Rangiora HRC 20 December 2015 – R 5 – Chair, Mr S Ching
ID: JCA17829
Meet Title:
Rangiora HRC - 20 December 2015
Meet Chair:
SChing
Meet Committee Member 1:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2015/12/20
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
Penalty:
Accordingly Mr Holmes was fined the sum of $150.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5, the Kenny Moore-Clean Up Canterbury Trot, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Renault against Open Horseman, Mr R Holmes, alleging a breach of Rule 870(2) (b) in that he failed to promptly return his horse to its proper gait after it paced for a considerable distance in the middle stages of the race.
Rule 870(2)(b) reads as follows:
870 (1) When any horse breaks from its gait in any race its horseman shall immediately take all
reasonable steps to return it to its proper gait and where clearance exists immediately take
such horse clear of the field.
(2) The following shall be a breach of sub-rule (1) hereof:-
(b) failure to take all reasonable steps to return the horse to its proper gait;
Mr Holmes had endorsed the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted which he confirmed at the hearing.
Mr Holmes also confirmed he understood the Rule under which he was being charged.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Renault gave evidence and showed video replays to show that Mr Holmes, driving JEDI JOSH, started from the unruly position. He said the horse broke and galloped in the early stages and shortly afterwards switched into a pace when at the rear of the field. He said that Mr Holmes looked down and called out to Mr Harrison, driving TIJUANA TAXI, on his outside, and asked him if his horse was pacing, which Mr Harrison confirmed. Immediately thereafter Mr Holmes eased his horse and broke it up. JEDI JOSH, he said goes into a gallop and then switches back into a pace with Mr Holmes again easing his horse and breaking it up on a second occasion. He said that JEDI JOSH was so far behind the field that he goes out of camera shot and reappears on the back straight camera, pacing.
Mr Renault said it was clear on the films from the 1200m that Mr Holmes was not taking any action to correct his horses gait from pacing back to a trot as is required under the rule. Mr Renault said the Stewards do not have any concerns with Mr Holmes in the early stages where twice he has looked down and taken steps to ease and break up the horse in order to get it back into a trot. However, he said, although it had lost all chance, from the time the horse comes into picture shot near the 1200m, Mr Holmes takes no action to correct his horses gait. Mr Renault stated that in the initial enquiry into the incident, Mr Holmes stated that JEDI JOSH had a strange action and that he was unaware that the horse was pacing for the majority of the race.
Mr Holmes confirmed to the Committee that he had to ask another driver, which gait JEDI JOSH was in, in the early stages. He said that this particular horse was dual gaited and was pacing bred, out of a pacing mare. He also said that he had never driven a horse that trots in its gait, like JEDI JOSH, before. He stated that although it did not confuse him, its peculiar action, which is pacing in behind and trotting in front, makes it very difficult to tell what gait it is in. Mr Holmes said that he had broken the horse up and as the films show was looking down to try and determine what gait the horse was in. He said there was only so much you could do to get a horse back trotting and could have reefed the bit through its mouth, which would not do the horse any good. He stated that he has on more than 2 occasions tried to put the horse back into its correct gait but that once he realised that it was not going to return to a trot and out of contention, did not persevere with him.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered the evidence and video replays presented at the hearing. We were satisfied that JEDI JOSH was broken up, by Mr Holmes, on at least 2 occasions over the early stages, when the horse had switched to a pace, as required by this rule. We are also satisfied that from the 1200m until near the 200m JEDI JOSH was in a pace.
The rule states that “a horseman must take all reasonable steps to return the horse to its proper gait”. We found in this case that Mr Holmes did take reasonable steps in the early stages to return the horse to its correct gait but from the 1200m the horse has paced for a considerable distance with Mr Holmes making no further effort to return JEDI JOSH to a trot. Whilst we have sympathy for Mr Holmes with the unusual gait of JEDI JOSH, we determined that this breach was found proved.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Renault stated that Mr Holmes has had 86 drives so far this season with 305 drives last season. Mr Renault said that Mr Holmes was “out of play” in this race when the breach occurred and therefore the horse’s chances were not affected. He said the breach was at the lower end of the scale. He said records showed that a similar first breach of this rule, by Mr A Lowe in January this year, a fine of $200 was imposed. Mr Renault stated that the Stewards submitted that a similar penalty of a $200 fine be imposed in this case.
Mr Holmes had no submissions in regard to penalty apart from stating that he had never been previously charged with this rule and that the trainer had reported to him that the horse had blood present in its mouth post-race.
Reasons for Penalty:
In determining penalty the Committee took into consideration all factors.
In mitigation we agreed with Mr Renault that the breach was at a low level. We also have sympathy with Mr Holmes in regard to the difficultly associated with recognising whether an unusually gaited horse was pacing or trotting. Mr Renault's submission of the historic fine of $200 with Mr Lowe was helpful to the Committee and we therefore determined that a fine of $150 was an appropriate penalty in this case.
