Forbury Park TC 29 March 2018 – R 4 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA17442
Meet Title:
Forbury Park TC - 29 March 2018
Meet Chair:
GHall
Race Date:
2018/03/29
Race Number:
R 4
Decision:
The charge is dismissed.
Facts:
Mr Tidmarsh, Stipendiary Steward, alleged that Mr Armour in race 4 the PICK 6 STARTS NOW MOBILE PACE, drove carelessly by allowing his horse, MACH O’MELLEY, to strike the sulky wheel of COOLHAND EASTON, the tyre of which deflated.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Wallis demonstrated on the videos that Mr Armour was racing 3 back behind Mr D Dunn, who was driving COOLHAND EASTON. As Mr Armour moved outwards on the track his horse hit the outside sulky wheel of Mr Dunn and the tyre deflated. COOLHAND EASTON was pulled out of the race. Mr Wallis pointed to the fact that after hitting the wheel the respondent had gone back in behind Mr Dunn and had thus been inconvenienced. Mr Wallis believed the contact with COOLHAND EASTON was as a consequence of Mr Armour endeavouring to shift wider.
Mr Tidmarsh said the videos did not evidence that the respondent was having difficulty with his horse. For example, it did not appear to be hanging. He believed that Mr Armour had simply misjudged his shift. He pointed out that the video showed that Mr Dunn had looked down at his wheel immediately. Mr Tidmarsh said that COOLHAND EASTON was not coming back rapidly into the respondent’s face. He said Mr Dunn was not hard up on the horse in front of him but he had not put Mr Armour in difficulty. He believed Mr Dunn had lost ground rapidly after he received a punctured tyre. His horse had compounded.
Mr Tidmarsh concluded his submission by saying Mr Armour had misjudged his shift and, in so doing, was careless.
Mr Armour said he had had issues with his horse on the first bend when it “had gone rough”. The horse was wearing block blinds and had a rubber bit. The horse had a soft mouth and it was difficult to keep it on the bit. The horse had over-raced and had given him a tough drive until he had received cover. He said he had the opportunity earlier to go 3 wide and had not gone round. He had not pushed out. He said he was trailing COOLHAND EASTON and the head of his horse was on Mr Dunn’s helmet. He had not shifted wider on the track because there was a horse to his outside.
Mr Armour emphasised that Mr Dunn was losing ground before the contact and this contact was down to his horse, MACH O’MELLEY, not his driving. He said he had opportunities to shift out but had opted not to because he was aware he was close to Mr Dunn’s wheel and was concerned he might get it. He said when Mr Dunn started to come back he had attempted to ease his horse but because of the gear, especially the rubber bit, he did not have “a lot of leeway”. When questioned, he said he believed it was 30 to 40 metres prior to contact, that Mr Dunn was giving ground.
Mr Armour called Mr Dunn to give evidence. Mr Dunn said that at the time of contact his horse was stopping. It had choked down. He was definitely giving ground at the time. He said that “the speed had gone on and he was going backwards”. He had lost ground on the horse he was following “pretty quickly” prior to contact. In response to a question from the Committee, he said he said he was not concerned as to the closeness Mr Armour was following him. This was not an issue. He believed Mr Armour was trying to get off his back because he was stopping and that the respondent had come back in after contact. Mr Dunn said he had driven MACH O’MELLEY and the horse does get keen and has no respect for a soft bit.
Mr Tidmarsh questioned Mr Dunn. Mr Tidmarsh said to Mr Dunn that he had not been hard up behind the horse in front over the back. Mr Dunn said the gap had increased as soon as the speed had gone on and it was “quite rapid”. It had all happened “very quick”. Within half a metre the horse had started to go backwards. He agreed with Mr Tidmarsh that his horse was not stopping in Mr Armour’s face. However, he reiterated that his horse had probably choked down at the time of the incident.
Mr Armour said when the pace went on the gap did widen. Prior to the incident he had taken measures to ensure he did not make contact with Mr Dunn’s wheel by not coming out earlier. He had opted to stay in to avoid the situation. He believed the evidence of Mr Dunn had weight.
Mr Tidmarsh summed up by stating Mr Dunn had said he had not come back into Mr Armour’s face. Mr Tidmarsh believed Mr Dunn had given ground rapidly after the incident and not before. He believed the head-on video showed that the respondent was shifting out at the time of contact.
