Rangiora HRC 14 April 2019 – R 7 – Chair, Mr R Mckenzie
ID: JCA14494
Meet Title:
Rangiora HRC - 14 April 2019
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
OJarvis
Race Date:
2019/04/14
Race Number:
R7
Decision:
The charge was dismissed.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 7, Airpark Canterbury Rangiora Classic Mobile Pace (Group 3), an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr R A Quirk, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr T M Williams, alleging that Mr Williams, as the driver of ASHLEY LOCAZ in the race, “shifted outwards approaching the 1600 metres forcing A G’S WHITE SOCKS (R T May) wider on the track”.
Mr Williams had signed the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating that he did not admit the breach. Mr Williams was present at the hearing of the information and he confirmed that the breach was denied.
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.
(6) Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:
(b) a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track;
(c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Quirk had Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, point out the relevant runners on video replays of the incident near the 1600 metres. He showed ASHLEY LOCAZ, driven by Mr Williams, racing four places back on the markers, the first four horses being in indian file, as the field approached the 1600 metres.
Mr Renault then pointed out A G’S WHITE SOCKS, driven by Mr May, improving in 5th position and racing in the one-out line, without cover. Mr Renault alleged that Mr Williams had then shifted out into a two-wide position forcing Mr May, who was past the sulky wheel of Mr Williams’ runner and going forward, into a 3-wide position and having to restrain his horse and get onto the back of Mr Williams, he alleged.
Mr Williams submitted that Mr May had been hardly affected. If he had pushed him wider on the track, it was for one stride, he said. At the point at which he had come out, Mr Williams said, Mr May had a hold of his horse and was not improving. Mr Williams acknowledged that Mr May had improved to his outside but then ceased to improve and that is when he had been able to move out, Mr Williams said. Had Mr May continued to improve, Mr Williams said, he would not have been entitled to come out.
Mr May, after viewing the video replays, said that when he improved to the outside of Mr Williams, Mr Williams’ horse had got “real keen”. Mr May said that Mr Williams may have left it “a wee bit late” but he did not feel that he had been pushed out for more than 10-15 metres, he said. Mr Williams had gone fast when he did come out, Mr May said. He added that by the time Mr Williams had come out, he was not going forward. Mr May confirmed that he had made no attempt to hold his position outside Mr Williams and, in fact, he had been helped by being able to get onto the back of Mr Williams. He had been hoping that another runner would come out in front of him and Mr Williams had done so, Mr May said.
Reasons for Decision:
To prove a charge of a breach of “the pushout Rule”, it is necessary for the Stewards to prove three things. They need to prove that, firstly, that the nose of the wider runner is in line with or past the sulky wheel of the runner moving ground outwards. Secondly, the Stewards need to prove that the wider runner is making a forward movement and, thirdly, that it is forced to race wider on the track.
Turning to the facts of the present case, it was clear from the video replays, and agreed by the parties, that A G’S WHITE SOCKS was past the sulky wheel of ASHLEY LOCAZ. It had clearly improved to that position at the point at which the latter runner moved ground outwards.
It is appropriate to address next the matter of whether A G’S WHITE SOCKS was forced to race wider on the track. Mr Williams submitted that, if it were, it was only for one stride and Mr May said for 10-15 metres. The Committee’s own observation was that it was only for a stride or two before Mr May was able to get onto the back of Mr Williams. In the view of the Committee, “forced to race wider on the track”, in most instances, will involve a runner being forced to race wider for more that a stride or two.
The final element is that the wider runner must be “making a forward movement”. The Committee is not satisfied that the Stewards have proved this element in this case. Mr Williams submitted that, when he made the outward movement, Mr May had taken hold of his horse and was not improving. Significantly, Mr May said that, by the time Mr Williams had come out, he was no longer going forward. The Committee found that it was supported by the video evidence that Mr May was not “making a forward movement” at the point at which Mr Williams moved ground outwards. The failure to prove this element is fatal to the Stewards’ case, coupled with the matter of whether A G’S WHITE SOX was forced to race wider on the track and, accordingly the Committee is not satisfied to the required standard, on a balance of probabilities, that the charge of a breach of the pushout Rule has been proved.
