NZ Metro TC 20 December 2011 – R 8
ID: JCA16711
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 20 December 2011
Meet Chair:
JMillar
Meet Committee Member 1:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2011/12/20
Race Number:
R8
Decision:
Not proved.
Charge:
Failure to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure his horse was given full opportunity.
Facts:
Following the running of race 8, The Bishopdale/Bush Inn Destination TAB’S Amateur Drivers Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N M Ydgren, against Amateur Driver Mr M J Stratford, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that, as the driver of “Mullaghmore” in the race, “between the 1350 and the 1300 you failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure your horse was given full opportunity in the race”.
Mr Stratford was present during the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 868 (2) provides as follows;
(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place
Mr Ydgren, with the assistance of the race video, illustrated that with approximately 1350 metres to run, “Bowenvale” driven by Mr Sissons improved to be outside the leader, and eventual winner, “Western Flare”. That the pace of the race quickened and Mr Sissons was unable to, or elected not to, go to the lead and pulled back. Mr Sissons was seen to assess his options to his rear and eased down into a gap which had arisen behind “Western Flare” and in front of “Mullaghmore”. “Mullaghmore”, the stable mate of “Bowenvale” had immediately before this point been trailing “Western Flare” but had dropped off when the pace quickened.
Mr Ydgren also illustrated that when the pace quickened, “Mullaghmore” being driven by Mr Stratford the owner/trainer of “Mullaghmore” and part owner and trainer of “Bowenvale”, did not make any discernable effort to close the gap between his horse and the leader, “Western Flare”. By doing so having allowed Mr Sissons to take a more favourable position on the running line behind “Western Flare”.
Mr Stratford using the race video to assist him gave evidence that “Mullaghmore” had developed some difficult traits and identified the difficulties he was having with the horse immediately before the start. He also illustrated how the horse had received a check sometime after the start and prior to the alleged breach at the 1350/1300 metre marks which caused the horse to become unsettled.
Mr Stratford gave evidence stating that “Mullaghmore” was not pacing well at about the 1350 metre mark and that when the pace had quickened he elected not to drive the horse aggressively as he feared the horse would go into a break.
Mr Strafford was observed to have flicked “Mullaghmore” with the whip at about the 1350 metre mark, but the horse did not appear to go with the increased pace, resulting in a gap opening between “Mullaghmore” and “Western Flare”. This was the gap ultimately taken up by “Bowenvale”.
Mr Ydgren put to Mr Stratford, as owner/part owner and trainer of both “Mullaghmore” and “Bowenvale” that he had the opportunity to make some potential financial gain by assisting Mr Sissons (“Bowenvale”) into a more favourable racing position on the running line and had failed to drive more aggressively, as he was entitled to do in the circumstances, to keep Mr Sissons from putting himself into the trail behind Western Flare.
Mr Stratford denied that this had been the case.
Mr Stratford in reply to a question from Mr Ydgren concerning the relative advantage, generally speaking, of racing on the running line, rather than one out and or racing in the open, gave evidence that “Bowenvale” had demonstrated while in the charge of another trainer that it had raced competitively when racing in the open.
Mr Stratford gave evidence that he was 99% sure that there was no communication between him and Mr Sissons at around the time of the alleged breach of the rule.
Mr Sissons gave evidence that there was not communication between he and Mr Stratford around the time of the alleged breach of the rule.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Ydgren submitted that in the interests of the racing public, the industry and the controlling agencies that there should be no inference that any driver should do or avoid doing anything which assists another horse to gain an advantage. On this occasion Mr Stratford on seeing that the stable mate of the horse he was driving was going to be left without cover, had not driven aggressively enough as he was entitled to do, in order to keep “Bowenvale” from taking up a more favourable position on the running line behind the leader rather than being left in the open. That Mr Stratford had made no discernable effort to close the gap between his horse and the leader, allowing Mr Sissons to take “Bowenvale” to the trailing position.
Mr Stratford re-iterated that the horse had developed some difficult traits as illustrated in the lead up to the start of the race. That the horse had not been pacing well at the time of the alleged breach and was unable to go with the quickening pace. That he had not driven more aggressively as he feared the horse may go into a break. He submitted that Mr Sisson’s drive was a good one. He had taken the trailing option when he was unable to make the lead. This was when he, Stratford, had been unable to hold his position or regain his position behind “Western Fare” when the race pace had quickened.
