Rangiora HRC 22 December 2013 – R9 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA14368
Meet Title:
Rangiora HRC - 22 December 2013
Meet Chair:
KHales
Meet Committee Member 1:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2013/12/22
Race Number:
R9
Decision:
The information is found to be proved accordingly.
Penalty:
Mr McNally is fined $200.
Facts:
It was alleged that Mr McNally drove in a manner which caused interference to his own runner by attempting to shift Unique Chance (R Payne) wider on the track when not in a position to do so.
Mr N Ydgren (Stipendiary Steward) showed the incident which gave rise to the charge on the video coverage. As the field approached the 600 metre mark, Mr Payne, who was racing on the inside of Glamar Girls (R Close) managed to flush Mr Close out to a three wide position. Mr Payne then "tacked on" to Mr Close so that he was also racing in a three wide position. However, in so doing so, Mr Payne created a space which Mr McNally moved into. Mr McNally in turn created a space which Firebreak (Mr R May) moved into. Mr McNally was expecting Mr Payne to go out to a four wide position which did not eventuate.
He said Mr McNally could not move Mr Payne out as they were racing head to head, that is to say that Mr McNally did not have a clear advantage over Mr Payne which he confirmed in oral evidence given to the hearing. That meant that Mr McNally found himself racing in tight quarters, and as a consequence, Mr McNally's horse (Jericho) broke from its gait.
Mr McNally put it to Mr Payne that there was no advantage either way which would entitle him to move him out. Mr McNally wondered why he could not attempt to move Mr Payne wider on the track because he (McNally) had nowhere to go. He further alleged that Mr Payne was four wide because he (McNally) followed Mr Close who was racing three wide at all times. This was disputed by Mr Payne who was sure that he was never four wide.
In summary Mr Renault said that Mr McNally never was able to force Mr Payne out and as a consequence ran out of room, causing his horse to break.
Mr McNally said that the rules seemed to contradict themselves, because the rules do not cover the situation where no-one has a clear advantage which therefore meant that he was entitled to push out. He also said that Mr May should not have taken the space that he had vacated because it meant he (McNally) then had nowhere to go.
Submissions for Decision:
The Stipendiary Stewards submitted that Mr McNally had not placed himself in a position whereby he could force Mr Payne out because he did not at any stage in terms of the Easing Down Regulations have a clear advantage over Mr Payne. The end result was that Mr McNally's horse was put into tight quarters, by Mr McNally's own actions and broke from its gait.
Mr McNally took the view that the Easing Down Regulations were unclear in situations where neither horse had a clear advantage and said that because he had nowhere to go that he was entitled to do what he did.
Reasons for Decision:
This information has been difficult to determine because the video evidence was not that conclusive. We therefore have had to give careful consideration to the oral evidence and to the submissions made.
Mr Payne told the hearing that when Mr McNally attempted to push him out that they were racing head to head. Mr McNally agreed with that. Mr Payne said that he was never four wide and we accept Mr Payne's oral evidence in that regard. This aspect of the evidence was also supported by the video evidence.
The Easing Down Regulations provide that in order for another horse to be shifted out, that the runner attempting to ease down or force out must have a clear advantage over the horse that he is attempting to ease down or force out. We are satisfied that Mr McNally did not have a clear advantage not only from the evidence that we saw and heard, but also on Mr McNally's own admission ("We were racing head to head").
Regrettably having attempted to push Mr Payne out, and being unable to do so Mr McNally then found that Mr May had taken the space that he had vacated (which Mr May was perfectly entitled to do).
The end result was that Mr McNally found himself racing in tight quarters, and as he admitted, he had nowhere to go, and consequently, his horse broke from its gait.
In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that Mr McNally drove in a manner which caused interference to his own horse.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Renault advised us that Mr McNally was a busy professional horseman, having had 103 drives in the current season and 219 drives in the 2012/2013 season.
He said he has a clear record. The Stipendiary Stewards considered that the degree of carelessness which caused Mr McNally's horse to break was at the low to mid-range of the scale.
Mr Renault submitted that a fine in the region of $200 to $300 should be imposed.
Mr McNally did not have any submissions on penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
In determining penalty, we have had regard to the Judicial Control Authority's penalty guide which provides a starting point of a fine of $400 or a suspension of eight drives.
In this case there were no aggravating features which warrant an uplift on the starting point.
The mitigating features are Mr McNally's good record and the fact that the degree of carelessness which caused the incident was at the lower end of the scale. No other horses were affected. These mitigating features enables us to afford Mr McNally a discount of $200 on our starting point.
