Auckland TC 3 August 2012 – R 10
ID: JCA16580
Meet Title:
Auckland TC - 3 August 2012
Meet Chair:
BScott
Meet Committee Member 1:
GJones
Race Date:
2012/08/03
Race Number:
R 10
Decision:
We find the charge proved.
Penalty:
We order that Mr Herlihy's Drivers Licence be suspended from the conclusion of racing tonight up to an including the Cambridge Harness meeting on the 9th of August 2012. That is one driving day/meeting.
Charge:
Breach of Rule 869(3)(b) Careless driving
Facts:
An Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr JM Muirhead against horseman Mr AG Herlihy alleging that Mr Herlihy drove THE REID RUNNER carelessly causing interference to RUNNING BALL with approximately 600 metres to run.
Mr Herlihy was present and he advised the Committee that he denied the charge.
Mr Muirhead gave evidence by use of the video films and showed that prior to the 600 metre mark Mr Herlihy was on the inside of Mr Nicholas. He said that Mr Nicholas' horse was hard up behind the driver in front of him. He said that Mr Herlihy came out and his outer wheel went inside the wheel of Mr Nicholas' sulky and made contact with the hind leg of Mr Nicholas' horse and caused it to break. He said that in the outwards movement Mr Herlihy had bumped into Mr Nicholas' horse.
He said that Mr Herlihy should have come out with safety.
In answer to questions from Mr Herlihy he agreed that RUNNING BALL was not hard up behind the horse in front. He said Mr Herlihy did not initially have an advantage over Mr Nicholas but that during the movement he did have an advantage which became more than a head advantage and that Mr Herlihy had to move with care. He also said that Mr Herlihy had a more modern sulky than Mr Nicholas and because of its shape it was able to move under the shaft of Mr Nicholas' sulky and the wheel then came into contact with the legs of Mr Nicholas' horse. The difference in sulky shapes was also another reason why Mr Herlihy had to be careful. In answer to a further question he said that Mr Nicholas had not tried to move Mr Herlihy back in and he said that Mr Nicholas had kept his line. He said that Mr Herlihy had not given Mr Nicholas time to move out.
Mr Nicholas then gave evidence. He said at the outset, " I hit Tony with the stick. It was a backhander because I was annoyed and I felt that the ground was mine." He then used the video films to demonstrate the incident and showed where his horse broke but said that the damage was done about 20 metres beforehand when Mr Herlihy moved out. He said that it was not a case of being eased out but it was a bang into his horse. He also said that he did not try to push Mr Herlihy back in because the difference in sulky shapes is a problem.
He said he believed he had a right to stay on the back of the horse in front of him. He also said that prior to the incident Mr Herlihy's sulky wheel was in front of his.
In answer to questions from Mr Herlihy he said that his horse does not wear ear plugs and he said he only looked down after the damage was done. He said that when Mr Herlihy moved he felt that he was holding his ground.
Mr Herlihy then gave evidence and said that he had an advantage over Mr Nicholas and moved out. He said Mr Nicholas should have moved. He said that Mr Nicholas looked down at the time and by doing so he contributed to the incident. He said that in that part of a race " you don't look down " and he said that his move should have been safe. He said that Mr Nicholas pulled his horse down on top of him.
In answer to questions from Mr Muirhead he acknowledged that the difference in sulkies was a factor and said that " you have to be extra careful when driving in the new sulkies".
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Muirhead said that Mr Herlihy was careless and he moved when there was insufficient room. He also said the abrupt manner of the movement was careless. He said Mr Nicholas was entitled to hold his line. He also said that Mr Herlihy had not given Mr Nicholas time to take any evasive action. He said that Horsemen can move inwards and outwards but must do so with safety.
Mr Herlihy said that Mr Nicholas was looking down at the time and shouldn't have been and also he should have moved out when he (Mr Herlihy ) moved. He believed that both Mr Nicholas and the different sulkies contributed to the incident.
Reasons for Decision:
The films show the incident from different angles. We have taken into account the evidence of all of the parties.
In our view the duty of care is on Mr Herlihy and the question is did he exercise that duty of care to the required standard?
Drivers have to be careful when moving either inwards or outwards during a race and with the range of new sulkies that are available any Driver using one of those has to be extra careful. Mr Herlihy in his evidence has acknowledged this. Mr Herlihy would have seen that Mr Nicholas was using one of the older sulkies.
Mr Nicholas was entitled to be where he was and to maintain his line.
Mr Herlihy has moved out in a careless manner and has caused interference as alleged to RUNNING BALL.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Muirhead said that the JCA Guidelines provided for a starting point penalty of suspension of Licence for 8 drives or a $400.00 fine. He said that Mr Herlihy has a good record and that the incident is in the medium to low range of seriousness.
Mr Herlihy said that he normally has 7 or 8 drives per meeting and therefore a suspension of his Licence should only be for 1 meeting.
Reasons for Penalty:
We have viewed the films on a number of occasions and have listened to the evidence. This incident is a good lesson for those Drivers using the new sulkies.
Mr Herlihy was careless as we have found but the difference in sulky shapes may have contributed. Mr Herlihy will be aware of this difference in the future.
We believe that the incident is at the lower end of the scale and as such can be dealt with by a short suspension of Mr Herlihy's Drivers Licence. We are aware of the number of drives that Mr Herlihy has each meeting.
