Auckland TC 27 October 2017 – R 8 – Chair, Mr A Godsalve
ID: JCA14531
Meet Title:
Auckland TC - 27 October 2017
Meet Chair:
AGodsalve
Meet Committee Member 1:
ASmith
Race Date:
2017/10/27
Race Number:
R8
Decision:
The charge is therefore dismissed.
Facts:
Following the running of race 8, the ETA ' RIPPLES' HANDICAP PACE 2200m, an Information was presented in which Mr Muirhead alleged that Mr A Herlihy drove MR EUROMAN carelessly causing interference to HUG THE WIND driven by Mr B Mangos with approximately 600 metres to run.
Mr Herlihy was present at the hearing and intimated that he did not admit the breach. Mr Herlihy added that he wished to call driver Mr B Mangos as his witness during the hearing.
Rule 869(3)(b) provides 'No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly'.
As this matter was heard during a busy race meeting it was necessary for it to be adjourned several times to allow drivers involved to fulfill their race-driving obligations.
Submissions for Decision:
Informant's Submissions:
1. Using the available films, Mr Muirhead identified the horses prior to the alleged incident. NORTHVIEW HUSTLER was leading the field, with JO'S DREAM behind, followed by MR EUROMAN (Mr Herlihy) and then HUG THE WIND (Mr Mangos). These horses were all racing in single file.
2. Mr Muirhead pointed out that at about the 700m mark, HUG THE WIND leaves the fence and begins to move outwards. MR EUROMAN, which was in a forward position, also begins to move outwards.
3. At about the 600m mark, there is contact made between MR EUROMAN'S outer sulky wheel, and the hind leg of HUG THE WIND.
4. As a result, HUG THE WIND became unbalanced, and went off stride.
5. Mr Muirhead stated that in his opinion Mr Herlihy angled MR EUROMAN outwards in a 'quickish' manner-not an abrupt manner, and in doing so he makes contact with HUG THE WIND'S leg, causing it to break and lose all chance. He added that in his opinion when Mr Herlihy began to shift MR EUROMAN outwards his sulky wheel was centred on HUG THE WIND'S body. He added that he believed that Mr Mangos was looking to shift HUG THE WIND away from MR EUROMAN but doesn't complete that movement.
Mr Herlihy was given the opportunity at this time to ask any questions he may have of Mr Muirhead. He did not avail himself of this opportunity.
Respondent's Submissions:
1. Mr Herlihy stated that he believed he had the right to move outwards when he did.
2. He stated that he 'just came out as I usually would' in this situation. He added that very quickly HUG THE WIND was 'right there' and touched his wheel.
The Committee then asked Mr Herlihy if he considered that at that point of time in the race that he was entitled to come out off the fence in the manner that he did. Mr Herlihy replied in the affirmative.
The Committee then asked Mr Herlihy to explain, as he was one of the drivers involved, why Mr Mangos' horse went off stride and what had taken place causing it to do so.
Mr Herlihy replied that he believed that Mr Mangos would clarify that.
Mr Mangos, the driver of the horse HUG THE WIND was called as a witness by Mr Herlihy, the respondent in this matter.
Mr Herlihy asked Mr Mangos if his shift outwards was too quick, and if he believed that he (Mr Herlihy) was entitled to move out in the manner he had. Mr Herlihy further asked Mr Mangos if the incident was as a result of HUG THE WIND not reacting quickly enough.
Mr Mangos:
1. I was in a position down the back straight to move my horse out off the fence. He was travelling 'good'.
2. I started to go forward - the horse accelerated a bit quicker than I had anticipated.
3. The horse inside me (MR EUROMAN) came out which I believed he was entitled to do.
4. My horse's front legs had gone past MR EUROMAN at this stage. I went to move my horse outwards so I could get around MR EUROMAN.
5. My horse's head turned outwards but he didn't correct himself in the way I thought he should have.
6. At the speed my horse was going, his hind leg came into contact with MR EUROMAN'S sulky wheel.
7. So what I'm saying is, for mine, I didn't think it was my horse's fault but I would have thought he would have reacted better than he did.
