Central Otago TC 2 January 2017 – R 3 – Chair, Mr P Knowles
ID: JCA16045
Meet Title:
Central Otago TC - 2 January 2017
Meet Chair:
PKnowles
Meet Committee Member 1:
GHall
Race Date:
2017/01/02
Race Number:
R6
Decision:
After considering all the evidence the charge of careless driving against Mr May has not been proved. The charge is dismissed.
Facts:
Following the running of the GALLAGHER FAMILY GOLD CUP/MARIE MCNEILL/W.S.HICKEY & SON MOBILE PACE, Stewards lodged an information alleging “RT May drove carelessly when failing to concede his position when racing to the inside of 'Supreme Banner' (M Kerr) this resulted in 'Cindy Bromac' breaking near the 1800 metres”.
Rule 869 (3) (b) reads:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
The Easing Down Regulations read:
Subject to Rule 869 (3) Careless Driving, 869 (4) Causing Interference, a horseman shall be permitted to make moves with safety, provided they are in a position to do so by having a “clear advantage” over the horse they are about to move inwards, and the horse is clear of other horses on its inside so it can be moved in and that the manoeuvre is conducted in a gradual and acceptable manner.
Any horseman who fails to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place, may be charged under Rule 869 (3) Careless Driving.
Mr May attended the hearing and did not admit the breach of the Rule.
Mr McIntyre identified the relevant positions of 'Cindy Bromac' (May) and 'Supreme Banner' (Kerr) shortly after the start. He stated Mr May was attempting to gain a trail behind 'Willedu' (M Anderson) which was one out from the pole line. 'Supreme Banner' was wider out and Mr Kerr shifted inwards coming into contact with 'Cindy Bromac'. For approximately the next 50m Mr Kerr attempted to shift 'Cindy Bromac' inwards into the vacant pole line position. The videos clearly showed that Mr Kerr’s sulky was being forced sideways when he was attempting to shift Mr May down. However, Mr May attempted to hold his position which eventually led to 'Cindy Bromac' breaking and losing ground. Shortly after that 'Supreme Banner' gained the trailing position behind 'Willedu' and also broke. He did not believe the breaking of 'Supreme Banner' was related to the incident.
Mr McIntyre stated that Mr Kerr always held a “clear advantage” and that Mr May should have conceded his position.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Kerr stated that Mr May attempted to take his trailing position behind 'Willedu'. He was trying to hold his position and he believed he had a nose advantage. When Mr May realised he had lost his position he took a hold of his horse, which caused it to break. He said the incident did not cost him any ground and that his horse broke on its own accord soon after regaining the trail behind 'Willedu'.
Mr May stated he believed he was attempting to hold his position behind 'Willedu'. He said the sulky wheels of both sulkies were locked together and that it was a 50/50 call as to who held the advantage. He was of the opinion that Mr Kerr had a slight advantage when he did concede. He said when he turned his horse’s head inwards to concede the horse struck the wheel disc which caused it to break. Up until then he thought it was a good competition between both horses for the same position.
In summary Mr Tidmarsh said the video (side-on taken from the main grandstand) clearly showed that Mr Kerr had a nose advantage prior to Mr May’s horse breaking. He said that Mr Kerr always had the advantage and that Mr May should have conceded. He was careless in not conceding and easing his horse inwards.
Mr May said he was disappointed in the Stipendiary Stewards interpretation of the incident. He always felt it was a good contest and a 50/50 call as to who held the advantage. His horse had galloped when he did concede his position.
Reasons for Decision:
Mr May was charged with a breach of careless driving when failing to concede under the Easing Down Regulations, which led to his horse 'Cindy Bromac' breaking soon after the start. The Stewards alleged that Mr May and Mr Kerr attempted to hold a trailing position behind 'Willedu' racing towards the first bend.
The Stewards stated that Mr Kerr held a “clear advantage” of a nose over Mr May’s horse and that under the Easing Down regulations Mr May should have conceded his position and shifted inwards. The Stewards confirmed their opinions with the aid of the videos, in particular the side-on video taken from the main stand.
They further alleged that Mr May’s failure to concede leading to his own horse breaking was in breach of the careless driving rule.
Mr May on the other hand stated his actions in maintaining his position was a “good contest” between himself and Mr Kerr. He stated both sulkies were locked together which showed neither held any great advantage over the other. He did not believe a nose was a clear advantage and that his horse broke when he finally conceded.
The Easing Down regulations clearly state “…a horseman shall be permitted to make moves with safety, provided they are in a position to do so by having a “clear advantage” over the horse they are about to move inwards…”. The Stewards allege that a nose was a “clear advantage”. A nose is by definition the minimum official margin (excluding a dead-heat).
The Easing Down regulations also state that a horseman is in breach of the careless driving rule if they fail to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place.
We do not believe a nose is a “clear advantage” in this incident. We also find that Mr May was entitled to maintain his position and that his horse galloped/broke when he conceded that position. The videos clearly show that both sulkies were locked together for some distance and that neither horse held a clear advantage over the other. The Stewards based part of their evidence on the side-on video (main grandstand) which in our view does not fairly reflect the position of advantage to either horse.
