Auckland TC 11 May 2018 – R 3 – Chair, Mr G Jones
ID: JCA16929
Meet Title:
Auckland TC - 11 May 2018
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
AGodsalve
Race Date:
2018/05/11
Race Number:
R3
Decision:
The Committee found the charge proved.
Penalty:
Mr Smiths Open Horseman’s licence is suspended from 19 May 2018 up to and including 27 May 2018 (3 days).
In identifying dates for the suspension we granted Mr Smith a 7 day deferment to enable him to fulfil engagements at the NZ Metro meeting on 18 May 2018.
Mr Smith told the Committee he had no intention of driving at Gore on 26 May or the Manawatu meetings on 22 and 25 May 2018 and these are not included in the suspension.
Facts:
Following the running of race 3, the Dawn Balle Memorial Handicap Trot 2700, Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr J Muirhead filed an Information alleging that Open Horseman, Mr G Smith drove SUNDEES SON carelessly. The particulars of the charge are that Mr Smith “allowed his gelding to shift inwards near the 950 metres which resulted in contact to PUMA ROAD (S Reid) causing that gelding to break with resultant interference to trailing runners”.
Mr Smith endorsed the information “I do not admit the breach of the rule”. He was present at the hearing and reiterated his not guilty plea.
At the commencement of the hearing the charge was read to Mr Smith and he confirmed that he understood the relevant rule and the nature of the charge.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
Submissions for Decision:
In his opening statement Mr Muirhead advised the Committee that he proposed to prove the charge by demonstrating the alleged incident using available video film and also by calling the driver of PUMA ROAD (Mr S Reid) as a witness.
Using the available film Mr Muirhead identified the horses involved as they passed the 950 metre mark entering the bend at the end of the home straight. He said that PUMA ROAD was racing one out trailing the leader, and SUNDEES SON (G Smith) was moving forward 3-wide on the outside of PUMA ROAD. He said as the field approached the bend out of the straight Mr Smith shifted inwards crossing the path of PUMA ROAD and in doing so his sulky wheel made contact with PUMA ROAD'S front (left) foreleg. As a result PUMA ROAD was checked, broke and galloped. He said this effectively caused that runner to lose all chance.
Referring to the race film Mr Muirhead pointed out that several of the trailing horses also had their chances affected. Notably, he said, that WOODSTONE was checked and both LOVELY BUNDY and ALTA VENETIA were inconvenienced and broke, with LOVELY BUNDY losing all chance. Mr Muirhead said that the films clearly showed that Mr Smith was not sufficiently clear when he crossed PUMA ROAD.
Mr Smith did not ask any questions of Mr Muirhead in cross examination, but stated that the angle of his manoeuvre when crossing was not excessive.
In his evidence Mr Reid confirmed that he was the driver of PUMA ROAD and that his horse broke near the 950 metre mark. He said he was racing in a parked out position when contact was made by the sulky of the horse racing on his outside. He identified that horse as SUNDEES SON. He acknowledged that at that time PUMA ROAD was over-racing, but he added that when SUNDEES SON crossed his horse it was tightened, checked and galloped.
Under cross examination from Mr Smith, Mr Reid said that he was not entirely sure if it was the sulky wheel that made the initial contact, noting that it may have been the mudguard of Mr Smith’s sulky. But, he said, irrespective of what caused the contact, he was adamant that contact was made and this caused his horse to break. He concluded by adding that his horses chances were terminated as a direct result.
In his opening statement Mr Smith said he accepted he did make contact but his defence to the charge was that the contact was due to having abnormally high mudguards overhanging from his sulky. He said because of this unintended contact was made with Mr Reid’s horse.
Mr Smith produced a recently taken picture on his cell phone camera of his sulky mudguards. He said they protruded at least 25 cm more than the standard mudguards that he was familiar with. Mr Smith added that his horse was running in the whole way down the straight and he did his best to steer him out.
