Waikato BOP H 11 January 2020 – R 2 – Chair, Mr G Jones
ID: JCA15323
Meet Title:
Harness Racing Waikato - 11 January 2020
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2020/01/11
Race Number:
R02
Decision:
The Committee is of the view that Mr Butcher, perhaps erroneously, placed too much emphasis on his belief that he was entitled to push out, without having due regard for the manner of the shift and the safety the horse on its outer. The Shifting Down Regulations make it clear that the onus is on the driver shifting to do so safely and gradually. Given the abrupt shift outwards and the interference to DANKE, we find that Mr Butcher is clearly at odds with the regulations.
The charge is proved.
Penalty:
Mr Butcher's licence to drive in races was suspended from 11 January until the conclusion of racing on 18 January 2020.
Facts:
This charge arises from the running of Race 2, the NZB Standardbred Handicap Trot 2700m. An information was filed by Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr Muirhead alleging Open Horseman, Mr B Butcher, breached Rule 869(3)(b) “in that he drove carelessly near the 150 m when shifting ground outwards which resulted in interference to DANKE which broke losing its chance”.
Mr Butcher endorsed the Information ‘I do not admit the breach of the rule’. At the commencement of the hearing he confirmed his not guilty plea. The proposed procedure for hearing the charge was outlined.
Rule 869 (3)(b) provides:
No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Muirhead used head, side and rear-on video films to support his oral evidence. The films were shown at least 5 or 6 times. He stated that as the field entered the final straight THE REV (B Butcher) was racing last, 4 or 5 back on the running line, with DANKE (G Martin) on its outer. He said that as the field entered the home straight THE REV was on the back of FIRA and Mr Butcher was looking to change ground from a 1 out to a 3-out position.
Mr Muirhead stated that THE REV shifted out 3 sulky widths and his sulky wheel made contact with DANKE’S rear leg. This caused DANKE go into a break and gallop. He said that the outward shift was abrupt and it was of some note that DANKE was running in a straight line, albeit being dictated out, but at no stage did Mr Martin attempt to hold Mr Butcher in.
In concluding his evidence Mr Muirhead said that it was Mr Butcher's responsibility to shift safely and in such a manner that he did not interfere with DANKE. He added the outward shift was inappropriate; it was too abrupt and this was clearly shown on the films which showed that Mr Butcher was lifted from the seat of his sulky when contact was made with DANKE’S hind leg.
In cross examination Mr Butcher said to Mr Muirhead that he held an advantage over DANKE and was therefore was entitled to shift out and Mr Martin made no attempt to let him do so. In response Mr Muirhead said that DANKE did shift wider on the track but the outward movement of THE REV was too abrupt and it should have been more gradual.
In his evidence Mr Martin confirmed he was the driver of DANKE who broke and lost all chance in the home straight. He stated that this occurred because Mr Butcher, who was on his inside, shifted out, made contact, firstly with his wheel and then with his horse’s hind legs. Mr Martin described Mr Butcher's manner of driving as incompetent and reckless. He added that as a result his horse galloped and received a cut on its rear hind leg. In conclusion he said that he could not get out of the way of THE REV due to the abrupt outward movement.
In cross examination Mr Butcher suggested to Mr Martin that he held an advantage over him and on that basis he should have conceded. In response Mr Martin stated that Mr Butcher was not entitled to come out in the manner in which he did. Some debate then followed between Mr Martin and Mr Butcher around respective entitlements of a driver to shift out.
In his evidence Mr Butcher referred to the available films. He said that he “eased out slightly” when DANKE was a neck behind. He said that Mr Martin made no attempt to shift out when he had every right to do so. He added that DANKE broke due to Mr Martin driving incompetently because the ‘push out’ rule was operating in his favour.
In concluding his evidence, Mr Butcher said that he came out slowly and held an advantage over DANKE.
In cross examination Mr Muirhead asked Mr Butcher to view the films and comment on whether or not DANKE did shift wider on the track and whether it maintained a straight line in doing so. Mr Butcher did not agree with this interpretation and maintained the ‘push out’ rule was in his favour.
At this juncture Mr Muirhead drew Mr Butcher's attention to the Shifting Ground Regulations. He read those regulations aloud. In essence he reiterated the part that places the onus on the driver shifting ground to ensure the move is made with safety and does not cause interference. He also highlighted the fact that where interference occurs or a driver fails to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place, the provisions of Rules 869(3) and (4) shall apply.
