Wyndham HRC 6 January 2015 – R 1
ID: JCA15300
Meet Title:
Wyndham HRC - 6 January 2015
Meet Chair:
NSkelt
Meet Committee Member 1:
GHall
Race Date:
2015/01/06
Race Number:
R 1
Decision:
We have found this to be a finely balanced matter. There are strong and persuasive arguments either way. Ultimately our decision rests on the standard of proof of on the balance of probabilities. The Committee after careful deliberation is of the view that the matter is a 50/50 call and thus we dismiss the charge. However, we recommend that the Stipendiary Stewards speak to Mr Wallace and emphasise that his driving in the future should leave no room for doubt with respect to his compliance with this rule.
Facts:
At the conclusion of Race 1 the Top Line Fencing Handicap Trot an information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Renault under rule 868(2) alleging that Mr B Wallace the driver of RUBY’S JEWEL, failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures between the 300 metres and 50 metres to obtain the best result.
The rule reads: 868(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:
Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault showed the Committee several video clips of the alleged incident (head on and side on) highlighting RUBY’S JEWEL driven by Mr Wallace. He said the horse was trotting fluently and had not put in any rough strides.
Mr Renault stated he had no concerns regarding Mr Wallace’s driving from the 50 metres mark to the winning post. He highlighted the fact that Mr Wallace gave RUBY’S JEWEL 8 or 9 rapid-fire flicks with the whip at about the 50 metres mark. He also said Mr Wallace had given the horse one tap on the tail at about the 350 metres mark.
Mr Renault confirmed RUBY’S JEWEL finished a nose behind the winner TEHORO HOLLY and a stride past the winning post he believed RUBY’S JEWEL was in front. The distance back to third was 16 ¼ lengths.
Mr Renault stated that Mr Wallace had showed no vigour at all from the 300 metres mark, sitting quietly, with the horse responding over the last 50 metres to Mr Wallace’s urgings with the flicking of the whip. Mr Renault demonstrated on the head-on video that from the time the whip was used at the 50 metres mark the head of the horse steadied and stopped moving from side to side. This he believed was evidence that the horse was concentrating from that point in the race. He agreed with the Committee that this aside, there was no noticeable response from RUBY’S JEWEL, in the sense that she made any significant ground on TEHORO HOLLY after being flicked with the whip.
Mr Wallace opened his defence of the charge by calling 2 witnesses, Mr P Williamson and Mr G Knight.
Mr Williamson, an experienced licensed trainer and driver, stated that Mr Wallace’s first priority was to ensure that RUBY’S JEWEL got around safely without breaking and losing her chance. Mr Williamson said he was very aware of the racing manners of RUBY’S JEWEL, and that last season the horse had had 6 or 7 starts and broke in every race.
Mr Williamson believed Mr Wallace took a “cautious approach” as with a trotter at times it did not feel “safe enough to strike them as they will bust” and lose all chance.
Mr Williamson, after viewing the video clip again, stated he believed RUBY’S JEWEL was doing the best it could on the day, and that the eventual winner TEHORO HOLLY fought like a “caged tiger”. He said when Mr Wallace used the whip it had made very little difference. When questioned by the Committee as to whether RUBY’S JEWEL had been given every opportunity to win the race, he replied, “absolutely” and he repeated his assertion that there had been no further improvement when the whip was used.
Mr Knight, an experienced licensed trainer, stated that he was also aware of the racing manners of RUBY’S JEWEL last season, and had seen her race 4 times this season.
Mr Knight stated he believed Mr Wallace drove the horse the same way each time this season, and also at the recent Balfour Equalisator meeting when there was prize money on offer and RUBY’S JEWEL was beaten by a nose.
Mr Knight also stated he did not believe RUBY’S JEWEL lifted over the final 50 metres and that the horse had done her best work the whole way. He said Mr Wallace had sat still in the cart, with his hands still on the reins, and had kept RUBY’S JEWEL nicely balanced. He said knowing the history of the horse; she had had every opportunity to win. When questioned by Mr Renault as to whether a person who had invested on the horse would have expected her to be driven with vigour and with the whip, he said, “The use of the whip would not have made any difference”.
Mr Wallace stated that the horse had 7 starts last season and 7 gallops and it was “game over” when that happened. He stated that RUBY’S JEWEL was having her fourth start this season. Her record was:
20/12/2014 Wairio at Winton Finished 2nd Grit Surface Slushy track
27/12/2014 Gore Finished 10th Grit Surface (broke)
02/01/2015 Central Otago at Omakau Finished 3rd Grit Surface
06/01/2015 Wyndham at Cromwell Finished 2nd Grass Track
Mr Wallace stated that he had driven the horse the same way in each race this season.