8. This was an incident that happened in 2 strides. The horse was showing momentum.
9. Mr Herlihy was quite entitled to come out. I went to move my horse out again but he didn't react as quickly as I thought. That's what happened.
10. (Referring to head-on film) You can see that that the horse starts to move out.
Committee " Your horse's head appears to be pointing out to the left?"
11. Yes. But he didn't move his body. It's just one of those things that happens in racing. It's not all straightforward. If I had come out and my horse wasn't going quick enough then this wouldn't have happened. He is showing momentum.
12. The horse did not react to the left rein as good as I thought he should. That's when the contact happened; within 2 strides.
Mr Herlihy had no further questions of Mr Mangos.
Cross Examination by Mr Muirhead:
Mr Muirhead asked Mr Mangos if it was the case that his horse had turned its head outwards during this incident. Mr Mangos confirmed that that had been the case.
Mr Mangos added that he was attempting to 'pull him out' but that the horse did not react as quickly as he had wanted him to.
Mr Muirhead asked Mr Mangos to clarify that the horse did not shift inwards even though it had not reacted as quickly as he had wanted it to.
Mr Mangos confirmed that to be the case.
Committee to Mr Mangos
'In normal circumstances, if your horse had moved outwards as it did, and Mr Herlihy had moved out in front of you, would this incident have happened? Mr Herlihy was within the 1000m and was entitled to move out - with safety - you say your horse was angling out. If your horse had moved out when you asked it to, then this incident wouldn't have happened. Is that correct?
Mr Mangos replied ' No that's correct it wouldn't have happened. There was only inches in it'.
In reply to a question from Mr Muirhead, Mr Mangos confirmed that the incident had taken place within 2 horse strides.
Summations
Mr Herlihy:
1. Mr Mangos has explained that his horse didn't react as quickly as he had hoped it would.
2. My movement was not too abrupt - his horse was going forward quicker than he anticipated with momentum.
3. Mr Mangos would usually have gone straight around me. I think this contact happened because HUG THE WIND didn't react as quickly as Mr Mangos was hoping it would when he asked it to make a move outwards.
Mr Muirhead:
1. The Stewards say we believe this was careless.
2. Mr Herlihy might have been entitled to shift out the way he did but he is obliged to do so in a manner that was safe.
3. In this case - in 2 strides - he shifted out and contacted Mr Mangos' horse.
4. That horse was not moving in.
5. It is Mr Herlihy's responsibility to do it safely - not a matter of Mr Mangos to get out of his way.
6. Rule 869(7) is quite specific. Drivers are expected to make moves 'with safety' within the last 1000 metres.
7. We say that this was not safe.
8. Mr Herlihy is saying that he is entitled to come out - and he is - but he has to do it safely.
9. When a driver does not move out safely, then he is careless. We are saying that it is clear on the films that if Mr Herlihy had not moved then this incident would not have happened.
Reasons for Decision:
1. Referring to the available films of this incident - which the Committee viewed themselves following the evidence being completed - we make the following observations:
(a) HUG THE WIND (Mr Mangos) angles his horse outwards and starts to improve around MR EUROMAN (Mr Herlihy).
(b) HUG THE WIND has his head turned outwards before moving alongside MR EUROMAN, who also has begun to move outwards out of its trailing position.
(c) Mr Herlihy continues to drive MR EUROMAN forward.
(d) It is clear on the films that Mr Mangos is applying pressure to the HUG THE WIND'S left rein, however the horse is defying his efforts to move it outwards.
(e) HUG THE WIND is laying in - but does not move inwards.
(f) There is contact between MR EUROMAN'S left sulky wheel and HUG THE WIND'S right hind leg.
(g) HUG THE WIND goes off stride, losing its chance in the race.
(h) Both horses are making outwards movements in order to improve their positions. Mr Mangos is applying pressure to the left rein on his horse but the horse does not react quickly enough.
2. Mr Mangos - called by the Respondent Mr Herlihy to give evidence - says that he believes that Mr Herlihy was entitled under the Rules to move outwards ahead of him as he did.
3. Mr Mangos added that his horse accelerated quicker than he thought it would. He said he 'went to move my horse out' so that he could get around MR EUROMAN, however he said that HUG THE WIND moved his head outwards but didn't 'correct himself' the way he thought he should have.
