NZ Metropolitan TC 26 October 2012 – R 3
ID: JCA13785
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 26 October 2012
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
JPhelan
Race Date:
2012/10/26
Race Number:
R3
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
Penalty:
Mr May was fined the sum of $350.
Charge:
Failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 3, Coca-Cola Amatil Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr N M Ydgren, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr R T May, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that Mr May, as the driver of LADY GODIVA in the race, “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures available to him inside the final 50 metres to urge his horse when he had a reasonable chance of running 4th”.
Mr May was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Mr May was offered the opportunity by the Committee to have the hearing of the charge adjourned but elected not to do so.
Rule 868 provides as follows:
(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Ydgren said that the Stewards were alleging that Mr May had driven LADY GODIVA with sufficient vigour until some 60 metres from the finishing line when, for about 30 metres, Mr May showed “no form of urging whatsoever”, when the filly had every chance of running 4th in the race. Just short of the post, Mr May had gone back to his reins to start urging the horse again. However, by that stage, the two horses to his outside had gained momentum and had beaten it to the finishing line, Mr Ydgren said.
LADY GODIVA finished in 6th placing. The official margin between 4th and 6th placings was a long head.
Mr Ydgren had Mr R A Quirk Stipendiary Steward, show video replays of the final 200 metres of the race. He pointed out LADY GODIVA, driven by Mr May, racing three places back on the markers entering the home straight. He then pointed out Mr May urging the filly with the whip and reins until approximately 60 metres from the finishing line when he stopped driving for some 30 metres until the final 20 metres, when he again urged the filly with the reins.
Mr Ydgren alleged that, when Mr May did stop driving, LADY GODIVA was holding 4th placing, ahead of the eventual 4th and 5th placed runners, ALBERTO CONTADOR and OHOKA KENTUCKY respectively. Mr Ydgren said that it was the Stewards’ contention that it would have been reasonable for Mr May to adopt some form of “demonstrable and discernible” urging during that 30 metres. Investors in the First4 were entitled to expect that Mr May would drive the filly out fully to the end of the race. The filly had not been fully tested and this had cost it 4th placing, Mr Ydgren submitted.
The video replay was then studied in an attempt to ascertain the exact distance over which it was alleged that Mr May had ceased driving the horse. Mr Ydgren submitted that it was “approaching 40 metres”. Mr May suggested that it was more like 30 metres.
Mr May said that LADY GODIVA had been the favourite for the race and had received a good run. She did not feel “that flash” in the running. When the gap had come, he had “chased” her with the reins and then had hit her three times with the whip. She did not respond and, he thought, was getting slower. He was disappointed with the filly’s performance on the night. A vet test had found nothing wrong. The filly was tiring and it would not have mattered what he had done, he said. She was “all done” and was never going to finish in the first 4 placings.
At this point, the hearing was adjourned. Mr May indicated that Mr B J Hill would attend the hearing in his absence and he was happy for Mr Hill to give evidence in his (Mr May’s) absence.
When the hearing resumed, Mr Hill, trainer of LADY GODIVA, was present. He said that, prior to the race, he had told Mr May that the filly was up a grade on her last win and had a hood on under the bridle. He questioned, having seen the replay, that it was inaccurate to say that Mr May had ceased driving for as long as 30 metres and it was “very minimal”. He conceded that Mr May had “stopped for a bit” and then gone again. The filly was getting tired and the horses down the outside had momentum. Mr May had stopped driving but “probably shouldn’t have”.
After the video was slowed down and the distance measured by reference to the distance between track markers, Mr Hill accepted that the distance over which Mr May had stopped driving was indeed 40 metres. Mr Hill further accepted, in response to a question from Mr Ydgren that, at the time Mr May stopped driving, he was clearly in 4th position. The 4th and 5th placed horses had beaten the filly right on the line, Mr Hill agreed. He stated that he could understand First4 punters being aggrieved.
Reasons for Decision:
Mr May was charged with failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures when driving LADY GODIVA in Race 3. More specifically, inside the final 50 metres when he had a reasonable chance of running 4th as alleged in the information.
The Stewards alleged that, for approximately 40 metres inside the final 60 metres or so, Mr May stopped driving LADY GODIVA. Mr May submitted that it was more like 30 metres but we prefer the submission of the Stewards, which was accepted by Mr Hill, from our own observation of the video replay.
