Forbury Park TC 14 December 2012 – R 2
ID: JCA15662
Meet Title:
Forbury Park TC - 14 December 2012
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
DSteel
Race Date:
2012/12/14
Race Number:
R2
Decision:
In finding the charge proved we are not satisfied that the respondent made sufficient effort to keep COMMANDER JEWEL off WHITNEY. The only evidence of action on the respondent’s part is simply too late. Mr Allison is correct when he says the damage has been done. We are satisfied that a prudent driver, aware of the proclivities of COMMANDER JEWEL, would have made more effort to keep out when improving his position on the bend. He would have been aware of the possibility that the horse might hang and drift in. In simple terms, Mr Todd did not allow Mr Heads sufficient room.
Penalty:
Mr Todd is fined the sum of $250 and reminded of his professional obligations.
Charge:
Mr Allison, stipendiary steward, alleged that near the 850 metres Mr Todd, the driver of COMMANDER JEWEL permitted his horse to shift in tightening WHITNEY which was checked and broke.
Facts:
Mr Allison requested that this Committee consider the evidence given at an earlier protest resulting out of the incident. Mr Todd did not agree to this and we asked Mr Allison to start afresh.
Mr Allison demonstrated on the videos that Mr Heads who was one out and one back had moved out to 3 wide on the bend out of the home straight.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Allison emphasised Mr Heads had pushed out Mr Todd but was entitled to improve in the manner that he had. The respondent, driving COMMANDER JEWEL, was 4 wide. He alleged Mr Todd moved in slightly at the apex of the bend tightening WHITNEY, which broke and lost momentum. The cart of COMMANDER JEWEL touched a back leg of WHITNEY. He said the respondent’s carelessness lay in his not doing enough to keep off WHITNEY. He emphasised there was a horse on the inner of WHITNEY and that WHITNEY had nowhere to go and had simply run out of room. In Mr Todd’s favour was that he had done “a wee bit” but that that was too late, in that “the damage had been done”. He said there was no evidence, for example, of the respondent pulling on one rein prior to the contact.
Mr Heads gave evidence. He said had not yelled at the respondent to keep out. He said he did not drive that often and was concentrating on his driving. He said he could not get out of it; his horse was trotting good at the time, and he pointed out on the videos that the inside wheel of Mr Todd’s cart was inside his immediately prior to the incident. In response to questioning from Mr Todd, he said he did not believe that the respondent was trying to push him down on the track.
Mr Todd stated that his horse was hanging and that he was not deliberately trying to push Mr Heads down on the track. We explained that we did not believe that this formed part of the prosecution case and Mr Allison confirmed this. Mr Todd said COMMANDER JEWEL was running out in its preliminary and he had sought and was granted permission to remove the rein pole. When questioned by this committee, he stated that the horse usually wore a rein pole when being worked. He demonstrated on the video that the horse’s head was around and it was hanging and that he could not pull him off WHITNEY.
Mr Cox, speaking on behalf of the respondent, said Mr Heads was usually very vocal on the track and that the incident could not have been that serious, as he had not yelled out. He said the respondent was a victim of circumstances. He said he accepted Mr Heads' evidence that there had been contact but he pointed out there was no evidence the respondent was aware of this as he had not looked back after WHITNEY broke.
Reasons for Decision:
The nub of the matter was that Mr Todd was driving a horse, and in this case a trotter which he explained was more difficult to steer in that it did not respond as promptly as a pacer to sudden movements of the reins, that had given him tractability problems when warming up. We understand that the horse was drifting out on the bends rather than in and that the rein pole was removed as a consequence. On this occasion the horse has drifted in at the apex of the bend out of the home straight. The consequence was interference to WHITNEY which was entitled to the position it had taken in the field, and that horse galloped losing significant ground. Mr Heads’ evidence was clear. He said that wheel of the cart of COMMANDER JEWEL touched the off hind leg of WHITNEY. This cannot be verified by the video evidence, which is inconclusive, but we accept Mr Heads’ evidence.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Allison stated that the respondent’s carelessness had resulted in a relegation and, in these circumstances, the Penalty Guide recommended a starting point of $500. He believed a fine of $300 was appropriate. He produced Mr Todd’s record, which was clear under this rule.
Mr Todd said he did not wish to be suspended and submitted a fine at the lower end of the range was appropriate.
Reasons for Penalty:
This is an example of the consequences of the respondent’s actions far outweighing his degree of culpability. There has been a relegation in circumstances where Mr Todd has let COMMANDER JEWEL drift down on the track at the apex of the bend. His degree of carelessness is not high. Taking into account he is a junior driver, and his excellent record of no previous breaches under this rule in the past 12 months when he has had some 150 drives, we believe a fine in the lower range is appropriate.