In summing up the case for the Informant Mr Muirhead submitted that THE REV’S movement was not gradual and it was in contravention of the Shifting Ground Regulations.
In summing up the case for the Respondent, Mr Butcher submitted that he had every right to shift out because he held an advantage over DANKE.
Reasons for Decision:
After carefully considering the oral evidence and our assessment of the race films the Committee concluded that the charge was proved. This is explained in more detail below, but in essence we found that Mr Butcher's outward manoeuvre caused interference to DANKE who was checked after having its rightful running line taken. In doing so Mr Butcher failed to exercise the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver operating in similar circumstances.
On our review of the race films the Committee observed that shortly after entering the home straight Mr Butcher has made a deliberate and determined effort to angle THE REV outwards from behind FIRO. At that time DANKE was on THE REV’S outer about neck in arrears. Mr Butcher shifted THE REV outward in an abrupt manner and made contact with DANKE legs causing that runner to break and gallop. The films clearly showed that Mr Butcher momentarily dropped his foot from his foot-rest after making firm contact.
Whereas Mr Butcher premised his defence on the ‘push out’ rule; Mr Muirhead argued that Mr Butcher was entitled to shift out he was obliged to do so gradually and within the boundaries set out in the Shifting Ground Regulations.
The Rules:
‘Pushout Rule’ (r689) provides that
(6) Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:-
(a) horseman are permitted to move ground inwards or outwards at any stage of the race to improve their racing position;
(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.
(7) Sub-rule (6)(b) and (c) of this Rule shall apply until 1000 metres from the finish of the race. From this point all horsemen shall be expected to make moves, with safety, to ensure the horse obtains the best possible place in the field.
The Shifting Ground Regulations provide that:
The Shifting Down Regulations replace the former Easing Down Regulation and were effective from 11 November 2018.
The Regulations provide that:
Where a horse does not have clear passage during a race the driver shall be permitted to shift ground:
1. Inwards and ease another runner down the track provided such driver is in a position to do so by having sufficient advantage over the horse about to be shifted inwards and that horse is
clear of other horses to its inside so it can be moved in.
2 Outwards and ease another runner up the track provided the horse to be shifted outwards is in
a position to be moved out without causing interference to that or any other horse and that the movement complies with the requirements of Rule 869(6)(b) and (c) – the “push out” Rule.
For the avoidance of doubt, the following shall apply:
The onus shall be on the driver shifting ground to ensure the move is made with safety and does not
cause interference by conducting it in a gradual and acceptable manner thereby enabling the driver of the runner being moved to be able to take the necessary action to accommodate the manoeuvre.
Where interference occurs or a driver fails to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place, the provisions of Rules 869(3) and (4) shall apply.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Muirhead submitted that Mr Butcher has a very good driving record under this Rule having had 1 previous breach in May 2019. He said he has since had 233 drives and is therefore outside the 6 month or 200 drive reset period.
Mr Muirhead submitted that in circumstances where interference has resulted to a runner, it is Stewards policy to seek a suspension as opposed to a fine. On this occasion a suspension in the vicinity of 2 race days is sought given that the carelessness on Mr Butcher's part was mid-range.
In response Mr Butcher submitted he could commence any proposed suspension immediately as he has no pending or confirmed engagements at forthcoming northern meetings.
Reasons for Penalty:
The JCA Penalty Guide provides a starting point of a 10-drive suspension or a $500 fine for careless driving. The Committee has noted that similar recent breaches have incurred penalties ranging from fines between $200 to $500 and/or suspensions in the 2 to 3-day range depending on case specific circumstances.
After taking into account the submissions of both the Informant and Respondent; noting the race film and the resultant impact on the affected runner, DANKE, we have determined the breach to be low to mid-range. On that basis we adopted a 10-drive suspension as our starting point.
Due to the affected runner having its chances extinguished we applied a 1-day penalty uplift. Then after affording Mr Butcher credit for his very good record we applied a 1-day reduction.
In the final result we determined that a 2 (Northern) day suspension to be an appropriate penalty in the circumstances of this case. Based on Mr Butcher's driving history this equates to 5 drives per race day which we understand to be consistent with Mr Butcher's recent driving history.