In closing his evidence Mr Smith said that he always believed he was sufficiently clear of Mr Reid and although contact was made it was not due to any fault on his part.
In response to Mr Smith’s evidence, Mr Muirhead told the Committee that Mr Reid had similar style mudguards fitted to his sulky, and others in the race were also similar, albeit with some minor variations. He said it was Mr Smith’s responsibility and his obligation to ensure that contact between his horse and any others did not occur.
In summing up Mr Muirhead emphasised that this was a clear breach of the careless driving rule. He referred to the race films and reiterated that it was Mr Smith’s responsibility when moving forward and shifting ground to ensure no contact is made with any other horses. He said drivers must leave sufficient room for others when crossing.
In summing up Mr Smith submitted that he felt his horse was running out all the way up the straight and then ran in around the bend out of the home straight. He said although contact was made it was the fault of the abnormal mudguards.
Reasons for Decision:
Having carefully considered all of the evidence the Committee sought to establish three key points. First, did SUNDEES SON cross and make contact with PUMA ROAD. Second, was SUNDEES SON sufficiently clear when crossing; and third was there any substance to Mr Smith’s defence that his mudguards were so abnormal that they were a contributing a factor.
The Committee found that SUNDEES SON did cross PUMA ROAD when insufficiently clear. It caused PUMA ROAD to break and gallop. There was a consequential impact on 3 other runners whose chances were affected to varying degrees. We are satisfied that contact was made irrespective of whether that contact was by sulky wheel or mudguard. On the evidence presented to us we are not convinced there was anything abnormal with Mr Smith’s mudguard(s). We do not think the mudguards were a factor or the sole reason for the interference to PUMA ROAD. Moreover, we believe the cause of the interference was due to an error or misjudgement on Mr Smith’s part when he crossed. Quite simply he did not exercise the degree of care that he should have. For these reasons we find the charge proved.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Muirhead submitted that the level of carelessness was medium to high due to several horses being checked and inconvenienced. He said 2 horses were checked and eliminated from the race and others had their chances affected. He said that the circumstances of the breach required that a suspension be imposed and recommended a 3-day suspension.
In his submissions Mr Smith said that he did not deny making contact with Mr Reid’s horse, but believed it was not his fault. He said that what happened was regrettable and it was not his intention to affect the chances of other runners. He asked the Committee to consider the mudguard issue as a mitigating factor. In terms of penalty, Mr Smith said that he would prefer a fine as he drove most of his own horses. He said that he usually has 5 or 6 drives per meeting.
Mr Smith sought a 7 day deferment from any proposed suspension due to having commitments at the Christchurch meeting on 18 May 2018.
Reasons for Penalty:
In determination of penalty the Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. In terms of the actual carelessness we placed Mr Smith’s culpability at low to mid-range, but when taking into account the resulting interference to 4 other runners, we upgraded the level of carelessness to mid-to high. We considered the resultant impact to the runners interfered with to be an aggravating factor.
Initially we treated this as Mr Smith’s first breach of the careless driving rule within the past 6 months and gave him credit for having a good record. The JCA Penalty Guide for a first breach is 10 drives suspension or $500 fine. We determined that this breach required a suspension and taking into account what we believed to be a clear record imposed a 2 day suspension.
Immediately after announcing our decision, the Committee realised we erred in that Mr Smith previously incurred a 4 day suspension on 6 April 2018 at NZ Metro and this was not taken into account when we imposed a 2 meeting suspension. On that basis the Committee recalled Mr Smith, and he confirmed that he did incur a suspension on 6 April. Upon further deliberation and in consideration of the penalty guidelines and penalties handed out for similar recent breaches we revised Mr Smith’s suspension from 2 to 3 days. This is in keeping with JCA guidelines which recommend a 3 day suspension for a 2nd breach of the careless driving rule within the 6 month (or 200 drives) reset period.
