Forbury Park TC 30 November 2017 – R 4 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA17216
Meet Title:
Forbury Park TC - 30 November 2017
Meet Chair:
GHall
Race Date:
2017/11/30
Race Number:
R 4
Decision:
The charge of careless driving is found to be proved.
Penalty:
Mr Orange is fined the sum of $375 and was told that any further deduction for his record in the near future would be in jeopardy having regard to his 2 breaches of the careless driving rule in 5 months.
Facts:
Following the running of race 4 the CHRISTMAS PARTY 7 FORBURY 8TH DECEMBER MOBILE PACE, Mr Tidmarsh lodged an information alleging Mr Orange drove carelessly in that he failed to allow sufficient room when shifting ground inwards near the 900 metres, contacting the runner to his inside, which broke and lost its chance as a consequence.
Mr Orange denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive (b) carelessly.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Tidmarsh using various angles of video footage, identified Mr Orange, who was driving ASK ME ART, racing 3 wide 2 back at the 900 metres. He moved up 4 wide and there was contact between his wheel and the horse to his inner, MICKEY JAY, driven by Mr B Williamson. Positioned inside Mr Williamson was Ms M Lewis, so he was unable to relieve the pressure on MICKEY JAY. Mr Tidmarsh emphasised that in his opinion Ms Lewis had not shifted out and Mr Williamson had been deprived of his rightful line of running. As a result of the contact MICKEY JAY had galloped out of the race, losing its chance.
Mr Tidmarsh called Mr Williamson to give evidence. He said he received interference at the 900 metres when he was racing on the bend at speed. He said Mr Orange had run in and Mr Orange’s sulky had made contact with a leg of his horse. He said it had happened quickly. When questioned by Mr Tidmarsh, he said the pressure had come from the outside and none from the inside. He had been checked and his horse had galloped. He said his horse was running quite lazily at the time. It was flat. In response to a question from the Committee, he said his horse had not shifted out.
Mr Orange questioned Mr Williamson as to whether it was tight. Mr Williamson said he was checked and was just touched slightly. Mr Orange said his horse was leaning on a pole and had run in when being driven forward with the stick. He asked Mr Williamson whether ASK ME ART had ducked in. Mr Williamson said it had although it was “not real sharp”. ASK ME ART had slightly drifted into his line.
When Mr Orange asked Mr Williamson had he tried to give Mr Williamson sufficient room, Mr Williamson said he had as he could see Mr Orange had jagged on the right rein right at the point of contact. He added this was immediately after Mr Orange had used the stick on ASK ME ART.
Mr Orange said ASK ME ART had 2 boring poles. The horse was dead in the mouth and had not responded to pressure on its mouth and the result was contact. He had flicked the horse on the rump and it had got in. He had made some effort to pull on the right rein to keep clear of MICKEY JAY. ASK ME ART had not responded. He emphasised it was not his fault but the fault of the horse. He questioned what else he could have done. He said ASK ME ART was leaning on the inside pole and he was having difficulty keeping it out. He was doing his professional best but the horse was not responding. ASK ME ART was a bad steering horse and was badly gaited. The horse gets in and out and the more a driver pulled on the reins the more the horse got on the pole. Mr Orange said he only needed “an inch” to avoid MICKEY JAY but the horse would not give it to him.
Mr Tidmarsh summed up by stating it was clear Mr Orange was progressing forward and had allowed insufficient room to Mr Williamson, whose horse had galloped because of contact.
Mr Orange reiterated he disagreed with Mr Tidmarsh. The horse had locked on the reins and boring pole and was not responding. It was difficult for him to have done anything further. He had had difficulty in giving Mr Williamson room because his horse had not allowed him to.
Reasons for Decision:
It is agreed by the parties that there was contact between the wheel of Mr Orange’s cart and a leg of MICKEY JAY. That horse galloped and lost its chance in the race as a consequence. In his defence Mr Orange puts the contact down to the racing manners of the horse and the fact it was not responding to his actions, particular his pulling on the right rein. He has said he was doing his professional best to keep ASK ME ART off MICKEY JAY.