Reasons for Decision:
From our observations, and from hearing the evidence we believe Mr Stratford should be given the benefit of any doubt that he may have failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to give “Mullaghmore” full opportunity in the race.
The Panel concurred with Stipendiary Steward Ydgren that generally speaking it is more advantageous to be able to race in a trailing position rather than without cover. That at between the 1350 and 1300 metre mark Mr Sissons (“Bowenvale”) had improved outside the leader, but as the pace quickened abandoned any chance of going to the lead and had checked behind to assess his options. That Mr Stratford’s horse (“Mullaghmore”) who had been trailing the leader had dropped off with the increased pace leaving sufficient room for Mr Sissons to drop down to the trailing position.
The crux of the informant's allegation is that Mr Stratford failed to drive “Mullaghmore” aggressively enough to keep on the back of the leader as he was entitled to do, and in part at least, did so to allow Mr Sissons driving “Bowenvale” to take up a more favourable racing position.
The informant relied in the main on race video evidence to illustrate that Mr Stratford had failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure he gave “Mullaghmore” the best opportunity in the race and by doing so handed a significant advantage to “Bowenvale”.
Having viewed the race video and listened to the evidence we are satisfied that Mr Stratford was experiencing significant difficulties with “Mullaghmore” just prior to the start and that the horse had received some interference prior to the alleged breach which may have further “stirred” the horse up. That the horse was not travelling particularly well at the time of the alleged breach.
We noted that Mr Stratford did flick “Mullaghmore” with the whip when “Bowenvale” improved around the leader “Western Flare” but that “Mullaghmore” did not show any significant improvement and was unable to stay on or improve onto the leaders back. We believed this gave a clear indication that “Mullaghmore” was not travelling well enough to move easily into or hold its position behind “Western Fare”.
Mr Stratford denied in evidence that he had intentionally given any Mr Sissons and/or “Bowenvale” any advantage in the race.
Both Mr Stratford and Mr Sissons denied when giving evidence that there was any collusion between them immediately before Mr Sissons taking up the position behind “Western Flare”.
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: d728cc0af6f035df851b6afabe08ba4c
informantnumber: A5339
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 20/12/2011
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 20 December 2011 - R 8
charge:
Failure to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure his horse was given full opportunity.
facts:
Following the running of race 8, The Bishopdale/Bush Inn Destination TAB’S Amateur Drivers Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N M Ydgren, against Amateur Driver Mr M J Stratford, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that, as the driver of “Mullaghmore” in the race, “between the 1350 and the 1300 you failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure your horse was given full opportunity in the race”.
Mr Stratford was present during the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 868 (2) provides as follows;
(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place
Mr Ydgren, with the assistance of the race video, illustrated that with approximately 1350 metres to run, “Bowenvale” driven by Mr Sissons improved to be outside the leader, and eventual winner, “Western Flare”. That the pace of the race quickened and Mr Sissons was unable to, or elected not to, go to the lead and pulled back. Mr Sissons was seen to assess his options to his rear and eased down into a gap which had arisen behind “Western Flare” and in front of “Mullaghmore”. “Mullaghmore”, the stable mate of “Bowenvale” had immediately before this point been trailing “Western Flare” but had dropped off when the pace quickened.
Mr Ydgren also illustrated that when the pace quickened, “Mullaghmore” being driven by Mr Stratford the owner/trainer of “Mullaghmore” and part owner and trainer of “Bowenvale”, did not make any discernable effort to close the gap between his horse and the leader, “Western Flare”. By doing so having allowed Mr Sissons to take a more favourable position on the running line behind “Western Flare”.
Mr Stratford using the race video to assist him gave evidence that “Mullaghmore” had developed some difficult traits and identified the difficulties he was having with the horse immediately before the start. He also illustrated how the horse had received a check sometime after the start and prior to the alleged breach at the 1350/1300 metre marks which caused the horse to become unsettled.
Mr Stratford gave evidence stating that “Mullaghmore” was not pacing well at about the 1350 metre mark and that when the pace had quickened he elected not to drive the horse aggressively as he feared the horse would go into a break.
Mr Strafford was observed to have flicked “Mullaghmore” with the whip at about the 1350 metre mark, but the horse did not appear to go with the increased pace, resulting in a gap opening between “Mullaghmore” and “Western Flare”. This was the gap ultimately taken up by “Bowenvale”.