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: b3be9a80de7f974c2a263a5c82eec917
informantnumber: A10707
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 13/05/2018
hearing_title: Auckland TC 11 May 2018 - R 3 - Chair, Mr G Jones
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 3, the Dawn Balle Memorial Handicap Trot 2700, Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr J Muirhead filed an Information alleging that Open Horseman, Mr G Smith drove SUNDEES SON carelessly. The particulars of the charge are that Mr Smith “allowed his gelding to shift inwards near the 950 metres which resulted in contact to PUMA ROAD (S Reid) causing that gelding to break with resultant interference to trailing runners”.
Mr Smith endorsed the information “I do not admit the breach of the rule”. He was present at the hearing and reiterated his not guilty plea.
At the commencement of the hearing the charge was read to Mr Smith and he confirmed that he understood the relevant rule and the nature of the charge.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
In his opening statement Mr Muirhead advised the Committee that he proposed to prove the charge by demonstrating the alleged incident using available video film and also by calling the driver of PUMA ROAD (Mr S Reid) as a witness.
Using the available film Mr Muirhead identified the horses involved as they passed the 950 metre mark entering the bend at the end of the home straight. He said that PUMA ROAD was racing one out trailing the leader, and SUNDEES SON (G Smith) was moving forward 3-wide on the outside of PUMA ROAD. He said as the field approached the bend out of the straight Mr Smith shifted inwards crossing the path of PUMA ROAD and in doing so his sulky wheel made contact with PUMA ROAD'S front (left) foreleg. As a result PUMA ROAD was checked, broke and galloped. He said this effectively caused that runner to lose all chance.
Referring to the race film Mr Muirhead pointed out that several of the trailing horses also had their chances affected. Notably, he said, that WOODSTONE was checked and both LOVELY BUNDY and ALTA VENETIA were inconvenienced and broke, with LOVELY BUNDY losing all chance. Mr Muirhead said that the films clearly showed that Mr Smith was not sufficiently clear when he crossed PUMA ROAD.
Mr Smith did not ask any questions of Mr Muirhead in cross examination, but stated that the angle of his manoeuvre when crossing was not excessive.
In his evidence Mr Reid confirmed that he was the driver of PUMA ROAD and that his horse broke near the 950 metre mark. He said he was racing in a parked out position when contact was made by the sulky of the horse racing on his outside. He identified that horse as SUNDEES SON. He acknowledged that at that time PUMA ROAD was over-racing, but he added that when SUNDEES SON crossed his horse it was tightened, checked and galloped.
Under cross examination from Mr Smith, Mr Reid said that he was not entirely sure if it was the sulky wheel that made the initial contact, noting that it may have been the mudguard of Mr Smith’s sulky. But, he said, irrespective of what caused the contact, he was adamant that contact was made and this caused his horse to break. He concluded by adding that his horses chances were terminated as a direct result.
In his opening statement Mr Smith said he accepted he did make contact but his defence to the charge was that the contact was due to having abnormally high mudguards overhanging from his sulky. He said because of this unintended contact was made with Mr Reid’s horse.
Mr Smith produced a recently taken picture on his cell phone camera of his sulky mudguards. He said they protruded at least 25 cm more than the standard mudguards that he was familiar with. Mr Smith added that his horse was running in the whole way down the straight and he did his best to steer him out.
In closing his evidence Mr Smith said that he always believed he was sufficiently clear of Mr Reid and although contact was made it was not due to any fault on his part.
In response to Mr Smith’s evidence, Mr Muirhead told the Committee that Mr Reid had similar style mudguards fitted to his sulky, and others in the race were also similar, albeit with some minor variations. He said it was Mr Smith’s responsibility and his obligation to ensure that contact between his horse and any others did not occur.
In summing up Mr Muirhead emphasised that this was a clear breach of the careless driving rule. He referred to the race films and reiterated that it was Mr Smith’s responsibility when moving forward and shifting ground to ensure no contact is made with any other horses. He said drivers must leave sufficient room for others when crossing.
