Rangiora HRC 16 July 2011 – R 5
ID: JCA14693
Meet Title:
Rangiora HRC - 16 July 2011
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
PRosanowski
Race Date:
2011/07/16
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
The charge was dismissed.
Charge:
Failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5, The Worlds Fastest Indian – Burt Munro Trot, Information No. 66832 was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mrs K R Williams, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr G D Archer, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that Mr Archer, as the driver of SPENCER GORE in the race “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that SPENCER GORE was given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place when shifting down for a run from the 400 metres mark.”
Mr Archer was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Mr Archer was given the opportunity to have an adjournment of the hearing of the charge. After a brief discussion, Mr Archer indicated that he wished the hearing of the matter to proceed.
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:
Mrs Williams said that the Stewards were alleging that Mr Archer had made an error of judgement from the 400 metres when, in their view, Mr Archer had shifted his horse down the track rather that remain on the back of DUSKY WISHES (B N Orange). Had he done the latter, the Stewards believed, he would have got a clear run to the finishing line as opposed to switching to the inside and being held up until 10-20 metres from the finishing line.
Mrs Williams then showed video replays of the final 800 metres of the race. She said that SPENCER GORE was the favourite for the race. She pointed out the horse 4-back on the outer, following DUSKY WISHES, in 2nd to last placing. SOLAR SAM (C R Thornley) was last, following SPENCER GORE. The one-out line was progressing forward. Mr Thornley then improved around the outside of Mr Archer. Mr Archer was unable to shift out and move Mr Thornley out because Mr Thornley was in front of him. Mr Archer elected to remain on the back of DUSKY WISHES, the 2nd favourite for the race. Mrs Williams said that the Stewards had no issue with Mr Archer’s driving up to this point.
Mr Orange then improved 3-wide outside of MASTER HARBOUR (C T Woodward). Mr Archer elected to stay on his back. Mr Thornley was at this stage “level pegging” with Mr Archer. Shortly after this, Mr Archer was in a position to move Mr Thornley out but, instead, Mr Archer elected to shift down the track onto the back of Mr Woodward. Mrs Williams said that it was the Stewards’ contention that Mr Archer should have stayed on the back of Mr Orange from where he would have been in a position to shift Mr Thornley out. She pointed out Mr Archer then shift off Mr Woodward’s back looking for a run on the inside. From this point (about the 300 metres), Mr Thornley began to lose ground and Mr Archer would definitely have been able to push him out had he stayed on Mr Orange’s back, Mrs Williams submitted.
Mrs Williams used the head-on video replay to demonstrate that Mr Archer was unable to secure racing room in the run home until some 10 metres short of the finishing line. The Committee noted that SPENCER GORE finished in 4th placing, with the margins being a neck, a half length and a ½ head. She alleged that the horse went to the line under a hold. Had Mr Archer stayed on Mr Orange’s back, which was the more obvious option Mrs Williams submitted, he would have obtained a clear run to the line. It was not a deliberate act – it was an error of judgement on Mr Archer’s part. Even after electing to shift down, Mr Archer still had the option of restraining and coming back out outside of Mr Orange, Mrs Williams said.
Mr Archer said, in explanation for his drive, that “it was just the way I drove him”. He said it was not an error of judgement but just “the easiest and the quickest way home”. He said that he expected that the field would “fan out” at the finish but this did not happen early enough. He does not like driving horses 4-wide and 5-wide. Even if he had stayed on Mr Orange’s back, he would have had to go “another one out” (5-wide) to get around Mr Orange, he said. In response to a question from the Committee, he agreed that it was a split-second decision to go to the inside, but the gaps did not open in time. Had a gap presented itself 20 metres earlier, it would have been “a different story”, Mr Archer said. It was a risk and he took it, he said.
Mrs Williams suggested to Mr Archer that, had he remained on Mr Orange’s back, he would have eventually obtained an unimpeded run. Mr Archer did not disagree. She also suggested that SPENCER GORE went to the line full of running. Mr Archer said that that may have appeared to be the case – the horse was not “flat”.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties and carefully viewed the video replays shown to it.
The Stipendiary Stewards alleged that Mr Archer, in electing not to stay on the back of Mr Orange but rather to go to the inside in search of a run, failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures. Mrs Williams submitted that, had he stayed on Mr Orange’s back, a run outside of Mr Orange would have become available in the run home.
Mr Archer, on the other hand, explained that what he did was just the way he drove the horse. He said that he took a risk that an inside run would become available but, on this occasion, it did not. Mr Archer made a valid point that he would have needed to come very wide to go around Mr Orange. Had he chosen to stay on Mr Orange’s back for a run on the outside of Mr Orange, it can only be speculation as to what the result would have been.
We have to determine whether Mr Archer’s drive was culpable – in other words, did he breach the Rule under which he was charged?
We are not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr Archer’s driving tactics amounted to a breach of the Rule. He made a decision, as drivers are required to do in a race, that was a split-second decision. He was faced with two possible options. Firstly, to remain on the back of Mr Orange and await a run on the outside of Mr Orange or, secondly, save ground by switching to the inside and await a run that he anticipated would come.
In the Committee’s view, his decision to take the second of those options was a decision that a reasonable and prudent driver would be likely to have taken. It did not amount, in our view, to his failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures. The measures that he took were both reasonable and permissible in the circumstances.