There is no video evidence to the effect that ASK ME ART has ducked in, to use Mr Orange’s words, and which were adopted by Mr Williamson. Mr Orange was making ground around the field and in crossing Mr Williamson, who was 3-wide on the bend at the 900 metres, he has not allowed him sufficient room. If the horse was proving difficult to steer, going in and out as Mr Orange has stated, then the prudent course of action would have been for him to have allowed even more room to Mr Williamson on his inside than he would normally do when crossing over in front of another runner. This Mr Orange did not do. The result was interference to MICKEY JAY.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Tidmarsh produced the respondent’s record. Mr Orange is currently the country’s leading reinsman. He has had 355 drives this season and 1124 last. His last breach of the careless driving rule was on 29 June last at Forbury Park when the penalty was fine of $350. Mr Tidmarsh stated the respondent has had 450 drives since that time. An aggravating factor he identified was that a horse’s chances in the race had been eliminated by the respondent’s actions. He believed a fine at the starting point of $500 in the JCA Penalty Guide was appropriate.
Mr Orange emphasised his good record and reiterated he was being penalised when he had done the best he could in difficult circumstances.
Reasons for Penalty:
The breach is mid-range. When regard is had to Mr Orange’s statement that the horse was proving difficult to drive, and this is balanced against the interference suffered by MICKEY JAY, there is no alteration to this figure.
Mr Orange’s record is excellent when consideration is given to the number of drives he has in a season. This should be reflected in the penalty imposed. A very good record warrants a $100 deduction, a further $25 is appropriate for the fact that prior to the breach in June at Forbury Park, he had not breached the careless driving rule for at least 2 seasons.
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: eac4765318c6ec7961c3a0700e2ac62a
informantnumber: A9772
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 05/12/2017
hearing_title: Forbury Park TC 30 November 2017 - R 4 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 4 the CHRISTMAS PARTY 7 FORBURY 8TH DECEMBER MOBILE PACE, Mr Tidmarsh lodged an information alleging Mr Orange drove carelessly in that he failed to allow sufficient room when shifting ground inwards near the 900 metres, contacting the runner to his inside, which broke and lost its chance as a consequence.
Mr Orange denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive (b) carelessly.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Tidmarsh using various angles of video footage, identified Mr Orange, who was driving ASK ME ART, racing 3 wide 2 back at the 900 metres. He moved up 4 wide and there was contact between his wheel and the horse to his inner, MICKEY JAY, driven by Mr B Williamson. Positioned inside Mr Williamson was Ms M Lewis, so he was unable to relieve the pressure on MICKEY JAY. Mr Tidmarsh emphasised that in his opinion Ms Lewis had not shifted out and Mr Williamson had been deprived of his rightful line of running. As a result of the contact MICKEY JAY had galloped out of the race, losing its chance.
Mr Tidmarsh called Mr Williamson to give evidence. He said he received interference at the 900 metres when he was racing on the bend at speed. He said Mr Orange had run in and Mr Orange’s sulky had made contact with a leg of his horse. He said it had happened quickly. When questioned by Mr Tidmarsh, he said the pressure had come from the outside and none from the inside. He had been checked and his horse had galloped. He said his horse was running quite lazily at the time. It was flat. In response to a question from the Committee, he said his horse had not shifted out.
Mr Orange questioned Mr Williamson as to whether it was tight. Mr Williamson said he was checked and was just touched slightly. Mr Orange said his horse was leaning on a pole and had run in when being driven forward with the stick. He asked Mr Williamson whether ASK ME ART had ducked in. Mr Williamson said it had although it was “not real sharp”. ASK ME ART had slightly drifted into his line.
