not have had a “clear advantage” at any stage, in the Committee’s view, he nevertheless drove in an acceptable manner taking due care. While under certain circumstances to continue his attempt to ease another driver down over a distance of 200 metres could be seen as excessive, we accept Mr Chmiel’s evidence that he did desist once it became clear that he was not going to be able to ease Mrs O’Connor down. He was reasonable and prudent to do so.
The Committee was not satisfied, based on its viewing of the video replays and the evidence of the parties, that Mr Chmiel had driven in a manner that was likely to cause interference to his own horse or to Mrs O’Connor’s horse.
We consider that his driving was, at worst, competitive but not culpable and did not amount to a breach of the Rule.
The Committee did not need to consider whether Mr Chmiel had committed a breach of the Easing Down Regulations which set out the guidelines for what may amount to a breach of Rule 869 (4). The Regulation provides that it is subject to Rule 869 (4). In the final analysis, it is for the Committee to determine whether Mr Chmiel drove in a manner causing or likely to cause interference regardless of the Regulations. In this case, we find that he did not.
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: 54c43b299b6affe37148b525adf73fb4
informantnumber: 66829
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 06/07/2011
hearing_title: Rangiora HRC 3 July 2011 - R 10
charge:
Drove in a manner likely to cause interference.
facts:
Following the running of Race 10, “Rangataua Ray” Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S W Wallis, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr T S Chmiel, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (4) and the Easing Down Regulations in that Mr Chmiel, as the driver of AZIZA in the Race, “drove in a manner likely to cause interference when attempting to shift DATMYMULLIGAN (K P O’Connor) down the track for approximately 200 metres rounding the first bend”.
Mr Chmiel was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(4) 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.
The Easing Down Regulations provide as follows:
Subject to Rule 869 (3) Careless Driving, 869 (4) Causing Interference, horsemen shall be permitted to make moves with safety, provided they are in a position to do so by having a “clear advantage” over the horse they are about to move inwards, and the horse is clear of other horses on its inside so it can be moved in and that the manoeuvre is conducted in a gradual and acceptable manner.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward, showed video replays of the incident, shortly after the start of the 2600 metres mobile start event. He pointed out Mr Chmiel and Mrs O’Connor racing towards the rear of the field after some 200 metres. He then pointed out CLOSE SHAVE (R T May), which was racing just in front of Mr Chmiel, move down into the one-out line. Mrs O’Connor was following Mr May in the one-out line and Mr Chmiel was racing 3-wide. Mr Chmiel then attempted to shift Mrs O’Connor down onto the markers, there being no other runner on her inside, Mr Renault said. However, Mr Chmiel had no clear advantage and Mrs O’Connor was able to hold her position in the one-out line at all stages. The manoeuvre went on for approximately 200 metres, Mr Renault alleged. Mr Chmiel eventually ceased and eased back to the rear of the field.
Mrs O’Connor stated that she was following Mr May and Mr Chmiel was 3-wide. At no stage did Mr Chmiel have a clear advantage to be able to ease her down in a gradual manner. She said that she was entitled to stay where she was and she had told Mr Chmiel that she intended to hold her position. Mrs O’Connor said that she accepted that Mr Chmiel was wishing to ease her down – that was “racing”, she said, but she objected to how long Mr Chmiel had persisted.
Mr Chmiel stated that he had attempted to ease Mrs O’Connor down and had desisted when he realised that he was going to be unable to do so. Mr Chmiel said that the sulky wheels of the two horses were “level pegging” and there was no risk of either horse galloping. Such incidents were common, Mr Chmiel said. Further, he did not believe that the distance was excessive. He would not have kept going if he did not believe it was safe to do so. Mrs O’Connor agreed with him that it was only the “carts pushing” and she did not believe that there was any chance of either horse galloping.
Mr Chmiel submitted that he did have an advantage early in the manoeuvre but Mrs O’Connor’s horse was too good and held him out. He referred to the video replays. He said that the two horses had “fought for the gap”.
reasonsfordecision:
The onus is on the Stipendiary Stewards to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr Chmiel drove in a manner causing or likely to cause interference. In this instance, there was no allegation that he caused actual interference and it was clear that he did not, so we needed to consider the risk or likelihood of interference.
While Mr Chmiel did attempt for some distance to ease Mrs O’Connor down and while he may not have had a “clear advantage” at any stage, in the Committee’s view, he nevertheless drove in an acceptable manner taking due care. While under certain circumstances to continue his attempt to ease another driver down over a distance of 200 metres could be seen as excessive, we accept Mr Chmiel’s evidence that he did desist once it became clear that he was not going to be able to ease Mrs O’Connor down. He was reasonable and prudent to do so.
The Committee was not satisfied, based on its viewing of the video replays and the evidence of the parties, that Mr Chmiel had driven in a manner that was likely to cause interference to his own horse or to Mrs O’Connor’s horse.
We consider that his driving was, at worst, competitive but not culpable and did not amount to a breach of the Rule.
The Committee did not need to consider whether Mr Chmiel had committed a breach of the Easing Down Regulations which set out the guidelines for what may amount to a breach of Rule 869 (4). The Regulation provides that it is subject to Rule 869 (4). In the final analysis, it is for the Committee to determine whether Mr Chmiel drove in a manner causing or likely to cause interference regardless of the Regulations. In this case, we find that he did not.
Decision:
The charge was dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(4) and Easing Down Regulations
Informant: SW Wallis - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: TS Chmiel - Licensed Open Driver
Otherperson: SP Renault - Stipendiary Steward, KP O'Connor
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d95f2c7643a6999dd170d0e1478f91c4
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: 6de408ed08f9342a867a1e05ca414505
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 03/07/2011
meet_title: Rangiora HRC - 3 July 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: rangiora-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: JMillar
meet_pm2: none
name: Rangiora HRC