Mr Armour replied the horse had been racing erratically and the gear had played a part in what he described as “a racing incident.”
Reasons for Decision:
The videos are far from determinative of this charge. It is evident that Mr Dunn was coming back on to Mr Armour at the time of contact. Mr Dunn has said his horse has choked down. The principal issue is how quick was Mr Dunn coming back on to Mr Armour. The Committee agrees with Mr Tidmarsh that this movement was not so quick that it could be described as Mr Dunn was coming back into Mr Armour’s face. The videos do not support that contention, and Mr Dunn’s evidence is also to this effect. However, the videos suggest and Mr Dunn’s evidence is that once the speed went on COOLHAND EASTON was not keeping up and was coming back. Mr Dunn has said the distance of the gap between COOLHAND EASTON and the horse in front had increased in a “quite rapid” manner. It had happened “very quick”.
It is clear the reason COOLHAND EASTON dropped out of the race so quickly was not because of the deflated tyre. The horse itself had issues in that it has choked down.
Significantly, Mr Armour has said that he was not trying to shift wider on the track in order to progress forward around Mr Dunn. He had previously rejected opportunities to take a run to Mr Dunn’s outside because he was wary of the very event, ie contact with the outside wheel of Mr Dunn’s cart, occurring. He was simply trying at the time to keep MACH O’MELLEY off Mr Dunn’s cart, which was coming back on him. Mr Dunn in his evidence has confirmed Mr Armour’s contention that MACH O’MELLEY is a difficult horse to drive. The evidence is that the horse is soft in the mouth and is difficult to steer as a consequence. Mr Armour has said he was in difficulty at different points in the race in question.
The issue is whether or not Mr Armour was careless in letting MACH O’MELLEY come into contact with the wheel of Mr Dunn’s cart. Having regard to the combination of factors that have been identified and, in particular, that Mr Armour was trying to avoid Mr Dunn who was stopping and was coming back on to him, the Committee is not satisfied to the required standard of the balance of probabilities that Mr Armour was careless.
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: e3d8c8b3204f70fdff0ed8ce07387ea0
informantnumber: A10436
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 03/04/2018
hearing_title: Forbury Park TC 29 March 2018 - R 4 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
Mr Tidmarsh, Stipendiary Steward, alleged that Mr Armour in race 4 the PICK 6 STARTS NOW MOBILE PACE, drove carelessly by allowing his horse, MACH O’MELLEY, to strike the sulky wheel of COOLHAND EASTON, the tyre of which deflated.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Wallis demonstrated on the videos that Mr Armour was racing 3 back behind Mr D Dunn, who was driving COOLHAND EASTON. As Mr Armour moved outwards on the track his horse hit the outside sulky wheel of Mr Dunn and the tyre deflated. COOLHAND EASTON was pulled out of the race. Mr Wallis pointed to the fact that after hitting the wheel the respondent had gone back in behind Mr Dunn and had thus been inconvenienced. Mr Wallis believed the contact with COOLHAND EASTON was as a consequence of Mr Armour endeavouring to shift wider.
Mr Tidmarsh said the videos did not evidence that the respondent was having difficulty with his horse. For example, it did not appear to be hanging. He believed that Mr Armour had simply misjudged his shift. He pointed out that the video showed that Mr Dunn had looked down at his wheel immediately. Mr Tidmarsh said that COOLHAND EASTON was not coming back rapidly into the respondent’s face. He said Mr Dunn was not hard up on the horse in front of him but he had not put Mr Armour in difficulty. He believed Mr Dunn had lost ground rapidly after he received a punctured tyre. His horse had compounded.
Mr Tidmarsh concluded his submission by saying Mr Armour had misjudged his shift and, in so doing, was careless.
Mr Armour said he had had issues with his horse on the first bend when it “had gone rough”. The horse was wearing block blinds and had a rubber bit. The horse had a soft mouth and it was difficult to keep it on the bit. The horse had over-raced and had given him a tough drive until he had received cover. He said he had the opportunity earlier to go 3 wide and had not gone round. He had not pushed out. He said he was trailing COOLHAND EASTON and the head of his horse was on Mr Dunn’s helmet. He had not shifted wider on the track because there was a horse to his outside.