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: 89c17384adfc69c20d2048a3ac803c4b
informantnumber: A11369
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Breach of Pushout Rule
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 17/04/2019
hearing_title: Rangiora HRC 14 April 2019 - R 7 - Chair, Mr R Mckenzie
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 7, Airpark Canterbury Rangiora Classic Mobile Pace (Group 3), an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr R A Quirk, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr T M Williams, alleging that Mr Williams, as the driver of ASHLEY LOCAZ in the race, “shifted outwards approaching the 1600 metres forcing A G’S WHITE SOCKS (R T May) wider on the track”.
Mr Williams had signed the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating that he did not admit the breach. Mr Williams was present at the hearing of the information and he confirmed that the breach was denied.
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.
(6) Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:
(b) a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track;
(c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Quirk had Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, point out the relevant runners on video replays of the incident near the 1600 metres. He showed ASHLEY LOCAZ, driven by Mr Williams, racing four places back on the markers, the first four horses being in indian file, as the field approached the 1600 metres.
Mr Renault then pointed out A G’S WHITE SOCKS, driven by Mr May, improving in 5th position and racing in the one-out line, without cover. Mr Renault alleged that Mr Williams had then shifted out into a two-wide position forcing Mr May, who was past the sulky wheel of Mr Williams’ runner and going forward, into a 3-wide position and having to restrain his horse and get onto the back of Mr Williams, he alleged.
Mr Williams submitted that Mr May had been hardly affected. If he had pushed him wider on the track, it was for one stride, he said. At the point at which he had come out, Mr Williams said, Mr May had a hold of his horse and was not improving. Mr Williams acknowledged that Mr May had improved to his outside but then ceased to improve and that is when he had been able to move out, Mr Williams said. Had Mr May continued to improve, Mr Williams said, he would not have been entitled to come out.
Mr May, after viewing the video replays, said that when he improved to the outside of Mr Williams, Mr Williams’ horse had got “real keen”. Mr May said that Mr Williams may have left it “a wee bit late” but he did not feel that he had been pushed out for more than 10-15 metres, he said. Mr Williams had gone fast when he did come out, Mr May said. He added that by the time Mr Williams had come out, he was not going forward. Mr May confirmed that he had made no attempt to hold his position outside Mr Williams and, in fact, he had been helped by being able to get onto the back of Mr Williams. He had been hoping that another runner would come out in front of him and Mr Williams had done so, Mr May said.
reasonsfordecision:
To prove a charge of a breach of “the pushout Rule”, it is necessary for the Stewards to prove three things. They need to prove that, firstly, that the nose of the wider runner is in line with or past the sulky wheel of the runner moving ground outwards. Secondly, the Stewards need to prove that the wider runner is making a forward movement and, thirdly, that it is forced to race wider on the track.
Turning to the facts of the present case, it was clear from the video replays, and agreed by the parties, that A G’S WHITE SOCKS was past the sulky wheel of ASHLEY LOCAZ. It had clearly improved to that position at the point at which the latter runner moved ground outwards.
It is appropriate to address next the matter of whether A G’S WHITE SOCKS was forced to race wider on the track. Mr Williams submitted that, if it were, it was only for one stride and Mr May said for 10-15 metres. The Committee’s own observation was that it was only for a stride or two before Mr May was able to get onto the back of Mr Williams. In the view of the Committee, “forced to race wider on the track”, in most instances, will involve a runner being forced to race wider for more that a stride or two.
The final element is that the wider runner must be “making a forward movement”. The Committee is not satisfied that the Stewards have proved this element in this case. Mr Williams submitted that, when he made the outward movement, Mr May had taken hold of his horse and was not improving. Significantly, Mr May said that, by the time Mr Williams had come out, he was no longer going forward. The Committee found that it was supported by the video evidence that Mr May was not “making a forward movement” at the point at which Mr Williams moved ground outwards. The failure to prove this element is fatal to the Stewards’ case, coupled with the matter of whether A G’S WHITE SOX was forced to race wider on the track and, accordingly the Committee is not satisfied to the required standard, on a balance of probabilities, that the charge of a breach of the pushout Rule has been proved.
Decision:
The charge was dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(4)&(6)(b)&(c)
Informant: R A Quirk, Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: T M Williams, Licensed Open Driver
Otherperson: R T May, Licensed Open Driver, S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 310917ee6ef576c10c0a47bd3aa67695
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 072f43e58dd18ccc18ce947b4bdf4168
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 14/04/2019
meet_title: Rangiora HRC - 14 April 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: rangiora-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: OJarvis
meet_pm2: none
name: Rangiora HRC