Manawatu HRC 15 December 2011 – R7
ID: JCA15278
Meet Title:
Manawatu HRC - 15 December 2011
Meet Chair:
TCastles
Meet Committee Member 1:
TUtikere
Race Date:
2011/12/15
Race Number:
R7
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
Penalty:
Mr. Lawson you are fined the sum of $200.00.
Charge:
Alledged breach of rule 869 (4)
Facts:
Mr. S. Lawson did not admit a breach of rule 869 (4) – “you drove your horse in a manner likely to cause interference to your horse or Snap Wilson (P. Ferguson) by attempting to ease Snap Wilson down in a manner which was not gradual or without having a clear advantage”.
At the outset of the hearing Mr. Muirhead (Stipendiary Steward) explained the reasons for the delay in the commencement of the hearing. He informed the committee that it had been difficult for Mr. Lawson (junior driver) to obtain representation. Most of the senior drivers wished to leave the course to drive home, some as far as the Waikato. Mr. Lawson finally accepted Mr. Doody’s offer to represent him.
Mr. Lawson asked for an adjournment to further study the films and seek advice from his father. This was opposed by the stewards who indicated that Mr. Doody was a senior horseman held in high regard. He had viewed the films and was happy to represent. Mr. Lawson then informed the committee that he was happy for the hearing to proceed after Mr. Doody indicated to him he saw no reason for the hearing not to be conducted immediately.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr. Wallis using the available films showed that Mr. Ferguson's drive was down on the inside with Mr. Lawson's drive being one off. Mr. Lawson's drive moved inwards to hold its position and attempted to force Mr. Ferguson down. He made mention that in his opinion the movement by Mr. Lawson was not gradual and without a clear advantage. The distance involved in the incident he felt was approximately 150 metres and this was later confirmed by both Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Doody. Mr. P Ferguson was called by Mr. Wallis as a witness. He informed the committee that as the driver of Snap Wilson he dropped in behind Nevermind Franco (T. MacFarland). Mr. Lawson (Strawbs Fire Chip) came alongside for a brief moment and tried to ease him down. There may have been a slight advantage for a brief period to Mr. Lawson. This duel continued for about 150 metres and the two horses did jostle. At no stage did he believe that Mr. Lawson was more than a head in front of his drive. Both Mr. Doody and Mr. Lawson had no questions.
Mr. Lawson using the available films submitted that it was competitive driving and he did try to ease Mr. Ferguson down. He believed that he did have a clear advantage and his drive was within the rules and the guidelines. He felt that Mr. Ferguson had to relent because of that advantage.
In summing up, Mr. Wallis reiterated that the attempt to ease was not gradual and Mr. Lawson did not have a clear advantage.
Mr. Lawson had nothing to add.
Reasons for Decision:
In coming to our decision we have revisited the available films on a number of occasions. We concur with all parties who did indicate the incident took place over 150 metres approx. Mr. Lawson confirmed that he did try to ease Mr. Ferguson down, a further claim not disputed by any parties. What we have to decide is whether that movement was within the guidelines and rules of Harness Racing (gradual and having a clear advantage). The films showed that although there was jostling by the horses, Mr. Lawson was unable to point the exact point where he had a clear advantage. His drive may have had a head advantage at one stage. We were strongly of the opinion that could not be classed as a clear advantage.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr. Wallis in his submission stated that Mr. Lawson had 228 drives last year and 36 so far this year. It was his first charge under this rule. He is a junior driver with a future in Harness Racing. He believed the charge would be best handled by a fine of $200.
Mr. Lawson submitted his preference for a monetary penalty to be imposed and asked for the committee to take into account his record.
Reasons for Penalty:
In coming to our decision we have taken into account Mr. Lawson’s driving record under this rule. He is a promising driver who does drive competitively but must drive within the rules and guidelines. A perusal of the penalty guide indicated a fine in the vicinity of the stewards recommendation would be appropriate for this breach.