Mr Wallace asked Mr Renault to show the video clips of the Wairio meeting and the Central Otago meeting, which the Committee then viewed. The video clip of the Balfour meeting was not available.
Mr Wallace stated that RUBY’S JEWEL had a very tough run in today’s race. She had been 4 wide from the 500 metres onwards and had given her best. He stated that he growled at her at the top of the straight and was asking her to do her best. Mr Wallace also stated that the time of the race was significant (3.29.79) the last quarter in 30.19.
Mr Wallace stated that GREY POWER who won the C1 trot over the same distance today, won in a time of 3.31.37, RUBY’S JEWEL was a maiden trotter so she had done “pretty well” to run second in a faster time. He was very proud of her performance.
Mr Wallace also stated that the Cromwell track was very uneven, grass not grit, and as a result it was much harder to keep his horse balanced in the run up the straight.
He believed that early in the run home his horse was not trotting that smoothly. He said he had used the whip through RUBY’S JEWEL’s tail as they entered the home straight and she had indicated she did not like it by putting in a rough one and swishing her tail. He emphasised she had full deafeners and a murphy blind.
In summing up Mr Renault referred to Mr Wallace’s drive at the Wairio meeting where in his opinion Mr Wallace showed a lot more vigour. The horse finished second when tried with the whip on a slushy track. Mr Renault did not believe Mr Wallace showed the same vigour in today’s race. Mr Wallace replied he believed the horse had given her best on the day.
Reasons for Decision:
The charge relates to Mr Wallace’s drive on RUBY’S JEWEL from the 300 metres mark to the 50 metres mark. The committee and Mr Renault had no concern over Mr Wallace’s drive from the 50 metres mark to the winning post. It is clear that Mr Wallace has made no physical movement or obvious urgings to RUBY’S JEWEL with the reins or the whip from the 300 metres mark to the 50 metres mark.
The committee accepts that RUBY’S JEWEL had had a hard run in that it had made ground from mid-field three wide from the 800 metres and on entering the home straight was briefly 4 wide before challenging TEHORO HOLLY for the lead. We also accept that the Cromwell grass track is not as level as a grit track and it may be more difficult to keep a horse well balanced, particularly a trotter, as Mr Wallace has emphasised in his submissions to us.
We also note that the race was run in a good time and was quicker on the day than the C1 trot. The distance between the second and third placed horses in the race was 16 ¼ lengths. It is clear that the first two horses cleared out from the field at the top of the straight and on this occasion were significantly better on the day than the rest of the field.
The committee has also taken into account RUBY’S JEWEL previous racing manners from last season where she broke regularly and we understand Mr Wallace’s cautious approach to ensure the horse got around without breaking. It is clear on this occasion he was able to keep RUBY’S JEWEL well-balanced in the run home on what was a bumpy grass surface.
These matters were emphasised by Mr Williamson and Mr Knight, who are both very experienced horsemen and, in Mr Williamson’s case, with trotters, in particular. They both were clearly of the view that given RUBY’S JEWEL’s history, she was well tried in the race and had been asked to give and had given her best. They saw nothing amiss with Mr Wallace’s drive; indeed, they were complimentary. We must afford weight to their evidence.
We viewed the videotapes of the Wairio race at Winton on 20 December 2014 where RUBY’S JEWEL ran on strongly to finish second on a slushy track. It is clear that Mr Wallace used the whip more repeatedly and earlier in the run home than he did in today’s race. That said, Mr Wallace’s driving style is clearly to sit very still on RUBY’S JEWEL and to use the whip sparingly with only very light flicks of the whip. There is no video evidence to dispute Mr Wallace’s assertion that he ran the whip through RUBY’S JEWEL’s tail as he was about to enter the home straight and that she did not respond positively to this.
When Mr Wallace flicked the whip at RUBY’S JEWEL at about the 50 metres mark the horse did appear to further concentrate on the matter at hand, in that her head steadied, but there was no significant increase in the momentum of RUBYS’ JEWEL. She continued to fight to the line, as indeed she had the whole way up the straight, and finished within a nose of the winner.