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: c874bd1642d4c9246c87a45919ba958a
informantnumber: A2473
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 24/07/2012
hearing_title: Auckland TC 3 August 2012 - R 10
charge:
Breach of Rule 869(3)(b) Careless driving
facts:
An Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr JM Muirhead against horseman Mr AG Herlihy alleging that Mr Herlihy drove THE REID RUNNER carelessly causing interference to RUNNING BALL with approximately 600 metres to run.
Mr Herlihy was present and he advised the Committee that he denied the charge.
Mr Muirhead gave evidence by use of the video films and showed that prior to the 600 metre mark Mr Herlihy was on the inside of Mr Nicholas. He said that Mr Nicholas' horse was hard up behind the driver in front of him. He said that Mr Herlihy came out and his outer wheel went inside the wheel of Mr Nicholas' sulky and made contact with the hind leg of Mr Nicholas' horse and caused it to break. He said that in the outwards movement Mr Herlihy had bumped into Mr Nicholas' horse.
He said that Mr Herlihy should have come out with safety.
In answer to questions from Mr Herlihy he agreed that RUNNING BALL was not hard up behind the horse in front. He said Mr Herlihy did not initially have an advantage over Mr Nicholas but that during the movement he did have an advantage which became more than a head advantage and that Mr Herlihy had to move with care. He also said that Mr Herlihy had a more modern sulky than Mr Nicholas and because of its shape it was able to move under the shaft of Mr Nicholas' sulky and the wheel then came into contact with the legs of Mr Nicholas' horse. The difference in sulky shapes was also another reason why Mr Herlihy had to be careful. In answer to a further question he said that Mr Nicholas had not tried to move Mr Herlihy back in and he said that Mr Nicholas had kept his line. He said that Mr Herlihy had not given Mr Nicholas time to move out.
Mr Nicholas then gave evidence. He said at the outset, " I hit Tony with the stick. It was a backhander because I was annoyed and I felt that the ground was mine." He then used the video films to demonstrate the incident and showed where his horse broke but said that the damage was done about 20 metres beforehand when Mr Herlihy moved out. He said that it was not a case of being eased out but it was a bang into his horse. He also said that he did not try to push Mr Herlihy back in because the difference in sulky shapes is a problem.
He said he believed he had a right to stay on the back of the horse in front of him. He also said that prior to the incident Mr Herlihy's sulky wheel was in front of his.
In answer to questions from Mr Herlihy he said that his horse does not wear ear plugs and he said he only looked down after the damage was done. He said that when Mr Herlihy moved he felt that he was holding his ground.
Mr Herlihy then gave evidence and said that he had an advantage over Mr Nicholas and moved out. He said Mr Nicholas should have moved. He said that Mr Nicholas looked down at the time and by doing so he contributed to the incident. He said that in that part of a race " you don't look down " and he said that his move should have been safe. He said that Mr Nicholas pulled his horse down on top of him.
In answer to questions from Mr Muirhead he acknowledged that the difference in sulkies was a factor and said that " you have to be extra careful when driving in the new sulkies".
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Muirhead said that Mr Herlihy was careless and he moved when there was insufficient room. He also said the abrupt manner of the movement was careless. He said Mr Nicholas was entitled to hold his line. He also said that Mr Herlihy had not given Mr Nicholas time to take any evasive action. He said that Horsemen can move inwards and outwards but must do so with safety.
Mr Herlihy said that Mr Nicholas was looking down at the time and shouldn't have been and also he should have moved out when he (Mr Herlihy ) moved. He believed that both Mr Nicholas and the different sulkies contributed to the incident.
reasonsfordecision:
The films show the incident from different angles. We have taken into account the evidence of all of the parties.
In our view the duty of care is on Mr Herlihy and the question is did he exercise that duty of care to the required standard?
Drivers have to be careful when moving either inwards or outwards during a race and with the range of new sulkies that are available any Driver using one of those has to be extra careful. Mr Herlihy in his evidence has acknowledged this. Mr Herlihy would have seen that Mr Nicholas was using one of the older sulkies.
Mr Nicholas was entitled to be where he was and to maintain his line.
Mr Herlihy has moved out in a careless manner and has caused interference as alleged to RUNNING BALL.
Decision:
We find the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Muirhead said that the JCA Guidelines provided for a starting point penalty of suspension of Licence for 8 drives or a $400.00 fine. He said that Mr Herlihy has a good record and that the incident is in the medium to low range of seriousness.
Mr Herlihy said that he normally has 7 or 8 drives per meeting and therefore a suspension of his Licence should only be for 1 meeting.
reasonsforpenalty:
We have viewed the films on a number of occasions and have listened to the evidence. This incident is a good lesson for those Drivers using the new sulkies.
Mr Herlihy was careless as we have found but the difference in sulky shapes may have contributed. Mr Herlihy will be aware of this difference in the future.
We believe that the incident is at the lower end of the scale and as such can be dealt with by a short suspension of Mr Herlihy's Drivers Licence. We are aware of the number of drives that Mr Herlihy has each meeting.
penalty:
We order that Mr Herlihy's Drivers Licence be suspended from the conclusion of racing tonight up to an including the Cambridge Harness meeting on the 9th of August 2012. That is one driving day/meeting.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr J M Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr A G Herlihy - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr M D Nicholas - Licensed Horseman
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: ee1d2c80b025bd9591c887d77862e354
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: b344f3e2f2c0685feaec0b75a576335c
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 03/08/2012
meet_title: Auckland TC - 3 August 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: BScott
meet_pm1: GJones
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland TC