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: 7e263eacf5551b47ef62a4d57ee85369
informantnumber: A5485
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 14/12/2011
hearing_title: Manawatu HRC 15 December 2011 - R7
charge:
Alledged breach of rule 869 (4)
facts:
Mr. S. Lawson did not admit a breach of rule 869 (4) – “you drove your horse in a manner likely to cause interference to your horse or Snap Wilson (P. Ferguson) by attempting to ease Snap Wilson down in a manner which was not gradual or without having a clear advantage”.
At the outset of the hearing Mr. Muirhead (Stipendiary Steward) explained the reasons for the delay in the commencement of the hearing. He informed the committee that it had been difficult for Mr. Lawson (junior driver) to obtain representation. Most of the senior drivers wished to leave the course to drive home, some as far as the Waikato. Mr. Lawson finally accepted Mr. Doody’s offer to represent him.
Mr. Lawson asked for an adjournment to further study the films and seek advice from his father. This was opposed by the stewards who indicated that Mr. Doody was a senior horseman held in high regard. He had viewed the films and was happy to represent. Mr. Lawson then informed the committee that he was happy for the hearing to proceed after Mr. Doody indicated to him he saw no reason for the hearing not to be conducted immediately.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr. Wallis using the available films showed that Mr. Ferguson's drive was down on the inside with Mr. Lawson's drive being one off. Mr. Lawson's drive moved inwards to hold its position and attempted to force Mr. Ferguson down. He made mention that in his opinion the movement by Mr. Lawson was not gradual and without a clear advantage. The distance involved in the incident he felt was approximately 150 metres and this was later confirmed by both Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Doody. Mr. P Ferguson was called by Mr. Wallis as a witness. He informed the committee that as the driver of Snap Wilson he dropped in behind Nevermind Franco (T. MacFarland). Mr. Lawson (Strawbs Fire Chip) came alongside for a brief moment and tried to ease him down. There may have been a slight advantage for a brief period to Mr. Lawson. This duel continued for about 150 metres and the two horses did jostle. At no stage did he believe that Mr. Lawson was more than a head in front of his drive. Both Mr. Doody and Mr. Lawson had no questions.
Mr. Lawson using the available films submitted that it was competitive driving and he did try to ease Mr. Ferguson down. He believed that he did have a clear advantage and his drive was within the rules and the guidelines. He felt that Mr. Ferguson had to relent because of that advantage.
In summing up, Mr. Wallis reiterated that the attempt to ease was not gradual and Mr. Lawson did not have a clear advantage.
Mr. Lawson had nothing to add.
reasonsfordecision:
In coming to our decision we have revisited the available films on a number of occasions. We concur with all parties who did indicate the incident took place over 150 metres approx. Mr. Lawson confirmed that he did try to ease Mr. Ferguson down, a further claim not disputed by any parties. What we have to decide is whether that movement was within the guidelines and rules of Harness Racing (gradual and having a clear advantage). The films showed that although there was jostling by the horses, Mr. Lawson was unable to point the exact point where he had a clear advantage. His drive may have had a head advantage at one stage. We were strongly of the opinion that could not be classed as a clear advantage.
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr. Wallis in his submission stated that Mr. Lawson had 228 drives last year and 36 so far this year. It was his first charge under this rule. He is a junior driver with a future in Harness Racing. He believed the charge would be best handled by a fine of $200.
Mr. Lawson submitted his preference for a monetary penalty to be imposed and asked for the committee to take into account his record.
reasonsforpenalty:
In coming to our decision we have taken into account Mr. Lawson’s driving record under this rule. He is a promising driver who does drive competitively but must drive within the rules and guidelines. A perusal of the penalty guide indicated a fine in the vicinity of the stewards recommendation would be appropriate for this breach.
penalty:
Mr. Lawson you are fined the sum of $200.00.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869 (4)
Informant: S Wallis
JockeysandTrainer: S Lawson
Otherperson: S Doody, Mr P Ferguson
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: f43a9ae7057cf159a990e87374f7cad8
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: 45c7fe8babc20ea1851071ed772d06e9
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 15/12/2011
meet_title: Manawatu HRC - 15 December 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: manawatu-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: TCastles
meet_pm1: TUtikere
meet_pm2: none
name: Manawatu HRC