When Mr Orange asked Mr Williamson had he tried to give Mr Williamson sufficient room, Mr Williamson said he had as he could see Mr Orange had jagged on the right rein right at the point of contact. He added this was immediately after Mr Orange had used the stick on ASK ME ART.
Mr Orange said ASK ME ART had 2 boring poles. The horse was dead in the mouth and had not responded to pressure on its mouth and the result was contact. He had flicked the horse on the rump and it had got in. He had made some effort to pull on the right rein to keep clear of MICKEY JAY. ASK ME ART had not responded. He emphasised it was not his fault but the fault of the horse. He questioned what else he could have done. He said ASK ME ART was leaning on the inside pole and he was having difficulty keeping it out. He was doing his professional best but the horse was not responding. ASK ME ART was a bad steering horse and was badly gaited. The horse gets in and out and the more a driver pulled on the reins the more the horse got on the pole. Mr Orange said he only needed “an inch” to avoid MICKEY JAY but the horse would not give it to him.
Mr Tidmarsh summed up by stating it was clear Mr Orange was progressing forward and had allowed insufficient room to Mr Williamson, whose horse had galloped because of contact.
Mr Orange reiterated he disagreed with Mr Tidmarsh. The horse had locked on the reins and boring pole and was not responding. It was difficult for him to have done anything further. He had had difficulty in giving Mr Williamson room because his horse had not allowed him to.
reasonsfordecision:
It is agreed by the parties that there was contact between the wheel of Mr Orange’s cart and a leg of MICKEY JAY. That horse galloped and lost its chance in the race as a consequence. In his defence Mr Orange puts the contact down to the racing manners of the horse and the fact it was not responding to his actions, particular his pulling on the right rein. He has said he was doing his professional best to keep ASK ME ART off MICKEY JAY.
There is no video evidence to the effect that ASK ME ART has ducked in, to use Mr Orange’s words, and which were adopted by Mr Williamson. Mr Orange was making ground around the field and in crossing Mr Williamson, who was 3-wide on the bend at the 900 metres, he has not allowed him sufficient room. If the horse was proving difficult to steer, going in and out as Mr Orange has stated, then the prudent course of action would have been for him to have allowed even more room to Mr Williamson on his inside than he would normally do when crossing over in front of another runner. This Mr Orange did not do. The result was interference to MICKEY JAY.
Decision:
The charge of careless driving is found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Tidmarsh produced the respondent’s record. Mr Orange is currently the country’s leading reinsman. He has had 355 drives this season and 1124 last. His last breach of the careless driving rule was on 29 June last at Forbury Park when the penalty was fine of $350. Mr Tidmarsh stated the respondent has had 450 drives since that time. An aggravating factor he identified was that a horse’s chances in the race had been eliminated by the respondent’s actions. He believed a fine at the starting point of $500 in the JCA Penalty Guide was appropriate.
Mr Orange emphasised his good record and reiterated he was being penalised when he had done the best he could in difficult circumstances.
reasonsforpenalty:
The breach is mid-range. When regard is had to Mr Orange’s statement that the horse was proving difficult to drive, and this is balanced against the interference suffered by MICKEY JAY, there is no alteration to this figure.
Mr Orange’s record is excellent when consideration is given to the number of drives he has in a season. This should be reflected in the penalty imposed. A very good record warrants a $100 deduction, a further $25 is appropriate for the fact that prior to the breach in June at Forbury Park, he had not breached the careless driving rule for at least 2 seasons.
penalty:
Mr Orange is fined the sum of $375 and was told that any further deduction for his record in the near future would be in jeopardy having regard to his 2 breaches of the careless driving rule in 5 months.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr L Tidmarsh - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr B Orange - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr B Williamson - Driver of MICKEY J
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 292fe68acd96ef0677da0f750ab19bba
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 2e11586d235b0487e16811a6033f9fcb
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 30/11/2017
meet_title: Forbury Park TC - 30 November 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: forbury-park-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Forbury Park TC