4. Mr Mangos also stated that he thought HUG THE WIND would have reacted better than he did - he didn't react as quickly as he thought.
5. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Mangos confirmed that if HUG THE WIND had moved outwards when he asked it to then this incident would not have taken place. He said there was only 'inches in it'. He had earlier stated that it was 'just one of those things that happen in racing - it's not all straightforward'.
6. Mr Herlihy summed up by stating that he believed that if HUG THE WIND had reacted to Mr Mangos' driving as it should have then it would have gone straight around his horse and the incident would not have happened.
7. Mr Muirhead, in summation, said that he did not consider Mr Herlihy's driving to be 'safe' under the circumstances, and therefore it amounted to careless driving.
8. Mr Muirhead added that Stewards believed that the onus was on Mr Herlihy to drive safely, and is not a matter of Mr Mangos having to 'get out of his way'.
This charge was bought under the provisions of Rule 869(3)(b) which merely states that a driver shall not drive carelessly in a race.
In situations like these, drivers making moves inside the final 1000 metres of a race are required to do so in order to obtain the best possible place in the field - such moves are to be made safely - Rule 869 (7).
In this case, the Committee believes that Mr Herlihy was entitled to believe that Mr Mangos would continue to steer his horse outwards as he had started to do. Mr Mangos stated in evidence ' The horse ( HUG THE WIND ) did not react to the left rein as good as I thought he should. That's when the contact happened: within 2 strides'.
Mr Herlihy cannot be held accountable for any intractability by another horse.
Mr Mangos and Mr Herlihy are both highly experienced - and successful - drivers. They both say that they do not believe there is any culpability in the actions of Mr Herlihy.
The standard of proof in these matters is based on the Judicial Committee, having heard all of the evidence, being satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, a charge has been proved.
'Suspicion' alone is not enough to meet this standard of proof.
As a Committee we are not satisfied that this charge has been proved on the balance of probabilities.
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: 8f190436c512edde0899cb24a44ce5ed
informantnumber: A9137
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless driving causing interference
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 29/10/2017
hearing_title: Auckland TC 27 October 2017 - R 8 - Chair, Mr A Godsalve
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 8, the ETA ' RIPPLES' HANDICAP PACE 2200m, an Information was presented in which Mr Muirhead alleged that Mr A Herlihy drove MR EUROMAN carelessly causing interference to HUG THE WIND driven by Mr B Mangos with approximately 600 metres to run.
Mr Herlihy was present at the hearing and intimated that he did not admit the breach. Mr Herlihy added that he wished to call driver Mr B Mangos as his witness during the hearing.
Rule 869(3)(b) provides 'No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly'.
As this matter was heard during a busy race meeting it was necessary for it to be adjourned several times to allow drivers involved to fulfill their race-driving obligations.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Informant's Submissions:
1. Using the available films, Mr Muirhead identified the horses prior to the alleged incident. NORTHVIEW HUSTLER was leading the field, with JO'S DREAM behind, followed by MR EUROMAN (Mr Herlihy) and then HUG THE WIND (Mr Mangos). These horses were all racing in single file.
2. Mr Muirhead pointed out that at about the 700m mark, HUG THE WIND leaves the fence and begins to move outwards. MR EUROMAN, which was in a forward position, also begins to move outwards.
3. At about the 600m mark, there is contact made between MR EUROMAN'S outer sulky wheel, and the hind leg of HUG THE WIND.
4. As a result, HUG THE WIND became unbalanced, and went off stride.
5. Mr Muirhead stated that in his opinion Mr Herlihy angled MR EUROMAN outwards in a 'quickish' manner-not an abrupt manner, and in doing so he makes contact with HUG THE WIND'S leg, causing it to break and lose all chance. He added that in his opinion when Mr Herlihy began to shift MR EUROMAN outwards his sulky wheel was centred on HUG THE WIND'S body. He added that he believed that Mr Mangos was looking to shift HUG THE WIND away from MR EUROMAN but doesn't complete that movement.
Mr Herlihy was given the opportunity at this time to ask any questions he may have of Mr Muirhead. He did not avail himself of this opportunity.