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: f3039959c961cb72f55d476c8734e745
informantnumber: A6623
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Breach of Rule 870(2)(b)
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 28/12/2015
hearing_title: Rangiora HRC 20 December 2015 - R 5 - Chair, Mr S Ching
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 5, the Kenny Moore-Clean Up Canterbury Trot, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Renault against Open Horseman, Mr R Holmes, alleging a breach of Rule 870(2) (b) in that he failed to promptly return his horse to its proper gait after it paced for a considerable distance in the middle stages of the race.
Rule 870(2)(b) reads as follows:
870 (1) When any horse breaks from its gait in any race its horseman shall immediately take all
reasonable steps to return it to its proper gait and where clearance exists immediately take
such horse clear of the field.
(2) The following shall be a breach of sub-rule (1) hereof:-
(b) failure to take all reasonable steps to return the horse to its proper gait;
Mr Holmes had endorsed the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted which he confirmed at the hearing.
Mr Holmes also confirmed he understood the Rule under which he was being charged.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Renault gave evidence and showed video replays to show that Mr Holmes, driving JEDI JOSH, started from the unruly position. He said the horse broke and galloped in the early stages and shortly afterwards switched into a pace when at the rear of the field. He said that Mr Holmes looked down and called out to Mr Harrison, driving TIJUANA TAXI, on his outside, and asked him if his horse was pacing, which Mr Harrison confirmed. Immediately thereafter Mr Holmes eased his horse and broke it up. JEDI JOSH, he said goes into a gallop and then switches back into a pace with Mr Holmes again easing his horse and breaking it up on a second occasion. He said that JEDI JOSH was so far behind the field that he goes out of camera shot and reappears on the back straight camera, pacing.
Mr Renault said it was clear on the films from the 1200m that Mr Holmes was not taking any action to correct his horses gait from pacing back to a trot as is required under the rule. Mr Renault said the Stewards do not have any concerns with Mr Holmes in the early stages where twice he has looked down and taken steps to ease and break up the horse in order to get it back into a trot. However, he said, although it had lost all chance, from the time the horse comes into picture shot near the 1200m, Mr Holmes takes no action to correct his horses gait. Mr Renault stated that in the initial enquiry into the incident, Mr Holmes stated that JEDI JOSH had a strange action and that he was unaware that the horse was pacing for the majority of the race.
Mr Holmes confirmed to the Committee that he had to ask another driver, which gait JEDI JOSH was in, in the early stages. He said that this particular horse was dual gaited and was pacing bred, out of a pacing mare. He also said that he had never driven a horse that trots in its gait, like JEDI JOSH, before. He stated that although it did not confuse him, its peculiar action, which is pacing in behind and trotting in front, makes it very difficult to tell what gait it is in. Mr Holmes said that he had broken the horse up and as the films show was looking down to try and determine what gait the horse was in. He said there was only so much you could do to get a horse back trotting and could have reefed the bit through its mouth, which would not do the horse any good. He stated that he has on more than 2 occasions tried to put the horse back into its correct gait but that once he realised that it was not going to return to a trot and out of contention, did not persevere with him.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered the evidence and video replays presented at the hearing. We were satisfied that JEDI JOSH was broken up, by Mr Holmes, on at least 2 occasions over the early stages, when the horse had switched to a pace, as required by this rule. We are also satisfied that from the 1200m until near the 200m JEDI JOSH was in a pace.
The rule states that “a horseman must take all reasonable steps to return the horse to its proper gait”. We found in this case that Mr Holmes did take reasonable steps in the early stages to return the horse to its correct gait but from the 1200m the horse has paced for a considerable distance with Mr Holmes making no further effort to return JEDI JOSH to a trot. Whilst we have sympathy for Mr Holmes with the unusual gait of JEDI JOSH, we determined that this breach was found proved.
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Renault stated that Mr Holmes has had 86 drives so far this season with 305 drives last season. Mr Renault said that Mr Holmes was “out of play” in this race when the breach occurred and therefore the horse’s chances were not affected. He said the breach was at the lower end of the scale. He said records showed that a similar first breach of this rule, by Mr A Lowe in January this year, a fine of $200 was imposed. Mr Renault stated that the Stewards submitted that a similar penalty of a $200 fine be imposed in this case.
Mr Holmes had no submissions in regard to penalty apart from stating that he had never been previously charged with this rule and that the trainer had reported to him that the horse had blood present in its mouth post-race.
reasonsforpenalty:
In determining penalty the Committee took into consideration all factors.
In mitigation we agreed with Mr Renault that the breach was at a low level. We also have sympathy with Mr Holmes in regard to the difficultly associated with recognising whether an unusually gaited horse was pacing or trotting. Mr Renault's submission of the historic fine of $200 with Mr Lowe was helpful to the Committee and we therefore determined that a fine of $150 was an appropriate penalty in this case.
penalty:
Accordingly Mr Holmes was fined the sum of $150.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 870(2)(b)
Informant: Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr R Holmes - Open Horseman
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 9944acd67700ac8797305f2dd8ecae72
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: f4369f45b74e84720dae3f53d0390538
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 20/12/2015
meet_title: Rangiora HRC - 20 December 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: rangiora-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: SChing
meet_pm1: RMcKenzie
meet_pm2: none
name: Rangiora HRC