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: 8415dc4a462e33de8c29b8594cb51a20
informantnumber: A12232
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 12/01/2020
hearing_title: Waikato BOP H 11 January 2020 – R 2 – Chair, Mr G Jones
charge:
facts:
This charge arises from the running of Race 2, the NZB Standardbred Handicap Trot 2700m. An information was filed by Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr Muirhead alleging Open Horseman, Mr B Butcher, breached Rule 869(3)(b) “in that he drove carelessly near the 150 m when shifting ground outwards which resulted in interference to DANKE which broke losing its chance”.
Mr Butcher endorsed the Information ‘I do not admit the breach of the rule’. At the commencement of the hearing he confirmed his not guilty plea. The proposed procedure for hearing the charge was outlined.
Rule 869 (3)(b) provides:
No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Muirhead used head, side and rear-on video films to support his oral evidence. The films were shown at least 5 or 6 times. He stated that as the field entered the final straight THE REV (B Butcher) was racing last, 4 or 5 back on the running line, with DANKE (G Martin) on its outer. He said that as the field entered the home straight THE REV was on the back of FIRA and Mr Butcher was looking to change ground from a 1 out to a 3-out position.
Mr Muirhead stated that THE REV shifted out 3 sulky widths and his sulky wheel made contact with DANKE’S rear leg. This caused DANKE go into a break and gallop. He said that the outward shift was abrupt and it was of some note that DANKE was running in a straight line, albeit being dictated out, but at no stage did Mr Martin attempt to hold Mr Butcher in.
In concluding his evidence Mr Muirhead said that it was Mr Butcher's responsibility to shift safely and in such a manner that he did not interfere with DANKE. He added the outward shift was inappropriate; it was too abrupt and this was clearly shown on the films which showed that Mr Butcher was lifted from the seat of his sulky when contact was made with DANKE’S hind leg.
In cross examination Mr Butcher said to Mr Muirhead that he held an advantage over DANKE and was therefore was entitled to shift out and Mr Martin made no attempt to let him do so. In response Mr Muirhead said that DANKE did shift wider on the track but the outward movement of THE REV was too abrupt and it should have been more gradual.
In his evidence Mr Martin confirmed he was the driver of DANKE who broke and lost all chance in the home straight. He stated that this occurred because Mr Butcher, who was on his inside, shifted out, made contact, firstly with his wheel and then with his horse’s hind legs. Mr Martin described Mr Butcher's manner of driving as incompetent and reckless. He added that as a result his horse galloped and received a cut on its rear hind leg. In conclusion he said that he could not get out of the way of THE REV due to the abrupt outward movement.
In cross examination Mr Butcher suggested to Mr Martin that he held an advantage over him and on that basis he should have conceded. In response Mr Martin stated that Mr Butcher was not entitled to come out in the manner in which he did. Some debate then followed between Mr Martin and Mr Butcher around respective entitlements of a driver to shift out.
In his evidence Mr Butcher referred to the available films. He said that he “eased out slightly” when DANKE was a neck behind. He said that Mr Martin made no attempt to shift out when he had every right to do so. He added that DANKE broke due to Mr Martin driving incompetently because the ‘push out’ rule was operating in his favour.
In concluding his evidence, Mr Butcher said that he came out slowly and held an advantage over DANKE.
In cross examination Mr Muirhead asked Mr Butcher to view the films and comment on whether or not DANKE did shift wider on the track and whether it maintained a straight line in doing so. Mr Butcher did not agree with this interpretation and maintained the ‘push out’ rule was in his favour.
At this juncture Mr Muirhead drew Mr Butcher's attention to the Shifting Ground Regulations. He read those regulations aloud. In essence he reiterated the part that places the onus on the driver shifting ground to ensure the move is made with safety and does not cause interference. He also highlighted the fact that where interference occurs or a driver fails to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place, the provisions of Rules 869(3) and (4) shall apply.
In summing up the case for the Informant Mr Muirhead submitted that THE REV’S movement was not gradual and it was in contravention of the Shifting Ground Regulations.
In summing up the case for the Respondent, Mr Butcher submitted that he had every right to shift out because he held an advantage over DANKE.
reasonsfordecision:
After carefully considering the oral evidence and our assessment of the race films the Committee concluded that the charge was proved. This is explained in more detail below, but in essence we found that Mr Butcher's outward manoeuvre caused interference to DANKE who was checked after having its rightful running line taken. In doing so Mr Butcher failed to exercise the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver operating in similar circumstances.