When Mr May stopped driving the filly, she was clearly running in 4th position. Although Mr May gave her three flicks with the reins over the final few metres, she lost that 4th placing and, we understand, the total margin between 4th and 6th was a long head.
Mr May said that the filly was tiring and lost speed, and it would have made no difference whether or not he had continued to drive her out. That we will never know.
However, Mr May had an obligation to drive her out to the finish. The Committee found that Mr May failed to do so and was guilty of more than a simple error of judgement on this occasion. He displayed culpable behaviour – that is to say, his drive was blameworthy viewed by an objective test. Mr May failed to meet his obligation to ensure that the filly competed in the race at all times and never stopped competing. Simply put, he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures.
We were satisfied that the allegation had been made out based on the evidence that we saw and heard.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Ydgren informed the Committee that Mr May had a clear record under the Rule. Mr May is one of the most experienced and busy drivers in the Canterbury region, he said. He referred to the Penalty Guide which provides a starting point for penalty for a breach of the Rule of 15 drives and/or a fine of $750. The present breach, while still serious, only affected punters who had placed First4 investments - not as serious as if it had affected a first three placings, Mr Ydgren submitted. The connections had possibly lost out on a stake of $270.
Mr Ydgren submitted that the breach could be dealt with by way of a fine between $300-400 as opposed to a period of suspension. He assessed the seriousness of the particular breach as low to mid.
Mr May submitted that he drives a lot of horses and always gives “one hundred per cent”. He had not breached the Rule previously, he said. He said that knowledgeable punters would have realised that the filly had been disappointing and that its 6th placing was not his fault.
Reasons for Penalty:
In determining penalty, the Committee had regard to Mr May’s excellent previous record, which was a compelling mitigating factor. The Committee had looked at penalties imposed by Judicial Committees for relevant previous breaches of the Rule which ranged from a 2 days’ suspension to fines of $750. Of course, circumstances surrounding breaches of the Rule vary widely. In this case, it was relevant that only a possible 4th placing was in question. In view of that, we found the breach to be mid-range on a scale of seriousness.
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: 64ac4f677b69b7417d10f324382d4595
informantnumber: A5568
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 30/10/2012
hearing_title: NZ Metropolitan TC 26 October 2012 - R 3
charge:
Failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures.
facts:
Following the running of Race 3, Coca-Cola Amatil Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr N M Ydgren, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr R T May, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that Mr May, as the driver of LADY GODIVA in the race, “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures available to him inside the final 50 metres to urge his horse when he had a reasonable chance of running 4th”.
Mr May was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Mr May was offered the opportunity by the Committee to have the hearing of the charge adjourned but elected not to do so.
Rule 868 provides as follows:
(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Ydgren said that the Stewards were alleging that Mr May had driven LADY GODIVA with sufficient vigour until some 60 metres from the finishing line when, for about 30 metres, Mr May showed “no form of urging whatsoever”, when the filly had every chance of running 4th in the race. Just short of the post, Mr May had gone back to his reins to start urging the horse again. However, by that stage, the two horses to his outside had gained momentum and had beaten it to the finishing line, Mr Ydgren said.
LADY GODIVA finished in 6th placing. The official margin between 4th and 6th placings was a long head.
Mr Ydgren had Mr R A Quirk Stipendiary Steward, show video replays of the final 200 metres of the race. He pointed out LADY GODIVA, driven by Mr May, racing three places back on the markers entering the home straight. He then pointed out Mr May urging the filly with the whip and reins until approximately 60 metres from the finishing line when he stopped driving for some 30 metres until the final 20 metres, when he again urged the filly with the reins.
Mr Ydgren alleged that, when Mr May did stop driving, LADY GODIVA was holding 4th placing, ahead of the eventual 4th and 5th placed runners, ALBERTO CONTADOR and OHOKA KENTUCKY respectively. Mr Ydgren said that it was the Stewards’ contention that it would have been reasonable for Mr May to adopt some form of “demonstrable and discernible” urging during that 30 metres. Investors in the First4 were entitled to expect that Mr May would drive the filly out fully to the end of the race. The filly had not been fully tested and this had cost it 4th placing, Mr Ydgren submitted.
The video replay was then studied in an attempt to ascertain the exact distance over which it was alleged that Mr May had ceased driving the horse. Mr Ydgren submitted that it was “approaching 40 metres”. Mr May suggested that it was more like 30 metres.