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: 7162fe4497ac9d5c6a242eb30c8f9935
informantnumber: 66832
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 06/07/2011
hearing_title: Rangiora HRC 16 July 2011 - R 5
charge:
Failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures.
facts:
Following the running of Race 5, The Worlds Fastest Indian – Burt Munro Trot, Information No. 66832 was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mrs K R Williams, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr G D Archer, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that Mr Archer, as the driver of SPENCER GORE in the race “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that SPENCER GORE was given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place when shifting down for a run from the 400 metres mark.”
Mr Archer was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Mr Archer was given the opportunity to have an adjournment of the hearing of the charge. After a brief discussion, Mr Archer indicated that he wished the hearing of the matter to proceed.
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:
Mrs Williams said that the Stewards were alleging that Mr Archer had made an error of judgement from the 400 metres when, in their view, Mr Archer had shifted his horse down the track rather that remain on the back of DUSKY WISHES (B N Orange). Had he done the latter, the Stewards believed, he would have got a clear run to the finishing line as opposed to switching to the inside and being held up until 10-20 metres from the finishing line.
Mrs Williams then showed video replays of the final 800 metres of the race. She said that SPENCER GORE was the favourite for the race. She pointed out the horse 4-back on the outer, following DUSKY WISHES, in 2nd to last placing. SOLAR SAM (C R Thornley) was last, following SPENCER GORE. The one-out line was progressing forward. Mr Thornley then improved around the outside of Mr Archer. Mr Archer was unable to shift out and move Mr Thornley out because Mr Thornley was in front of him. Mr Archer elected to remain on the back of DUSKY WISHES, the 2nd favourite for the race. Mrs Williams said that the Stewards had no issue with Mr Archer’s driving up to this point.
Mr Orange then improved 3-wide outside of MASTER HARBOUR (C T Woodward). Mr Archer elected to stay on his back. Mr Thornley was at this stage “level pegging” with Mr Archer. Shortly after this, Mr Archer was in a position to move Mr Thornley out but, instead, Mr Archer elected to shift down the track onto the back of Mr Woodward. Mrs Williams said that it was the Stewards’ contention that Mr Archer should have stayed on the back of Mr Orange from where he would have been in a position to shift Mr Thornley out. She pointed out Mr Archer then shift off Mr Woodward’s back looking for a run on the inside. From this point (about the 300 metres), Mr Thornley began to lose ground and Mr Archer would definitely have been able to push him out had he stayed on Mr Orange’s back, Mrs Williams submitted.
Mrs Williams used the head-on video replay to demonstrate that Mr Archer was unable to secure racing room in the run home until some 10 metres short of the finishing line. The Committee noted that SPENCER GORE finished in 4th placing, with the margins being a neck, a half length and a ½ head. She alleged that the horse went to the line under a hold. Had Mr Archer stayed on Mr Orange’s back, which was the more obvious option Mrs Williams submitted, he would have obtained a clear run to the line. It was not a deliberate act – it was an error of judgement on Mr Archer’s part. Even after electing to shift down, Mr Archer still had the option of restraining and coming back out outside of Mr Orange, Mrs Williams said.
Mr Archer said, in explanation for his drive, that “it was just the way I drove him”. He said it was not an error of judgement but just “the easiest and the quickest way home”. He said that he expected that the field would “fan out” at the finish but this did not happen early enough. He does not like driving horses 4-wide and 5-wide. Even if he had stayed on Mr Orange’s back, he would have had to go “another one out” (5-wide) to get around Mr Orange, he said. In response to a question from the Committee, he agreed that it was a split-second decision to go to the inside, but the gaps did not open in time. Had a gap presented itself 20 metres earlier, it would have been “a different story”, Mr Archer said. It was a risk and he took it, he said.
Mrs Williams suggested to Mr Archer that, had he remained on Mr Orange’s back, he would have eventually obtained an unimpeded run. Mr Archer did not disagree. She also suggested that SPENCER GORE went to the line full of running. Mr Archer said that that may have appeared to be the case – the horse was not “flat”.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties and carefully viewed the video replays shown to it.
The Stipendiary Stewards alleged that Mr Archer, in electing not to stay on the back of Mr Orange but rather to go to the inside in search of a run, failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures. Mrs Williams submitted that, had he stayed on Mr Orange’s back, a run outside of Mr Orange would have become available in the run home.
Mr Archer, on the other hand, explained that what he did was just the way he drove the horse. He said that he took a risk that an inside run would become available but, on this occasion, it did not. Mr Archer made a valid point that he would have needed to come very wide to go around Mr Orange. Had he chosen to stay on Mr Orange’s back for a run on the outside of Mr Orange, it can only be speculation as to what the result would have been.
We have to determine whether Mr Archer’s drive was culpable – in other words, did he breach the Rule under which he was charged?
We are not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr Archer’s driving tactics amounted to a breach of the Rule. He made a decision, as drivers are required to do in a race, that was a split-second decision. He was faced with two possible options. Firstly, to remain on the back of Mr Orange and await a run on the outside of Mr Orange or, secondly, save ground by switching to the inside and await a run that he anticipated would come.
In the Committee’s view, his decision to take the second of those options was a decision that a reasonable and prudent driver would be likely to have taken. It did not amount, in our view, to his failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures. The measures that he took were both reasonable and permissible in the circumstances.
Decision:
The charge was dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 868 (2)
Informant: K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: G D Archer, Licensed Open Horseman
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 6cc5b01322ffa647e7c6680cbe746054
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 44a4c0a3e7b5dfcfb48404d47c0e87cf
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 16/07/2011
meet_title: Rangiora HRC - 16 July 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: rangiora-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: PRosanowski
meet_pm2: none
name: Rangiora HRC