Respondent's Submissions:
1. Mr Herlihy stated that he believed he had the right to move outwards when he did.
2. He stated that he 'just came out as I usually would' in this situation. He added that very quickly HUG THE WIND was 'right there' and touched his wheel.
The Committee then asked Mr Herlihy if he considered that at that point of time in the race that he was entitled to come out off the fence in the manner that he did. Mr Herlihy replied in the affirmative.
The Committee then asked Mr Herlihy to explain, as he was one of the drivers involved, why Mr Mangos' horse went off stride and what had taken place causing it to do so.
Mr Herlihy replied that he believed that Mr Mangos would clarify that.
Mr Mangos, the driver of the horse HUG THE WIND was called as a witness by Mr Herlihy, the respondent in this matter.
Mr Herlihy asked Mr Mangos if his shift outwards was too quick, and if he believed that he (Mr Herlihy) was entitled to move out in the manner he had. Mr Herlihy further asked Mr Mangos if the incident was as a result of HUG THE WIND not reacting quickly enough.
Mr Mangos:
1. I was in a position down the back straight to move my horse out off the fence. He was travelling 'good'.
2. I started to go forward - the horse accelerated a bit quicker than I had anticipated.
3. The horse inside me (MR EUROMAN) came out which I believed he was entitled to do.
4. My horse's front legs had gone past MR EUROMAN at this stage. I went to move my horse outwards so I could get around MR EUROMAN.
5. My horse's head turned outwards but he didn't correct himself in the way I thought he should have.
6. At the speed my horse was going, his hind leg came into contact with MR EUROMAN'S sulky wheel.
7. So what I'm saying is, for mine, I didn't think it was my horse's fault but I would have thought he would have reacted better than he did.
8. This was an incident that happened in 2 strides. The horse was showing momentum.
9. Mr Herlihy was quite entitled to come out. I went to move my horse out again but he didn't react as quickly as I thought. That's what happened.
10. (Referring to head-on film) You can see that that the horse starts to move out.
Committee " Your horse's head appears to be pointing out to the left?"
11. Yes. But he didn't move his body. It's just one of those things that happens in racing. It's not all straightforward. If I had come out and my horse wasn't going quick enough then this wouldn't have happened. He is showing momentum.
12. The horse did not react to the left rein as good as I thought he should. That's when the contact happened; within 2 strides.
Mr Herlihy had no further questions of Mr Mangos.
Cross Examination by Mr Muirhead:
Mr Muirhead asked Mr Mangos if it was the case that his horse had turned its head outwards during this incident. Mr Mangos confirmed that that had been the case.
Mr Mangos added that he was attempting to 'pull him out' but that the horse did not react as quickly as he had wanted him to.
Mr Muirhead asked Mr Mangos to clarify that the horse did not shift inwards even though it had not reacted as quickly as he had wanted it to.
Mr Mangos confirmed that to be the case.
Committee to Mr Mangos
'In normal circumstances, if your horse had moved outwards as it did, and Mr Herlihy had moved out in front of you, would this incident have happened? Mr Herlihy was within the 1000m and was entitled to move out - with safety - you say your horse was angling out. If your horse had moved out when you asked it to, then this incident wouldn't have happened. Is that correct?
Mr Mangos replied ' No that's correct it wouldn't have happened. There was only inches in it'.
In reply to a question from Mr Muirhead, Mr Mangos confirmed that the incident had taken place within 2 horse strides.
Summations
Mr Herlihy:
1. Mr Mangos has explained that his horse didn't react as quickly as he had hoped it would.
2. My movement was not too abrupt - his horse was going forward quicker than he anticipated with momentum.
3. Mr Mangos would usually have gone straight around me. I think this contact happened because HUG THE WIND didn't react as quickly as Mr Mangos was hoping it would when he asked it to make a move outwards.