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: 7b1c058e551e2f92b5d3b68c4752f036
informantnumber: A6452
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Causing interference to his own horse
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 17/12/2013
hearing_title: Rangiora HRC 22 December 2013 - R9 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
It was alleged that Mr McNally drove in a manner which caused interference to his own runner by attempting to shift Unique Chance (R Payne) wider on the track when not in a position to do so.
Mr N Ydgren (Stipendiary Steward) showed the incident which gave rise to the charge on the video coverage. As the field approached the 600 metre mark, Mr Payne, who was racing on the inside of Glamar Girls (R Close) managed to flush Mr Close out to a three wide position. Mr Payne then "tacked on" to Mr Close so that he was also racing in a three wide position. However, in so doing so, Mr Payne created a space which Mr McNally moved into. Mr McNally in turn created a space which Firebreak (Mr R May) moved into. Mr McNally was expecting Mr Payne to go out to a four wide position which did not eventuate.
He said Mr McNally could not move Mr Payne out as they were racing head to head, that is to say that Mr McNally did not have a clear advantage over Mr Payne which he confirmed in oral evidence given to the hearing. That meant that Mr McNally found himself racing in tight quarters, and as a consequence, Mr McNally's horse (Jericho) broke from its gait.
Mr McNally put it to Mr Payne that there was no advantage either way which would entitle him to move him out. Mr McNally wondered why he could not attempt to move Mr Payne wider on the track because he (McNally) had nowhere to go. He further alleged that Mr Payne was four wide because he (McNally) followed Mr Close who was racing three wide at all times. This was disputed by Mr Payne who was sure that he was never four wide.
In summary Mr Renault said that Mr McNally never was able to force Mr Payne out and as a consequence ran out of room, causing his horse to break.
Mr McNally said that the rules seemed to contradict themselves, because the rules do not cover the situation where no-one has a clear advantage which therefore meant that he was entitled to push out. He also said that Mr May should not have taken the space that he had vacated because it meant he (McNally) then had nowhere to go.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
The Stipendiary Stewards submitted that Mr McNally had not placed himself in a position whereby he could force Mr Payne out because he did not at any stage in terms of the Easing Down Regulations have a clear advantage over Mr Payne. The end result was that Mr McNally's horse was put into tight quarters, by Mr McNally's own actions and broke from its gait.
Mr McNally took the view that the Easing Down Regulations were unclear in situations where neither horse had a clear advantage and said that because he had nowhere to go that he was entitled to do what he did.
reasonsfordecision:
This information has been difficult to determine because the video evidence was not that conclusive. We therefore have had to give careful consideration to the oral evidence and to the submissions made.
Mr Payne told the hearing that when Mr McNally attempted to push him out that they were racing head to head. Mr McNally agreed with that. Mr Payne said that he was never four wide and we accept Mr Payne's oral evidence in that regard. This aspect of the evidence was also supported by the video evidence.
The Easing Down Regulations provide that in order for another horse to be shifted out, that the runner attempting to ease down or force out must have a clear advantage over the horse that he is attempting to ease down or force out. We are satisfied that Mr McNally did not have a clear advantage not only from the evidence that we saw and heard, but also on Mr McNally's own admission ("We were racing head to head").
Regrettably having attempted to push Mr Payne out, and being unable to do so Mr McNally then found that Mr May had taken the space that he had vacated (which Mr May was perfectly entitled to do).
The end result was that Mr McNally found himself racing in tight quarters, and as he admitted, he had nowhere to go, and consequently, his horse broke from its gait.
In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that Mr McNally drove in a manner which caused interference to his own horse.
Decision:
The information is found to be proved accordingly.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Renault advised us that Mr McNally was a busy professional horseman, having had 103 drives in the current season and 219 drives in the 2012/2013 season.
He said he has a clear record. The Stipendiary Stewards considered that the degree of carelessness which caused Mr McNally's horse to break was at the low to mid-range of the scale.
Mr Renault submitted that a fine in the region of $200 to $300 should be imposed.
Mr McNally did not have any submissions on penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
In determining penalty, we have had regard to the Judicial Control Authority's penalty guide which provides a starting point of a fine of $400 or a suspension of eight drives.
In this case there were no aggravating features which warrant an uplift on the starting point.
The mitigating features are Mr McNally's good record and the fact that the degree of carelessness which caused the incident was at the lower end of the scale. No other horses were affected. These mitigating features enables us to afford Mr McNally a discount of $200 on our starting point.
penalty:
Mr McNally is fined $200.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 869(4)
Informant: Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: S McNally - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr N Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: bdff7daa5d485246f06b41ecd692a3a1
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: c9ce6f06ea72bd426bade83e1f3773af
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 22/12/2013
meet_title: Rangiora HRC - 22 December 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: rangiora-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: KHales
meet_pm1: RMcKenzie
meet_pm2: none
name: Rangiora HRC