Bay of Plenty HRC 25 January 2015 – R 10
ID: JCA15704
Meet Title:
Bay of Plenty HRC - 25 January 2015
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
AGodsalve
Race Date:
2015/01/25
Race Number:
R10
Decision:
For the above reasons the Committee finds the charge against Mr Abernethy proved.
Penalty:
Accordingly, the Committee imposes a $300 fine on Mr S Abernethy.
Facts:
Following the running of race 10, Ultimate Motor Group Mobile Pace, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 869(4).The Informant, Mr Mulcay, alleged that Open Horseman Mr S Abernethy drove HOUHORA DREAM near the 400 metres in a manner which caused interference to his own horse by attempting to resist the outward shift of PLAYAWAY (D Butcher) when not in a position to do so.
Mr Abernethy acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and confirmed he denied the breach.
Rule 869(4) provides: No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress'
Mr Mulcay sought permission to amend the Information by adding the words (near the 400 metres). The Committee permitted Mr Mulcay to amend the Information. Mr Abernethy had no objection to the amendment.
Mr S Abernethy asked the Committee if he could be assisted at the hearing by Mr J Abernethy. The Stewards objected to this request and referred the Committee to Rule 1118.
The Committee after a brief adjournment granted Mr Abernethy’s request. We provided the Stewards with a copy of the JCA Guidelines for race day Judicial Hearings. It was explained to Mr S Abernethy that Mr J Abernethy’s role was to support him and we would not allow him to enter any submissions.
The last race started at 5.30 pm and this hearing commenced at 6.15pm.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Muirhead demonstrated the alleged incident using all the available video films. He pointed out to the Committee that passing the 500 metres Mr Butcher was racing in a 1 off position with Mr Abernethy racing on his outside in a 3 wide position. He said shortly after that point Mr Butcher shifts out when he is in advance of Mr Abernethy’s sulky wheel. However, he identified on the film that Mr Abernethy strikes his horse with the whip and turns its head in which resulted in HOUHURA DREAM becoming unbalanced and galloping. He believed Mr Abernethy’s manoeuvre was an attempt by him to stop Mr Butcher from moving out. He said at that point there was plenty of room for Mr Abernethy to shift out. Mr Muirhead added that in his opinion Mr D Butcher shifted out when a nose to half a head in front of Mr Abernethy.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Muirhead said that margin was sufficient to be classified as an advantage.
Under cross examination Mr Abernethy asked Mr Mulcay if he believed Mr B Butcher who was racing on his outside was wide enough to allow him to shift out without causing any interference. Mr Mulcay responded by saying that Mr D Butcher was in a position to shift out and he should have accepted the shift. He added that PUREORA PAREE (Mr B Butcher) was racing in a position that he could move out as well.
Mr Mulcay called Mr D Butcher as a witness. He told the Committee that he was half a wheel in front of Mr Abernethy when he eased out in a normal manner. He said after viewing the films Mr Abernethy had every opportunity to accommodate the shift and he believed the films supported his interpretation of the alleged interference.
Mr Abernethy did not wish to cross examine Mr D Butcher.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr D Butcher was firmly of the view he held an advantage over Mr Abernethy when easing out.
Mr Abernethy pointed out that PUREORA PAREE'S (B Butcher) front legs were too close to his drive. He said if he had eased out he would have contacted them. He believed his horse was a nose in front of Mr D Butcher at the time the interference occurred and their sulky wheels were side by side. He said it was too hard to judge on the films when his horse's head was angled in. He was of the view that when Mr Butcher gets an advantage over him it is at that point when his horse gallops.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Abernethy advised there was no voice contact between the drivers. He added that in his opinion Mr B Butcher shifted out wider on the track because he would have heard the contact from the sulky shafts.
Under cross examination Mr Mulcay asked Mr Abernethy if he believed Mr D Butcher always had an advantage on him. Mr Abernethy did not agree with Mr Mulcay’s assessment.
At this point Trackside advised the Stewards that they needed to pack up all their video equipment in 5 minutes.