Mr May said that LADY GODIVA had been the favourite for the race and had received a good run. She did not feel “that flash” in the running. When the gap had come, he had “chased” her with the reins and then had hit her three times with the whip. She did not respond and, he thought, was getting slower. He was disappointed with the filly’s performance on the night. A vet test had found nothing wrong. The filly was tiring and it would not have mattered what he had done, he said. She was “all done” and was never going to finish in the first 4 placings.
At this point, the hearing was adjourned. Mr May indicated that Mr B J Hill would attend the hearing in his absence and he was happy for Mr Hill to give evidence in his (Mr May’s) absence.
When the hearing resumed, Mr Hill, trainer of LADY GODIVA, was present. He said that, prior to the race, he had told Mr May that the filly was up a grade on her last win and had a hood on under the bridle. He questioned, having seen the replay, that it was inaccurate to say that Mr May had ceased driving for as long as 30 metres and it was “very minimal”. He conceded that Mr May had “stopped for a bit” and then gone again. The filly was getting tired and the horses down the outside had momentum. Mr May had stopped driving but “probably shouldn’t have”.
After the video was slowed down and the distance measured by reference to the distance between track markers, Mr Hill accepted that the distance over which Mr May had stopped driving was indeed 40 metres. Mr Hill further accepted, in response to a question from Mr Ydgren that, at the time Mr May stopped driving, he was clearly in 4th position. The 4th and 5th placed horses had beaten the filly right on the line, Mr Hill agreed. He stated that he could understand First4 punters being aggrieved.
reasonsfordecision:
Mr May was charged with failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures when driving LADY GODIVA in Race 3. More specifically, inside the final 50 metres when he had a reasonable chance of running 4th as alleged in the information.
The Stewards alleged that, for approximately 40 metres inside the final 60 metres or so, Mr May stopped driving LADY GODIVA. Mr May submitted that it was more like 30 metres but we prefer the submission of the Stewards, which was accepted by Mr Hill, from our own observation of the video replay.
When Mr May stopped driving the filly, she was clearly running in 4th position. Although Mr May gave her three flicks with the reins over the final few metres, she lost that 4th placing and, we understand, the total margin between 4th and 6th was a long head.
Mr May said that the filly was tiring and lost speed, and it would have made no difference whether or not he had continued to drive her out. That we will never know.
However, Mr May had an obligation to drive her out to the finish. The Committee found that Mr May failed to do so and was guilty of more than a simple error of judgement on this occasion. He displayed culpable behaviour – that is to say, his drive was blameworthy viewed by an objective test. Mr May failed to meet his obligation to ensure that the filly competed in the race at all times and never stopped competing. Simply put, he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures.
We were satisfied that the allegation had been made out based on the evidence that we saw and heard.
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Ydgren informed the Committee that Mr May had a clear record under the Rule. Mr May is one of the most experienced and busy drivers in the Canterbury region, he said. He referred to the Penalty Guide which provides a starting point for penalty for a breach of the Rule of 15 drives and/or a fine of $750. The present breach, while still serious, only affected punters who had placed First4 investments - not as serious as if it had affected a first three placings, Mr Ydgren submitted. The connections had possibly lost out on a stake of $270.
Mr Ydgren submitted that the breach could be dealt with by way of a fine between $300-400 as opposed to a period of suspension. He assessed the seriousness of the particular breach as low to mid.
Mr May submitted that he drives a lot of horses and always gives “one hundred per cent”. He had not breached the Rule previously, he said. He said that knowledgeable punters would have realised that the filly had been disappointing and that its 6th placing was not his fault.
reasonsforpenalty:
In determining penalty, the Committee had regard to Mr May’s excellent previous record, which was a compelling mitigating factor. The Committee had looked at penalties imposed by Judicial Committees for relevant previous breaches of the Rule which ranged from a 2 days’ suspension to fines of $750. Of course, circumstances surrounding breaches of the Rule vary widely. In this case, it was relevant that only a possible 4th placing was in question. In view of that, we found the breach to be mid-range on a scale of seriousness.
penalty:
Mr May was fined the sum of $350.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 868(2)
Informant: N M Ydgren, Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: R T May, Licensed Open Driver
Otherperson: B J Hill, Licensed Public Trainer
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: c8f5cfda950a200e3ddaccaf1bd3ee53
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 3012b6ba5f17389d6af3f46a437675fa
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/10/2012
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 26 October 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: JPhelan
meet_pm2: none
name: NZ Metro TC