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: b39008dfa0a6ff3d8aa7a5b5896dd04e
informantnumber: A8561
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Driving & Easing Down Regulations
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 04/01/2017
hearing_title: Central Otago TC 2 January 2017 - R 3 - Chair, Mr P Knowles
charge:
facts:
Following the running of the GALLAGHER FAMILY GOLD CUP/MARIE MCNEILL/W.S.HICKEY & SON MOBILE PACE, Stewards lodged an information alleging “RT May drove carelessly when failing to concede his position when racing to the inside of 'Supreme Banner' (M Kerr) this resulted in 'Cindy Bromac' breaking near the 1800 metres”.
Rule 869 (3) (b) reads:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
The Easing Down Regulations read:
Subject to Rule 869 (3) Careless Driving, 869 (4) Causing Interference, a horseman shall be permitted to make moves with safety, provided they are in a position to do so by having a “clear advantage” over the horse they are about to move inwards, and the horse is clear of other horses on its inside so it can be moved in and that the manoeuvre is conducted in a gradual and acceptable manner.
Any horseman who fails to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place, may be charged under Rule 869 (3) Careless Driving.
Mr May attended the hearing and did not admit the breach of the Rule.
Mr McIntyre identified the relevant positions of 'Cindy Bromac' (May) and 'Supreme Banner' (Kerr) shortly after the start. He stated Mr May was attempting to gain a trail behind 'Willedu' (M Anderson) which was one out from the pole line. 'Supreme Banner' was wider out and Mr Kerr shifted inwards coming into contact with 'Cindy Bromac'. For approximately the next 50m Mr Kerr attempted to shift 'Cindy Bromac' inwards into the vacant pole line position. The videos clearly showed that Mr Kerr’s sulky was being forced sideways when he was attempting to shift Mr May down. However, Mr May attempted to hold his position which eventually led to 'Cindy Bromac' breaking and losing ground. Shortly after that 'Supreme Banner' gained the trailing position behind 'Willedu' and also broke. He did not believe the breaking of 'Supreme Banner' was related to the incident.
Mr McIntyre stated that Mr Kerr always held a “clear advantage” and that Mr May should have conceded his position.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Kerr stated that Mr May attempted to take his trailing position behind 'Willedu'. He was trying to hold his position and he believed he had a nose advantage. When Mr May realised he had lost his position he took a hold of his horse, which caused it to break. He said the incident did not cost him any ground and that his horse broke on its own accord soon after regaining the trail behind 'Willedu'.
Mr May stated he believed he was attempting to hold his position behind 'Willedu'. He said the sulky wheels of both sulkies were locked together and that it was a 50/50 call as to who held the advantage. He was of the opinion that Mr Kerr had a slight advantage when he did concede. He said when he turned his horse’s head inwards to concede the horse struck the wheel disc which caused it to break. Up until then he thought it was a good competition between both horses for the same position.
In summary Mr Tidmarsh said the video (side-on taken from the main grandstand) clearly showed that Mr Kerr had a nose advantage prior to Mr May’s horse breaking. He said that Mr Kerr always had the advantage and that Mr May should have conceded. He was careless in not conceding and easing his horse inwards.
Mr May said he was disappointed in the Stipendiary Stewards interpretation of the incident. He always felt it was a good contest and a 50/50 call as to who held the advantage. His horse had galloped when he did concede his position.
reasonsfordecision:
Mr May was charged with a breach of careless driving when failing to concede under the Easing Down Regulations, which led to his horse 'Cindy Bromac' breaking soon after the start. The Stewards alleged that Mr May and Mr Kerr attempted to hold a trailing position behind 'Willedu' racing towards the first bend.
The Stewards stated that Mr Kerr held a “clear advantage” of a nose over Mr May’s horse and that under the Easing Down regulations Mr May should have conceded his position and shifted inwards. The Stewards confirmed their opinions with the aid of the videos, in particular the side-on video taken from the main stand.
They further alleged that Mr May’s failure to concede leading to his own horse breaking was in breach of the careless driving rule.
Mr May on the other hand stated his actions in maintaining his position was a “good contest” between himself and Mr Kerr. He stated both sulkies were locked together which showed neither held any great advantage over the other. He did not believe a nose was a clear advantage and that his horse broke when he finally conceded.
The Easing Down regulations clearly state “…a horseman shall be permitted to make moves with safety, provided they are in a position to do so by having a “clear advantage” over the horse they are about to move inwards…”. The Stewards allege that a nose was a “clear advantage”. A nose is by definition the minimum official margin (excluding a dead-heat).
The Easing Down regulations also state that a horseman is in breach of the careless driving rule if they fail to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place.
We do not believe a nose is a “clear advantage” in this incident. We also find that Mr May was entitled to maintain his position and that his horse galloped/broke when he conceded that position. The videos clearly show that both sulkies were locked together for some distance and that neither horse held a clear advantage over the other. The Stewards based part of their evidence on the side-on video (main grandstand) which in our view does not fairly reflect the position of advantage to either horse.
Decision:
After considering all the evidence the charge of careless driving against Mr May has not been proved. The charge is dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr L Tidmarsh - Stipendiary Steward, Mr N McIntyre - Chairman of Stewards
JockeysandTrainer: Mr R May - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr M Kerr - Open Horseman
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 1aa0e5f95434f270aa98be03aa7a327c
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 5c2a4b0fb71f76197a068b4f4994ff65
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 02/01/2017
meet_title: Central Otago TC - 2 January 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: central-otago-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: PKnowles
meet_pm1: GHall
meet_pm2: none
name: Central Otago TC