On our review of the race films the Committee observed that shortly after entering the home straight Mr Butcher has made a deliberate and determined effort to angle THE REV outwards from behind FIRO. At that time DANKE was on THE REV’S outer about neck in arrears. Mr Butcher shifted THE REV outward in an abrupt manner and made contact with DANKE legs causing that runner to break and gallop. The films clearly showed that Mr Butcher momentarily dropped his foot from his foot-rest after making firm contact.
Whereas Mr Butcher premised his defence on the ‘push out’ rule; Mr Muirhead argued that Mr Butcher was entitled to shift out he was obliged to do so gradually and within the boundaries set out in the Shifting Ground Regulations.
The Rules:
‘Pushout Rule’ (r689) provides that
(6) Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:-
(a) horseman are permitted to move ground inwards or outwards at any stage of the race to improve their racing position;
(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.
(7) Sub-rule (6)(b) and (c) of this Rule shall apply until 1000 metres from the finish of the race. From this point all horsemen shall be expected to make moves, with safety, to ensure the horse obtains the best possible place in the field.
The Shifting Ground Regulations provide that:
The Shifting Down Regulations replace the former Easing Down Regulation and were effective from 11 November 2018.
The Regulations provide that:
Where a horse does not have clear passage during a race the driver shall be permitted to shift ground:
1. Inwards and ease another runner down the track provided such driver is in a position to do so by having sufficient advantage over the horse about to be shifted inwards and that horse is
clear of other horses to its inside so it can be moved in.
2 Outwards and ease another runner up the track provided the horse to be shifted outwards is in
a position to be moved out without causing interference to that or any other horse and that the movement complies with the requirements of Rule 869(6)(b) and (c) – the “push out” Rule.
For the avoidance of doubt, the following shall apply:
The onus shall be on the driver shifting ground to ensure the move is made with safety and does not
cause interference by conducting it in a gradual and acceptable manner thereby enabling the driver of the runner being moved to be able to take the necessary action to accommodate the manoeuvre.
Where interference occurs or a driver fails to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place, the provisions of Rules 869(3) and (4) shall apply.
Decision:
The Committee is of the view that Mr Butcher, perhaps erroneously, placed too much emphasis on his belief that he was entitled to push out, without having due regard for the manner of the shift and the safety the horse on its outer. The Shifting Down Regulations make it clear that the onus is on the driver shifting to do so safely and gradually. Given the abrupt shift outwards and the interference to DANKE, we find that Mr Butcher is clearly at odds with the regulations.
The charge is proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Muirhead submitted that Mr Butcher has a very good driving record under this Rule having had 1 previous breach in May 2019. He said he has since had 233 drives and is therefore outside the 6 month or 200 drive reset period.
Mr Muirhead submitted that in circumstances where interference has resulted to a runner, it is Stewards policy to seek a suspension as opposed to a fine. On this occasion a suspension in the vicinity of 2 race days is sought given that the carelessness on Mr Butcher's part was mid-range.
In response Mr Butcher submitted he could commence any proposed suspension immediately as he has no pending or confirmed engagements at forthcoming northern meetings.
reasonsforpenalty:
The JCA Penalty Guide provides a starting point of a 10-drive suspension or a $500 fine for careless driving. The Committee has noted that similar recent breaches have incurred penalties ranging from fines between $200 to $500 and/or suspensions in the 2 to 3-day range depending on case specific circumstances.
After taking into account the submissions of both the Informant and Respondent; noting the race film and the resultant impact on the affected runner, DANKE, we have determined the breach to be low to mid-range. On that basis we adopted a 10-drive suspension as our starting point.
Due to the affected runner having its chances extinguished we applied a 1-day penalty uplift. Then after affording Mr Butcher credit for his very good record we applied a 1-day reduction.
In the final result we determined that a 2 (Northern) day suspension to be an appropriate penalty in the circumstances of this case. Based on Mr Butcher's driving history this equates to 5 drives per race day which we understand to be consistent with Mr Butcher's recent driving history.
penalty:
Mr Butcher's licence to drive in races was suspended from 11 January until the conclusion of racing on 18 January 2020.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr J Muirhead - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr B Butcher - Open Horseman - Driver of THE REV
Otherperson: Mr G Martin - Open Horseman - Driver of DANKE
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 8a37d5697c19283c74a9da0c6e032077
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R02
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 1c87a99a93683fce2cf90d74b39933ca
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 11/01/2020
meet_title: Harness Racing Waikato - 11 January 2020
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: harness-racing-waikato
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Harness Racing Waikato