Mr Ydgren put to Mr Stratford, as owner/part owner and trainer of both “Mullaghmore” and “Bowenvale” that he had the opportunity to make some potential financial gain by assisting Mr Sissons (“Bowenvale”) into a more favourable racing position on the running line and had failed to drive more aggressively, as he was entitled to do in the circumstances, to keep Mr Sissons from putting himself into the trail behind Western Flare.
Mr Stratford denied that this had been the case.
Mr Stratford in reply to a question from Mr Ydgren concerning the relative advantage, generally speaking, of racing on the running line, rather than one out and or racing in the open, gave evidence that “Bowenvale” had demonstrated while in the charge of another trainer that it had raced competitively when racing in the open.
Mr Stratford gave evidence that he was 99% sure that there was no communication between him and Mr Sissons at around the time of the alleged breach of the rule.
Mr Sissons gave evidence that there was not communication between he and Mr Stratford around the time of the alleged breach of the rule.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Ydgren submitted that in the interests of the racing public, the industry and the controlling agencies that there should be no inference that any driver should do or avoid doing anything which assists another horse to gain an advantage. On this occasion Mr Stratford on seeing that the stable mate of the horse he was driving was going to be left without cover, had not driven aggressively enough as he was entitled to do, in order to keep “Bowenvale” from taking up a more favourable position on the running line behind the leader rather than being left in the open. That Mr Stratford had made no discernable effort to close the gap between his horse and the leader, allowing Mr Sissons to take “Bowenvale” to the trailing position.
Mr Stratford re-iterated that the horse had developed some difficult traits as illustrated in the lead up to the start of the race. That the horse had not been pacing well at the time of the alleged breach and was unable to go with the quickening pace. That he had not driven more aggressively as he feared the horse may go into a break. He submitted that Mr Sisson’s drive was a good one. He had taken the trailing option when he was unable to make the lead. This was when he, Stratford, had been unable to hold his position or regain his position behind “Western Fare” when the race pace had quickened.
reasonsfordecision:
From our observations, and from hearing the evidence we believe Mr Stratford should be given the benefit of any doubt that he may have failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to give “Mullaghmore” full opportunity in the race.
The Panel concurred with Stipendiary Steward Ydgren that generally speaking it is more advantageous to be able to race in a trailing position rather than without cover. That at between the 1350 and 1300 metre mark Mr Sissons (“Bowenvale”) had improved outside the leader, but as the pace quickened abandoned any chance of going to the lead and had checked behind to assess his options. That Mr Stratford’s horse (“Mullaghmore”) who had been trailing the leader had dropped off with the increased pace leaving sufficient room for Mr Sissons to drop down to the trailing position.
The crux of the informant's allegation is that Mr Stratford failed to drive “Mullaghmore” aggressively enough to keep on the back of the leader as he was entitled to do, and in part at least, did so to allow Mr Sissons driving “Bowenvale” to take up a more favourable racing position.
The informant relied in the main on race video evidence to illustrate that Mr Stratford had failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure he gave “Mullaghmore” the best opportunity in the race and by doing so handed a significant advantage to “Bowenvale”.
Having viewed the race video and listened to the evidence we are satisfied that Mr Stratford was experiencing significant difficulties with “Mullaghmore” just prior to the start and that the horse had received some interference prior to the alleged breach which may have further “stirred” the horse up. That the horse was not travelling particularly well at the time of the alleged breach.
We noted that Mr Stratford did flick “Mullaghmore” with the whip when “Bowenvale” improved around the leader “Western Flare” but that “Mullaghmore” did not show any significant improvement and was unable to stay on or improve onto the leaders back. We believed this gave a clear indication that “Mullaghmore” was not travelling well enough to move easily into or hold its position behind “Western Fare”.
Mr Stratford denied in evidence that he had intentionally given any Mr Sissons and/or “Bowenvale” any advantage in the race.
Both Mr Stratford and Mr Sissons denied when giving evidence that there was any collusion between them immediately before Mr Sissons taking up the position behind “Western Flare”.
Decision:
Not proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 868 (2)
Informant: Mr N M Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr M J Stratford - Amateur Driver
Otherperson: Mr R Sissons - Amateur Driver
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: fe837faffa99e779bddc000e93815cd8
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: b8f570ee3b72dda482f16ca27145f4ff
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 20/12/2011
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 20 December 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: JMillar
meet_pm1: RMcKenzie
meet_pm2: none
name: NZ Metro TC