Mr Muirhead:
1. The Stewards say we believe this was careless.
2. Mr Herlihy might have been entitled to shift out the way he did but he is obliged to do so in a manner that was safe.
3. In this case - in 2 strides - he shifted out and contacted Mr Mangos' horse.
4. That horse was not moving in.
5. It is Mr Herlihy's responsibility to do it safely - not a matter of Mr Mangos to get out of his way.
6. Rule 869(7) is quite specific. Drivers are expected to make moves 'with safety' within the last 1000 metres.
7. We say that this was not safe.
8. Mr Herlihy is saying that he is entitled to come out - and he is - but he has to do it safely.
9. When a driver does not move out safely, then he is careless. We are saying that it is clear on the films that if Mr Herlihy had not moved then this incident would not have happened.
reasonsfordecision:
1. Referring to the available films of this incident - which the Committee viewed themselves following the evidence being completed - we make the following observations:
(a) HUG THE WIND (Mr Mangos) angles his horse outwards and starts to improve around MR EUROMAN (Mr Herlihy).
(b) HUG THE WIND has his head turned outwards before moving alongside MR EUROMAN, who also has begun to move outwards out of its trailing position.
(c) Mr Herlihy continues to drive MR EUROMAN forward.
(d) It is clear on the films that Mr Mangos is applying pressure to the HUG THE WIND'S left rein, however the horse is defying his efforts to move it outwards.
(e) HUG THE WIND is laying in - but does not move inwards.
(f) There is contact between MR EUROMAN'S left sulky wheel and HUG THE WIND'S right hind leg.
(g) HUG THE WIND goes off stride, losing its chance in the race.
(h) Both horses are making outwards movements in order to improve their positions. Mr Mangos is applying pressure to the left rein on his horse but the horse does not react quickly enough.
2. Mr Mangos - called by the Respondent Mr Herlihy to give evidence - says that he believes that Mr Herlihy was entitled under the Rules to move outwards ahead of him as he did.
3. Mr Mangos added that his horse accelerated quicker than he thought it would. He said he 'went to move my horse out' so that he could get around MR EUROMAN, however he said that HUG THE WIND moved his head outwards but didn't 'correct himself' the way he thought he should have.
4. Mr Mangos also stated that he thought HUG THE WIND would have reacted better than he did - he didn't react as quickly as he thought.
5. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Mangos confirmed that if HUG THE WIND had moved outwards when he asked it to then this incident would not have taken place. He said there was only 'inches in it'. He had earlier stated that it was 'just one of those things that happen in racing - it's not all straightforward'.
6. Mr Herlihy summed up by stating that he believed that if HUG THE WIND had reacted to Mr Mangos' driving as it should have then it would have gone straight around his horse and the incident would not have happened.
7. Mr Muirhead, in summation, said that he did not consider Mr Herlihy's driving to be 'safe' under the circumstances, and therefore it amounted to careless driving.
8. Mr Muirhead added that Stewards believed that the onus was on Mr Herlihy to drive safely, and is not a matter of Mr Mangos having to 'get out of his way'.
This charge was bought under the provisions of Rule 869(3)(b) which merely states that a driver shall not drive carelessly in a race.
In situations like these, drivers making moves inside the final 1000 metres of a race are required to do so in order to obtain the best possible place in the field - such moves are to be made safely - Rule 869 (7).
In this case, the Committee believes that Mr Herlihy was entitled to believe that Mr Mangos would continue to steer his horse outwards as he had started to do. Mr Mangos stated in evidence ' The horse ( HUG THE WIND ) did not react to the left rein as good as I thought he should. That's when the contact happened: within 2 strides'.
Mr Herlihy cannot be held accountable for any intractability by another horse.
Mr Mangos and Mr Herlihy are both highly experienced - and successful - drivers. They both say that they do not believe there is any culpability in the actions of Mr Herlihy.
The standard of proof in these matters is based on the Judicial Committee, having heard all of the evidence, being satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, a charge has been proved.
'Suspicion' alone is not enough to meet this standard of proof.
As a Committee we are not satisfied that this charge has been proved on the balance of probabilities.
Decision:
The charge is therefore dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr J M Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr A Herlihy - Licensed Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr B Mangos-Licensed Open Horseman
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d5cfb82367436816ec65eba17fe9c1ae
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 9393d44b642654c23f4ab7ec4be8086e
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 27/10/2017
meet_title: Auckland TC - 27 October 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: AGodsalve
meet_pm1: ASmith
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland TC