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: c1319e55404c84f4877d2ba8d521a920
informantnumber: 1332
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 24/11/2012
hearing_title: Forbury Park TC 14 December 2012 - R 2
charge:
Mr Allison, stipendiary steward, alleged that near the 850 metres Mr Todd, the driver of COMMANDER JEWEL permitted his horse to shift in tightening WHITNEY which was checked and broke.
facts:
Mr Allison requested that this Committee consider the evidence given at an earlier protest resulting out of the incident. Mr Todd did not agree to this and we asked Mr Allison to start afresh.
Mr Allison demonstrated on the videos that Mr Heads who was one out and one back had moved out to 3 wide on the bend out of the home straight.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Allison emphasised Mr Heads had pushed out Mr Todd but was entitled to improve in the manner that he had. The respondent, driving COMMANDER JEWEL, was 4 wide. He alleged Mr Todd moved in slightly at the apex of the bend tightening WHITNEY, which broke and lost momentum. The cart of COMMANDER JEWEL touched a back leg of WHITNEY. He said the respondent’s carelessness lay in his not doing enough to keep off WHITNEY. He emphasised there was a horse on the inner of WHITNEY and that WHITNEY had nowhere to go and had simply run out of room. In Mr Todd’s favour was that he had done “a wee bit” but that that was too late, in that “the damage had been done”. He said there was no evidence, for example, of the respondent pulling on one rein prior to the contact.
Mr Heads gave evidence. He said had not yelled at the respondent to keep out. He said he did not drive that often and was concentrating on his driving. He said he could not get out of it; his horse was trotting good at the time, and he pointed out on the videos that the inside wheel of Mr Todd’s cart was inside his immediately prior to the incident. In response to questioning from Mr Todd, he said he did not believe that the respondent was trying to push him down on the track.
Mr Todd stated that his horse was hanging and that he was not deliberately trying to push Mr Heads down on the track. We explained that we did not believe that this formed part of the prosecution case and Mr Allison confirmed this. Mr Todd said COMMANDER JEWEL was running out in its preliminary and he had sought and was granted permission to remove the rein pole. When questioned by this committee, he stated that the horse usually wore a rein pole when being worked. He demonstrated on the video that the horse’s head was around and it was hanging and that he could not pull him off WHITNEY.
Mr Cox, speaking on behalf of the respondent, said Mr Heads was usually very vocal on the track and that the incident could not have been that serious, as he had not yelled out. He said the respondent was a victim of circumstances. He said he accepted Mr Heads' evidence that there had been contact but he pointed out there was no evidence the respondent was aware of this as he had not looked back after WHITNEY broke.
reasonsfordecision:
The nub of the matter was that Mr Todd was driving a horse, and in this case a trotter which he explained was more difficult to steer in that it did not respond as promptly as a pacer to sudden movements of the reins, that had given him tractability problems when warming up. We understand that the horse was drifting out on the bends rather than in and that the rein pole was removed as a consequence. On this occasion the horse has drifted in at the apex of the bend out of the home straight. The consequence was interference to WHITNEY which was entitled to the position it had taken in the field, and that horse galloped losing significant ground. Mr Heads’ evidence was clear. He said that wheel of the cart of COMMANDER JEWEL touched the off hind leg of WHITNEY. This cannot be verified by the video evidence, which is inconclusive, but we accept Mr Heads’ evidence.
Decision:
In finding the charge proved we are not satisfied that the respondent made sufficient effort to keep COMMANDER JEWEL off WHITNEY. The only evidence of action on the respondent’s part is simply too late. Mr Allison is correct when he says the damage has been done. We are satisfied that a prudent driver, aware of the proclivities of COMMANDER JEWEL, would have made more effort to keep out when improving his position on the bend. He would have been aware of the possibility that the horse might hang and drift in. In simple terms, Mr Todd did not allow Mr Heads sufficient room.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Allison stated that the respondent’s carelessness had resulted in a relegation and, in these circumstances, the Penalty Guide recommended a starting point of $500. He believed a fine of $300 was appropriate. He produced Mr Todd’s record, which was clear under this rule.
Mr Todd said he did not wish to be suspended and submitted a fine at the lower end of the range was appropriate.
reasonsforpenalty:
This is an example of the consequences of the respondent’s actions far outweighing his degree of culpability. There has been a relegation in circumstances where Mr Todd has let COMMANDER JEWEL drift down on the track at the apex of the bend. His degree of carelessness is not high. Taking into account he is a junior driver, and his excellent record of no previous breaches under this rule in the past 12 months when he has had some 150 drives, we believe a fine in the lower range is appropriate.
penalty:
Mr Todd is fined the sum of $250 and reminded of his professional obligations.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr C Allison, Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr R Todd, Junior Driver
Otherperson: Mr J Cox, Licensed Trainer/ Open Horseman, assisting Mr Todd
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 0d50009da6fc25b9e118ce8a19977e61
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: ce045a20bc40c1b306ae23292eed2ad3
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 14/12/2012
meet_title: Forbury Park TC - 14 December 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: forbury-park-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: DSteel
meet_pm2: none
name: Forbury Park TC