Cambridge-Te Awamutu HRC 30 December 2010 – R 8
ID: JCA17991
Meet Title:
Cambridge - Te Awamutu HRC - 30 December 2010
Meet Chair:
JHolloway
Meet Committee Member 1:
BRowe
Race Date:
2010/12/30
Race Number:
R8
Decision:
The charge is proved.
Penalty:
A fine of $250 was ordered with the endorsement that any further breach of this nature by Mr Argue would result in more serious consequences.
Charge:
Mr Argue was charged with driving carelessly when he attempted to hold a position inside Russian Ball (N Chilcott), when he should have conceded the position resulting in the breaking of his own horse.
Facts:
Mr Argue appeared for the hearing and confirmed his not guilty plea.
The respective rule and the easing down regulations were read and mr Argue confirmed he understood the contents.
EASING DOWN
Subject to Rule 869(3) Careless Driving, 869(4) Causing Interference, horsemen shall be permitted to make rules with safety, provided they are in a position to do so by having a "clear advantage" over the horse they are about to move inwards, and the horse is clear of other horses on its inside so it can be moved in and that the manoeuvre can be conducted in a gradual and acceptable manner
...........
Any horseman who fails to concede when not in a position to maintainhis/her place may be charged under Rule 869(3) Careless Driving.
Mr Muirhead referred to film footage of the start of Race 8 and identified Mr Argue driving 5 Dusky Sound and Miss Chilcott on horse 8 Russian Ball. He indicated where Miss Chilcott with an advantage over Mr Argue attempted to ease him down as they approached the first bend. There was no one inside Mr Argue and she was entitled to do this. Mr Argue attempted to hold Miss Chilcott out and held his position. They had come together and grit could be seen coming up from the wheels which indicated pressure coming from both sulkies.
According to the easing down regulation Miss Chilcott was entititled to do this and Mr Argue was obliged to concede.
Miss Chilcott told the hearing that racing three wide into the first bend she had a clear head to half a neck on Mr Argue on her inside. She was trying to ease him down and he wouldnt concede. She kept the pressure on as there was room on the inside of him and he was obliged to give way. His horse subsequently broke because he didnt change his line. Mr Argue had called for room but there was massive room inside for him to be eased into.
In response to questioning from Mr Argue Miss Chilcott said that Mr Ferguson was clearly infront of and not inside Mr Argue and therefore not preventing his easing down.
Mr Argue told the hearing that Miss Chilcott had been on his outside and had got the advantage over him. As she had tried to force him down onto the pylons he believed that Mr Ferguson was on his inside and because of this he was unable to move onto the rails. He had called for room because he didnt believe his horses feet were clear of Mr Ferguson's wheels.
In response to question from Mr Muirhead he denied that there was ever clear room inside for him to be eased down.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Muirhead submitted that a prudent horseman would have eased down in this situation. This was supported both by Miss Chilcott and the video evidence. It was disappointing that a person with his experience had failed to ease down and as a result caused his horse to break.
Mr Argue said that in his opinion when the pressure first came on from Miss Chilcott there were horses inside of him. He was trying to run a straight line. It was a safety factor that required him to run a straight line. He did not concede to her because there was no clear space on his inside.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee in arriving at their decision took close account of the footage from the various angles and the evidence of Miss Chilcott and the Stipendiary Stewards. It was clear that Miss Chilcott was entitled to ease Mr Argue down and at the time that there was clearly no horse or sulky inside to preclude this. The film footage was conclusive and Mr Argue's defence was not supported in anyway.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Muirhead said the starting point for this breach was a $400 fine. He submitted the breach was in the medium to high range and Mr Argue was an experienced driver with an otherwise good driving record. It was disappointing to see the failure of Mr Argue to comprehend what he had done wrong.
Mr Argue said he had a clean driving record and that he had always been told to drive with safety. He believed he had done that the breach was in the lower range. He said that if there was to be any penalty it should be at the lower end of the scale.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee is satisfied that this was breach in the middle range and took into account Mr Argues excellent driving record. It was a clear breach of the rule and Mr Argue's denial indicated a misunderstanding of the Easing Down Regulations.
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: df98eca3cede38c3c9afc95da7bb1242
informantnumber: 69406
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 31/12/2010
hearing_title: Cambridge-Te Awamutu HRC 30 December 2010 - R 8
charge:
Mr Argue was charged with driving carelessly when he attempted to hold a position inside Russian Ball (N Chilcott), when he should have conceded the position resulting in the breaking of his own horse.
facts:
Mr Argue appeared for the hearing and confirmed his not guilty plea.