Mr Mulcay and Mr Abernethy when given the opportunity to sum up were satisfied they had presented enough submissions for the Committee to consider.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all the submissions presented and reviewed the video footage of the alleged incident frame by frame. We established on the turn film that just prior to the interference occurring Mr D Butcher had a head advantage over Mr Abernethy. We identified that Mr Abernethy strikes his horse firmly with the whip in an endeavour to hold his position to the outside of Mr D Butcher. It was clear at this point Mr D Butcher was travelling better than Mr Abernethy when he started to ease out. We believe Mr D Butcher's manoeuvre is conducted in a gradual and acceptable manner. Mr S Abernethy appears to react by forcing HOUHORA’S DREAM'S head in onto Mr D Butcher’s drive when attempting to hold him in. Mr Abernethy persisted with this inward shift for a short period of time when in our opinion he was not in a position to do so. Mr Abernethy’s actions resulted in his horse breaking and losing any chance it may have had. We are more than satisfied after reviewing the video footage that Mr B Butcher who was racing on the outside of Mr Abernethy had allowed him ample room to move out.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Mulcay produced Mr Abernethy’s record which showed no previous breaches under this Rule in the last 12 months for which he should be credited for. He said the starting point for a breach of this rule was 8 drives or a $400 fine. He submitted the Stewards were seeking a suspension of 2 days or a $400 fine.
Mr Abernethy said he was under pressure when the interference occurred and described it at the low end of the scale because it had not cost his horse a placing. He said there were a lot of meetings coming up and he gets 7 or 8 drives a day therefore preferring a monetary fine as opposed to a suspension. He added a suspension would not be good for his reputation with Trainers. He submitted a fine in the $200 to $250 range would be an appropriate penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the submissions presented. The mitigating factors are Mr Abernethy’s clear record in relation to this Rule and we assess the interference as low. This will permit the starting point to be adjusted downwards. Mr Abernethy made an error of judgement in not surrendering to the outward shift by Mr Butcher. The Committee finds it interesting that by Mr Abernethy’s own admission his horse was under pressure when the interference occurred.
We referred to similar breaches under this Rule which showed the penalties imposed ranged from $200 to $400.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a $300 fine.
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: c54020bd764ccc62cfd977cdf040de76
informantnumber: A3719
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Causing interfernce to his own horse
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 25/01/2015
hearing_title: Bay of Plenty HRC 25 January 2015 - R 10
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 10, Ultimate Motor Group Mobile Pace, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 869(4).The Informant, Mr Mulcay, alleged that Open Horseman Mr S Abernethy drove HOUHORA DREAM near the 400 metres in a manner which caused interference to his own horse by attempting to resist the outward shift of PLAYAWAY (D Butcher) when not in a position to do so.
Mr Abernethy acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and confirmed he denied the breach.
Rule 869(4) provides: No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress'
Mr Mulcay sought permission to amend the Information by adding the words (near the 400 metres). The Committee permitted Mr Mulcay to amend the Information. Mr Abernethy had no objection to the amendment.
Mr S Abernethy asked the Committee if he could be assisted at the hearing by Mr J Abernethy. The Stewards objected to this request and referred the Committee to Rule 1118.
The Committee after a brief adjournment granted Mr Abernethy’s request. We provided the Stewards with a copy of the JCA Guidelines for race day Judicial Hearings. It was explained to Mr S Abernethy that Mr J Abernethy’s role was to support him and we would not allow him to enter any submissions.
The last race started at 5.30 pm and this hearing commenced at 6.15pm.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Muirhead demonstrated the alleged incident using all the available video films. He pointed out to the Committee that passing the 500 metres Mr Butcher was racing in a 1 off position with Mr Abernethy racing on his outside in a 3 wide position. He said shortly after that point Mr Butcher shifts out when he is in advance of Mr Abernethy’s sulky wheel. However, he identified on the film that Mr Abernethy strikes his horse with the whip and turns its head in which resulted in HOUHURA DREAM becoming unbalanced and galloping. He believed Mr Abernethy’s manoeuvre was an attempt by him to stop Mr Butcher from moving out. He said at that point there was plenty of room for Mr Abernethy to shift out. Mr Muirhead added that in his opinion Mr D Butcher shifted out when a nose to half a head in front of Mr Abernethy.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Muirhead said that margin was sufficient to be classified as an advantage.
Under cross examination Mr Abernethy asked Mr Mulcay if he believed Mr B Butcher who was racing on his outside was wide enough to allow him to shift out without causing any interference. Mr Mulcay responded by saying that Mr D Butcher was in a position to shift out and he should have accepted the shift. He added that PUREORA PAREE (Mr B Butcher) was racing in a position that he could move out as well.