Mr Armour emphasised that Mr Dunn was losing ground before the contact and this contact was down to his horse, MACH O’MELLEY, not his driving. He said he had opportunities to shift out but had opted not to because he was aware he was close to Mr Dunn’s wheel and was concerned he might get it. He said when Mr Dunn started to come back he had attempted to ease his horse but because of the gear, especially the rubber bit, he did not have “a lot of leeway”. When questioned, he said he believed it was 30 to 40 metres prior to contact, that Mr Dunn was giving ground.
Mr Armour called Mr Dunn to give evidence. Mr Dunn said that at the time of contact his horse was stopping. It had choked down. He was definitely giving ground at the time. He said that “the speed had gone on and he was going backwards”. He had lost ground on the horse he was following “pretty quickly” prior to contact. In response to a question from the Committee, he said he said he was not concerned as to the closeness Mr Armour was following him. This was not an issue. He believed Mr Armour was trying to get off his back because he was stopping and that the respondent had come back in after contact. Mr Dunn said he had driven MACH O’MELLEY and the horse does get keen and has no respect for a soft bit.
Mr Tidmarsh questioned Mr Dunn. Mr Tidmarsh said to Mr Dunn that he had not been hard up behind the horse in front over the back. Mr Dunn said the gap had increased as soon as the speed had gone on and it was “quite rapid”. It had all happened “very quick”. Within half a metre the horse had started to go backwards. He agreed with Mr Tidmarsh that his horse was not stopping in Mr Armour’s face. However, he reiterated that his horse had probably choked down at the time of the incident.
Mr Armour said when the pace went on the gap did widen. Prior to the incident he had taken measures to ensure he did not make contact with Mr Dunn’s wheel by not coming out earlier. He had opted to stay in to avoid the situation. He believed the evidence of Mr Dunn had weight.
Mr Tidmarsh summed up by stating Mr Dunn had said he had not come back into Mr Armour’s face. Mr Tidmarsh believed Mr Dunn had given ground rapidly after the incident and not before. He believed the head-on video showed that the respondent was shifting out at the time of contact.
Mr Armour replied the horse had been racing erratically and the gear had played a part in what he described as “a racing incident.”
reasonsfordecision:
The videos are far from determinative of this charge. It is evident that Mr Dunn was coming back on to Mr Armour at the time of contact. Mr Dunn has said his horse has choked down. The principal issue is how quick was Mr Dunn coming back on to Mr Armour. The Committee agrees with Mr Tidmarsh that this movement was not so quick that it could be described as Mr Dunn was coming back into Mr Armour’s face. The videos do not support that contention, and Mr Dunn’s evidence is also to this effect. However, the videos suggest and Mr Dunn’s evidence is that once the speed went on COOLHAND EASTON was not keeping up and was coming back. Mr Dunn has said the distance of the gap between COOLHAND EASTON and the horse in front had increased in a “quite rapid” manner. It had happened “very quick”.
It is clear the reason COOLHAND EASTON dropped out of the race so quickly was not because of the deflated tyre. The horse itself had issues in that it has choked down.
Significantly, Mr Armour has said that he was not trying to shift wider on the track in order to progress forward around Mr Dunn. He had previously rejected opportunities to take a run to Mr Dunn’s outside because he was wary of the very event, ie contact with the outside wheel of Mr Dunn’s cart, occurring. He was simply trying at the time to keep MACH O’MELLEY off Mr Dunn’s cart, which was coming back on him. Mr Dunn in his evidence has confirmed Mr Armour’s contention that MACH O’MELLEY is a difficult horse to drive. The evidence is that the horse is soft in the mouth and is difficult to steer as a consequence. Mr Armour has said he was in difficulty at different points in the race in question.
The issue is whether or not Mr Armour was careless in letting MACH O’MELLEY come into contact with the wheel of Mr Dunn’s cart. Having regard to the combination of factors that have been identified and, in particular, that Mr Armour was trying to avoid Mr Dunn who was stopping and was coming back on to him, the Committee is not satisfied to the required standard of the balance of probabilities that Mr Armour was careless.
Decision:
The charge is dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr L Tidmarsh - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson: Mr S Wallis - Stipendiary Steward, Mr D Dunn - Driver of COOLHAND EASTON
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 302943e516ea01237be7c20490a6a7a1
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: 3f267e7b3575cab6dd436c9cabac27a2
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 29/03/2018
meet_title: Forbury Park TC - 29 March 2018
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