The respective rule and the easing down regulations were read and mr Argue confirmed he understood the contents.
EASING DOWN
Subject to Rule 869(3) Careless Driving, 869(4) Causing Interference, horsemen shall be permitted to make rules with safety, provided they are in a position to do so by having a "clear advantage" over the horse they are about to move inwards, and the horse is clear of other horses on its inside so it can be moved in and that the manoeuvre can be conducted in a gradual and acceptable manner
...........
Any horseman who fails to concede when not in a position to maintainhis/her place may be charged under Rule 869(3) Careless Driving.
Mr Muirhead referred to film footage of the start of Race 8 and identified Mr Argue driving 5 Dusky Sound and Miss Chilcott on horse 8 Russian Ball. He indicated where Miss Chilcott with an advantage over Mr Argue attempted to ease him down as they approached the first bend. There was no one inside Mr Argue and she was entitled to do this. Mr Argue attempted to hold Miss Chilcott out and held his position. They had come together and grit could be seen coming up from the wheels which indicated pressure coming from both sulkies.
According to the easing down regulation Miss Chilcott was entititled to do this and Mr Argue was obliged to concede.
Miss Chilcott told the hearing that racing three wide into the first bend she had a clear head to half a neck on Mr Argue on her inside. She was trying to ease him down and he wouldnt concede. She kept the pressure on as there was room on the inside of him and he was obliged to give way. His horse subsequently broke because he didnt change his line. Mr Argue had called for room but there was massive room inside for him to be eased into.
In response to questioning from Mr Argue Miss Chilcott said that Mr Ferguson was clearly infront of and not inside Mr Argue and therefore not preventing his easing down.
Mr Argue told the hearing that Miss Chilcott had been on his outside and had got the advantage over him. As she had tried to force him down onto the pylons he believed that Mr Ferguson was on his inside and because of this he was unable to move onto the rails. He had called for room because he didnt believe his horses feet were clear of Mr Ferguson's wheels.
In response to question from Mr Muirhead he denied that there was ever clear room inside for him to be eased down.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Muirhead submitted that a prudent horseman would have eased down in this situation. This was supported both by Miss Chilcott and the video evidence. It was disappointing that a person with his experience had failed to ease down and as a result caused his horse to break.
Mr Argue said that in his opinion when the pressure first came on from Miss Chilcott there were horses inside of him. He was trying to run a straight line. It was a safety factor that required him to run a straight line. He did not concede to her because there was no clear space on his inside.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee in arriving at their decision took close account of the footage from the various angles and the evidence of Miss Chilcott and the Stipendiary Stewards. It was clear that Miss Chilcott was entitled to ease Mr Argue down and at the time that there was clearly no horse or sulky inside to preclude this. The film footage was conclusive and Mr Argue's defence was not supported in anyway.
Decision:
The charge is proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Muirhead said the starting point for this breach was a $400 fine. He submitted the breach was in the medium to high range and Mr Argue was an experienced driver with an otherwise good driving record. It was disappointing to see the failure of Mr Argue to comprehend what he had done wrong.
Mr Argue said he had a clean driving record and that he had always been told to drive with safety. He believed he had done that the breach was in the lower range. He said that if there was to be any penalty it should be at the lower end of the scale.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee is satisfied that this was breach in the middle range and took into account Mr Argues excellent driving record. It was a clear breach of the rule and Mr Argue's denial indicated a misunderstanding of the Easing Down Regulations.
penalty:
A fine of $250 was ordered with the endorsement that any further breach of this nature by Mr Argue would result in more serious consequences.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b) & 869(4) & Easing down Regulations
Informant: Mr J Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr S Argue
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 40b443be2eb53e3cd8a9095d19b7a80e
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: dca164fbb12d23dc633a336cb9be4bfd
meet_expapproval: approved
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 30/12/2010
meet_title: Cambridge - Te Awamutu HRC - 30 December 2010
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "MemberRole": "Chair ", "MemberID": "JHolloway", "Member": "", "OtherExpenses": "0", "KMs": "138", "Total": "85.56", "kmprice": 85.560000000000002, "Approved": "on"}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: cambridge-te-awamutu-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: JHolloway
meet_pm1: BRowe
meet_pm2: none
name: Cambridge - Te Awamutu HRC