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: 810ac43f361005be21031b295baab2eb
informantnumber: A4408
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Failed to take all reasonable and permissable measure to obtain best result
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 29/12/2014
hearing_title: Wyndham HRC 6 January 2015 - R 1
charge:
facts:
At the conclusion of Race 1 the Top Line Fencing Handicap Trot an information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Renault under rule 868(2) alleging that Mr B Wallace the driver of RUBY’S JEWEL, failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures between the 300 metres and 50 metres to obtain the best result.
The rule reads: 868(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:
Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault showed the Committee several video clips of the alleged incident (head on and side on) highlighting RUBY’S JEWEL driven by Mr Wallace. He said the horse was trotting fluently and had not put in any rough strides.
Mr Renault stated he had no concerns regarding Mr Wallace’s driving from the 50 metres mark to the winning post. He highlighted the fact that Mr Wallace gave RUBY’S JEWEL 8 or 9 rapid-fire flicks with the whip at about the 50 metres mark. He also said Mr Wallace had given the horse one tap on the tail at about the 350 metres mark.
Mr Renault confirmed RUBY’S JEWEL finished a nose behind the winner TEHORO HOLLY and a stride past the winning post he believed RUBY’S JEWEL was in front. The distance back to third was 16 ¼ lengths.
Mr Renault stated that Mr Wallace had showed no vigour at all from the 300 metres mark, sitting quietly, with the horse responding over the last 50 metres to Mr Wallace’s urgings with the flicking of the whip. Mr Renault demonstrated on the head-on video that from the time the whip was used at the 50 metres mark the head of the horse steadied and stopped moving from side to side. This he believed was evidence that the horse was concentrating from that point in the race. He agreed with the Committee that this aside, there was no noticeable response from RUBY’S JEWEL, in the sense that she made any significant ground on TEHORO HOLLY after being flicked with the whip.
Mr Wallace opened his defence of the charge by calling 2 witnesses, Mr P Williamson and Mr G Knight.
Mr Williamson, an experienced licensed trainer and driver, stated that Mr Wallace’s first priority was to ensure that RUBY’S JEWEL got around safely without breaking and losing her chance. Mr Williamson said he was very aware of the racing manners of RUBY’S JEWEL, and that last season the horse had had 6 or 7 starts and broke in every race.
Mr Williamson believed Mr Wallace took a “cautious approach” as with a trotter at times it did not feel “safe enough to strike them as they will bust” and lose all chance.
Mr Williamson, after viewing the video clip again, stated he believed RUBY’S JEWEL was doing the best it could on the day, and that the eventual winner TEHORO HOLLY fought like a “caged tiger”. He said when Mr Wallace used the whip it had made very little difference. When questioned by the Committee as to whether RUBY’S JEWEL had been given every opportunity to win the race, he replied, “absolutely” and he repeated his assertion that there had been no further improvement when the whip was used.
Mr Knight, an experienced licensed trainer, stated that he was also aware of the racing manners of RUBY’S JEWEL last season, and had seen her race 4 times this season.
Mr Knight stated he believed Mr Wallace drove the horse the same way each time this season, and also at the recent Balfour Equalisator meeting when there was prize money on offer and RUBY’S JEWEL was beaten by a nose.
Mr Knight also stated he did not believe RUBY’S JEWEL lifted over the final 50 metres and that the horse had done her best work the whole way. He said Mr Wallace had sat still in the cart, with his hands still on the reins, and had kept RUBY’S JEWEL nicely balanced. He said knowing the history of the horse; she had had every opportunity to win. When questioned by Mr Renault as to whether a person who had invested on the horse would have expected her to be driven with vigour and with the whip, he said, “The use of the whip would not have made any difference”.
Mr Wallace stated that the horse had 7 starts last season and 7 gallops and it was “game over” when that happened. He stated that RUBY’S JEWEL was having her fourth start this season. Her record was:
20/12/2014 Wairio at Winton Finished 2nd Grit Surface Slushy track
27/12/2014 Gore Finished 10th Grit Surface (broke)
02/01/2015 Central Otago at Omakau Finished 3rd Grit Surface
06/01/2015 Wyndham at Cromwell Finished 2nd Grass Track
Mr Wallace stated that he had driven the horse the same way in each race this season.
Mr Wallace asked Mr Renault to show the video clips of the Wairio meeting and the Central Otago meeting, which the Committee then viewed. The video clip of the Balfour meeting was not available.
Mr Wallace stated that RUBY’S JEWEL had a very tough run in today’s race. She had been 4 wide from the 500 metres onwards and had given her best. He stated that he growled at her at the top of the straight and was asking her to do her best. Mr Wallace also stated that the time of the race was significant (3.29.79) the last quarter in 30.19.