In summing up Mr Smith submitted that he felt his horse was running out all the way up the straight and then ran in around the bend out of the home straight. He said although contact was made it was the fault of the abnormal mudguards.
reasonsfordecision:
Having carefully considered all of the evidence the Committee sought to establish three key points. First, did SUNDEES SON cross and make contact with PUMA ROAD. Second, was SUNDEES SON sufficiently clear when crossing; and third was there any substance to Mr Smith’s defence that his mudguards were so abnormal that they were a contributing a factor.
The Committee found that SUNDEES SON did cross PUMA ROAD when insufficiently clear. It caused PUMA ROAD to break and gallop. There was a consequential impact on 3 other runners whose chances were affected to varying degrees. We are satisfied that contact was made irrespective of whether that contact was by sulky wheel or mudguard. On the evidence presented to us we are not convinced there was anything abnormal with Mr Smith’s mudguard(s). We do not think the mudguards were a factor or the sole reason for the interference to PUMA ROAD. Moreover, we believe the cause of the interference was due to an error or misjudgement on Mr Smith’s part when he crossed. Quite simply he did not exercise the degree of care that he should have. For these reasons we find the charge proved.
Decision:
The Committee found the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Muirhead submitted that the level of carelessness was medium to high due to several horses being checked and inconvenienced. He said 2 horses were checked and eliminated from the race and others had their chances affected. He said that the circumstances of the breach required that a suspension be imposed and recommended a 3-day suspension.
In his submissions Mr Smith said that he did not deny making contact with Mr Reid’s horse, but believed it was not his fault. He said that what happened was regrettable and it was not his intention to affect the chances of other runners. He asked the Committee to consider the mudguard issue as a mitigating factor. In terms of penalty, Mr Smith said that he would prefer a fine as he drove most of his own horses. He said that he usually has 5 or 6 drives per meeting.
Mr Smith sought a 7 day deferment from any proposed suspension due to having commitments at the Christchurch meeting on 18 May 2018.
reasonsforpenalty:
In determination of penalty the Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. In terms of the actual carelessness we placed Mr Smith’s culpability at low to mid-range, but when taking into account the resulting interference to 4 other runners, we upgraded the level of carelessness to mid-to high. We considered the resultant impact to the runners interfered with to be an aggravating factor.
Initially we treated this as Mr Smith’s first breach of the careless driving rule within the past 6 months and gave him credit for having a good record. The JCA Penalty Guide for a first breach is 10 drives suspension or $500 fine. We determined that this breach required a suspension and taking into account what we believed to be a clear record imposed a 2 day suspension.
Immediately after announcing our decision, the Committee realised we erred in that Mr Smith previously incurred a 4 day suspension on 6 April 2018 at NZ Metro and this was not taken into account when we imposed a 2 meeting suspension. On that basis the Committee recalled Mr Smith, and he confirmed that he did incur a suspension on 6 April. Upon further deliberation and in consideration of the penalty guidelines and penalties handed out for similar recent breaches we revised Mr Smith’s suspension from 2 to 3 days. This is in keeping with JCA guidelines which recommend a 3 day suspension for a 2nd breach of the careless driving rule within the 6 month (or 200 drives) reset period.
penalty:
Mr Smiths Open Horseman’s licence is suspended from 19 May 2018 up to and including 27 May 2018 (3 days).
In identifying dates for the suspension we granted Mr Smith a 7 day deferment to enable him to fulfil engagements at the NZ Metro meeting on 18 May 2018.
Mr Smith told the Committee he had no intention of driving at Gore on 26 May or the Manawatu meetings on 22 and 25 May 2018 and these are not included in the suspension.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr J M Muirhead - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr G Smith - Senior Horseman and driver of SUNDEES SON
Otherperson: Mr S Reid - Open Horseman and Driver of PUMA ROAD
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: dddb9a92725b9589170a5c6d74fa9a83
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: a232ff0958319b38a823db974ba0ac76
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 11/05/2018
meet_title: Auckland TC - 11 May 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: AGodsalve
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland TC