Mr Mulcay called Mr D Butcher as a witness. He told the Committee that he was half a wheel in front of Mr Abernethy when he eased out in a normal manner. He said after viewing the films Mr Abernethy had every opportunity to accommodate the shift and he believed the films supported his interpretation of the alleged interference.
Mr Abernethy did not wish to cross examine Mr D Butcher.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr D Butcher was firmly of the view he held an advantage over Mr Abernethy when easing out.
Mr Abernethy pointed out that PUREORA PAREE'S (B Butcher) front legs were too close to his drive. He said if he had eased out he would have contacted them. He believed his horse was a nose in front of Mr D Butcher at the time the interference occurred and their sulky wheels were side by side. He said it was too hard to judge on the films when his horse's head was angled in. He was of the view that when Mr Butcher gets an advantage over him it is at that point when his horse gallops.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Abernethy advised there was no voice contact between the drivers. He added that in his opinion Mr B Butcher shifted out wider on the track because he would have heard the contact from the sulky shafts.
Under cross examination Mr Mulcay asked Mr Abernethy if he believed Mr D Butcher always had an advantage on him. Mr Abernethy did not agree with Mr Mulcay’s assessment.
At this point Trackside advised the Stewards that they needed to pack up all their video equipment in 5 minutes.
Mr Mulcay and Mr Abernethy when given the opportunity to sum up were satisfied they had presented enough submissions for the Committee to consider.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all the submissions presented and reviewed the video footage of the alleged incident frame by frame. We established on the turn film that just prior to the interference occurring Mr D Butcher had a head advantage over Mr Abernethy. We identified that Mr Abernethy strikes his horse firmly with the whip in an endeavour to hold his position to the outside of Mr D Butcher. It was clear at this point Mr D Butcher was travelling better than Mr Abernethy when he started to ease out. We believe Mr D Butcher's manoeuvre is conducted in a gradual and acceptable manner. Mr S Abernethy appears to react by forcing HOUHORA’S DREAM'S head in onto Mr D Butcher’s drive when attempting to hold him in. Mr Abernethy persisted with this inward shift for a short period of time when in our opinion he was not in a position to do so. Mr Abernethy’s actions resulted in his horse breaking and losing any chance it may have had. We are more than satisfied after reviewing the video footage that Mr B Butcher who was racing on the outside of Mr Abernethy had allowed him ample room to move out.
Decision:
For the above reasons the Committee finds the charge against Mr Abernethy proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Mulcay produced Mr Abernethy’s record which showed no previous breaches under this Rule in the last 12 months for which he should be credited for. He said the starting point for a breach of this rule was 8 drives or a $400 fine. He submitted the Stewards were seeking a suspension of 2 days or a $400 fine.
Mr Abernethy said he was under pressure when the interference occurred and described it at the low end of the scale because it had not cost his horse a placing. He said there were a lot of meetings coming up and he gets 7 or 8 drives a day therefore preferring a monetary fine as opposed to a suspension. He added a suspension would not be good for his reputation with Trainers. He submitted a fine in the $200 to $250 range would be an appropriate penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the submissions presented. The mitigating factors are Mr Abernethy’s clear record in relation to this Rule and we assess the interference as low. This will permit the starting point to be adjusted downwards. Mr Abernethy made an error of judgement in not surrendering to the outward shift by Mr Butcher. The Committee finds it interesting that by Mr Abernethy’s own admission his horse was under pressure when the interference occurred.
We referred to similar breaches under this Rule which showed the penalties imposed ranged from $200 to $400.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a $300 fine.
penalty:
Accordingly, the Committee imposes a $300 fine on Mr S Abernethy.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(4)
Informant: Mr S Mulcay - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr S Abernethy - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr J Abernethy - Open Horseman supporting Mr S Abernethy, Mr J Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward, Mr D Butcher - Driver of PLAYAWAY
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 0f7c07e414a58d7ad798cbe2fd300ad3
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 4145cdd34434dd84b7d54494c45edc5e
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 25/01/2015
meet_title: Bay of Plenty HRC - 25 January 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: bay-of-plenty-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: AGodsalve
meet_pm2: none
name: Bay of Plenty HRC