Forbury Park TC 21 July 2011 – R 3
ID: JCA16353
Meet Title:
Forbury Park TC - 21 July 2011
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
DSteel
Race Date:
2011/07/21
Race Number:
R 3
Decision:
The defendant has admitted the breach, which we thus find proved.
Penalty:
We take a starting point of 15 drives as recommended in the Penalty Guide and, taking account of the mitigating factors, we impose a penalty of a suspension of 2 days (10 drives). The defendant is suspended from the end of racing 22 July up to and including 29 July.
Charge:
Mr Allison alleged that Mr T Williams (RICHARD JAY) failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure his horse was given full opportunity to obtain the best possible position, when he failed to improve into the passing lane in the home straight.
Facts:
Mr Allison demonstrated on the videos that Mr Williams was racing 3 deep at the 400 metre mark. The leading horse drifted out on entering the home straight and the trailing horse, driven by Mr Todd obtained a run on the inside of that horse without going into the passing lane, which in turn left a run in the passing lane for Mr Williams. He said Mr Williams had access to that lane for the whole of straight and had erred in not taking that run. He said RICHARD JAY was full of running and had been vetted after the race and there were no abnormalities detected. Mr Williams informed Mr Ydgren, stipendiary steward, after the race that he had not activated the blinds.
Mr Smith assisted Mr Williams. He emphasised the defendant was a junior driver and it was a tough decision for him to make as there had momentarily been a gap between the leading horse, which was tiring and had moved out about 1 1/2 horse widths, and the trailing horse. He said the defendant had elected to try to take that gap, but it had closed. He accepted the run in the passing lane remained available to the defendant and that this was why the defendant had admitted the breach.
Both Mr Smith and Mr Williams emphasised the configuration of the passing lane and that the defendant would have run out of room eventually. Over the last 50 metres, in particular, it would not have been safe to move into the lane. However, Mr Williams accepted he should have gone down into the passing lane once the gap had closed. He emphasised it was a split second call and he said that even if he had taken the run he did not believe he would have won nor perhaps run second. We accept and give weight to his statement the horse had a tendency to run out, and that he had factored this into his decision-making.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Allison produced the defendant’s record, which he described as very good. Mr Williams has had 312 drives and had only one breach of the rules back in February. He said the defendant’s horse was the favourite for the race and that there had always been a run in the passing lane for RICHARD JAY but the defendant had not taken it.
Mr Williams stated he preferred a fine to a suspension or a combination of the two as he did not want to lose drives. He said he had 4 or 5 drives on average at a meeting.
Reasons for Penalty:
We address first the seriousness of the charge. We are aware that the horse was full of running down the home straight and we believe that it did lose the opportunity of finishing either first or second in the race and it was the favoured runner. It is our view that as a consequence of the defendant’s actions the horse was denied the opportunity to finish closer and we believe it is not a good look for harness racing for the horse to be seen to be sitting back behind another runner and not getting a run to the outside or taking a run on the inside. The defendant has accepted by his admission of the charge that there was a run that was available but he failed to take it. We accept it was a split second decision for him and that he had factored in his knowledge of the configuration of the passing lane here at Forbury Park. But we do believe there was a clear opportunity for the defendant to take the passing lane for quite some distance down the straight.
The mitigating factors are that the defendant is a junior horseman and has an excellent record. The previous breach is not directly relevant to this charge. He has also openly and honestly admitted the breach. We do not believe a fine is appropriate for the particular circumstances of this breach and we impose a suspension.
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: a8f29e9b399041e2faa7b874f2b74467
informantnumber: 68880
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 21/07/2011
hearing_title: Forbury Park TC 21 July 2011 - R 3
charge:
Mr Allison alleged that Mr T Williams (RICHARD JAY) failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure his horse was given full opportunity to obtain the best possible position, when he failed to improve into the passing lane in the home straight.
facts:
Mr Allison demonstrated on the videos that Mr Williams was racing 3 deep at the 400 metre mark. The leading horse drifted out on entering the home straight and the trailing horse, driven by Mr Todd obtained a run on the inside of that horse without going into the passing lane, which in turn left a run in the passing lane for Mr Williams. He said Mr Williams had access to that lane for the whole of straight and had erred in not taking that run. He said RICHARD JAY was full of running and had been vetted after the race and there were no abnormalities detected. Mr Williams informed Mr Ydgren, stipendiary steward, after the race that he had not activated the blinds.
Mr Smith assisted Mr Williams. He emphasised the defendant was a junior driver and it was a tough decision for him to make as there had momentarily been a gap between the leading horse, which was tiring and had moved out about 1 1/2 horse widths, and the trailing horse. He said the defendant had elected to try to take that gap, but it had closed. He accepted the run in the passing lane remained available to the defendant and that this was why the defendant had admitted the breach.
Both Mr Smith and Mr Williams emphasised the configuration of the passing lane and that the defendant would have run out of room eventually. Over the last 50 metres, in particular, it would not have been safe to move into the lane. However, Mr Williams accepted he should have gone down into the passing lane once the gap had closed. He emphasised it was a split second call and he said that even if he had taken the run he did not believe he would have won nor perhaps run second. We accept and give weight to his statement the horse had a tendency to run out, and that he had factored this into his decision-making.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
The defendant has admitted the breach, which we thus find proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Allison produced the defendant’s record, which he described as very good. Mr Williams has had 312 drives and had only one breach of the rules back in February. He said the defendant’s horse was the favourite for the race and that there had always been a run in the passing lane for RICHARD JAY but the defendant had not taken it.
Mr Williams stated he preferred a fine to a suspension or a combination of the two as he did not want to lose drives. He said he had 4 or 5 drives on average at a meeting.
reasonsforpenalty:
We address first the seriousness of the charge. We are aware that the horse was full of running down the home straight and we believe that it did lose the opportunity of finishing either first or second in the race and it was the favoured runner. It is our view that as a consequence of the defendant’s actions the horse was denied the opportunity to finish closer and we believe it is not a good look for harness racing for the horse to be seen to be sitting back behind another runner and not getting a run to the outside or taking a run on the inside. The defendant has accepted by his admission of the charge that there was a run that was available but he failed to take it. We accept it was a split second decision for him and that he had factored in his knowledge of the configuration of the passing lane here at Forbury Park. But we do believe there was a clear opportunity for the defendant to take the passing lane for quite some distance down the straight.
The mitigating factors are that the defendant is a junior horseman and has an excellent record. The previous breach is not directly relevant to this charge. He has also openly and honestly admitted the breach. We do not believe a fine is appropriate for the particular circumstances of this breach and we impose a suspension.
penalty:
We take a starting point of 15 drives as recommended in the Penalty Guide and, taking account of the mitigating factors, we impose a penalty of a suspension of 2 days (10 drives). The defendant is suspended from the end of racing 22 July up to and including 29 July.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 868(2)
Informant: Mr C Allison - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr T Williams - Driver RICHARD JAY
Otherperson: Mr Smith - assisting Mr Williams
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: ad62a32bf2f13e1d9d2111042746783f
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 955302cf73f8dd6fc61518bd4f4e8013
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 21/07/2011
meet_title: Forbury Park TC - 21 July 2011
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