Mr Wallace stated that GREY POWER who won the C1 trot over the same distance today, won in a time of 3.31.37, RUBY’S JEWEL was a maiden trotter so she had done “pretty well” to run second in a faster time. He was very proud of her performance.
Mr Wallace also stated that the Cromwell track was very uneven, grass not grit, and as a result it was much harder to keep his horse balanced in the run up the straight.
He believed that early in the run home his horse was not trotting that smoothly. He said he had used the whip through RUBY’S JEWEL’s tail as they entered the home straight and she had indicated she did not like it by putting in a rough one and swishing her tail. He emphasised she had full deafeners and a murphy blind.
In summing up Mr Renault referred to Mr Wallace’s drive at the Wairio meeting where in his opinion Mr Wallace showed a lot more vigour. The horse finished second when tried with the whip on a slushy track. Mr Renault did not believe Mr Wallace showed the same vigour in today’s race. Mr Wallace replied he believed the horse had given her best on the day.
reasonsfordecision:
The charge relates to Mr Wallace’s drive on RUBY’S JEWEL from the 300 metres mark to the 50 metres mark. The committee and Mr Renault had no concern over Mr Wallace’s drive from the 50 metres mark to the winning post. It is clear that Mr Wallace has made no physical movement or obvious urgings to RUBY’S JEWEL with the reins or the whip from the 300 metres mark to the 50 metres mark.
The committee accepts that RUBY’S JEWEL had had a hard run in that it had made ground from mid-field three wide from the 800 metres and on entering the home straight was briefly 4 wide before challenging TEHORO HOLLY for the lead. We also accept that the Cromwell grass track is not as level as a grit track and it may be more difficult to keep a horse well balanced, particularly a trotter, as Mr Wallace has emphasised in his submissions to us.
We also note that the race was run in a good time and was quicker on the day than the C1 trot. The distance between the second and third placed horses in the race was 16 ¼ lengths. It is clear that the first two horses cleared out from the field at the top of the straight and on this occasion were significantly better on the day than the rest of the field.
The committee has also taken into account RUBY’S JEWEL previous racing manners from last season where she broke regularly and we understand Mr Wallace’s cautious approach to ensure the horse got around without breaking. It is clear on this occasion he was able to keep RUBY’S JEWEL well-balanced in the run home on what was a bumpy grass surface.
These matters were emphasised by Mr Williamson and Mr Knight, who are both very experienced horsemen and, in Mr Williamson’s case, with trotters, in particular. They both were clearly of the view that given RUBY’S JEWEL’s history, she was well tried in the race and had been asked to give and had given her best. They saw nothing amiss with Mr Wallace’s drive; indeed, they were complimentary. We must afford weight to their evidence.
We viewed the videotapes of the Wairio race at Winton on 20 December 2014 where RUBY’S JEWEL ran on strongly to finish second on a slushy track. It is clear that Mr Wallace used the whip more repeatedly and earlier in the run home than he did in today’s race. That said, Mr Wallace’s driving style is clearly to sit very still on RUBY’S JEWEL and to use the whip sparingly with only very light flicks of the whip. There is no video evidence to dispute Mr Wallace’s assertion that he ran the whip through RUBY’S JEWEL’s tail as he was about to enter the home straight and that she did not respond positively to this.
When Mr Wallace flicked the whip at RUBY’S JEWEL at about the 50 metres mark the horse did appear to further concentrate on the matter at hand, in that her head steadied, but there was no significant increase in the momentum of RUBYS’ JEWEL. She continued to fight to the line, as indeed she had the whole way up the straight, and finished within a nose of the winner.
Decision:
We have found this to be a finely balanced matter. There are strong and persuasive arguments either way. Ultimately our decision rests on the standard of proof of on the balance of probabilities. The Committee after careful deliberation is of the view that the matter is a 50/50 call and thus we dismiss the charge. However, we recommend that the Stipendiary Stewards speak to Mr Wallace and emphasise that his driving in the future should leave no room for doubt with respect to his compliance with this rule.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 868(2)
Informant: Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr B Wallace - Driver of RUBY'S JEWEL
Otherperson: Mr P Williamson - Licensed Trainer, Mr G Knight - Licensed Trainer
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 0074559c0c1137552e6e374af4eb17cc
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 1d5937cea923325607a5e17e1aca467c
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 06/01/2015
meet_title: Wyndham HRC - 6 January 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wyndham-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: NSkelt
meet_pm1: GHall
meet_pm2: none
name: Wyndham HRC