Non Raceday Inquiry – RIU v T Macfarlane 5 April 2012 – Decision dated 16 April 2012
ID: JCA18158
Decision:
Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v Mr T Macfarlane – Decision dated 16 April 2012
Rules: 868(2)
Information Number: A4605
Informant: Mr J M Muirhead – Stipendiary Steward RIU
Respondent: Open Horseman Mr T A Macfarlane
Other Parties: Mr T W Taumanu - Stipendiary Steward RIU, Mr D Balle - Horseman driver of Regal Petite, Mr R Lawson Lay advocate for Mr Macfarlane
Venue: Cambridge Raceway
Judicial Committee: J N Holloway (Chairman) – A J Dooley (Committee Member)
Date of Hearing: 5 April 2012
Plea: Denied
Charge:
That in Race 1 at the race meeting of the Franklin Trotting Club at Pukekohe on the 6 March 2012, Mr T Macfarlane, by his lack of vigour when driving ALTA CHARISMA over the concluding stages of the race, failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure ALTA CHARISMA was given full opportunity to win.
An alleged breach of Rule 868(2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing which reads
“Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.”
NON RACEDAY HEARING – DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Informant Mr J M Muirhead lodged an Information at the Franklin Trotting Club meeting of the 6 March 2012 alleging a breach of Rule 868(2) by Mr T Macfarlane whilst driving Alta Charisma in Race 1.
The charge was denied and adjourned and subsequently heard as a non raceday inquiry on the 5th April 2012 at the Cambridge Raceway.
Stipendiary Stewards J M Muirhead and T W Taumanu appeared and gave evidence in support of the prosecution.
Mr T A Macfarlane was supported at the hearing by Mr R Lawson – Lay Advocate.
Mr Macfarlane gave evidence in his defence and also called horseman Mr D Balle to give evidence.
Mr Muirhead read the rule and Mr Macfarlane confirmed he was denying the charge.
Evidence for Informant
Mr Muirhead told the enquiry that Mr Macfarlane was the holder of a public trainer and open horseman’s licence. He was the trainer driver of Alta Charisma entered in race one at the Franklin Trotting Club meeting on the 6th March 2012.
Alta Charisma drew barrier four for the standing start and led for the majority of the 2300 metre race before being beaten into second place by Regal Petite (Driver D Balle). The judge’s margins were a neck first to second and 6 ¾ lengths to third. Alta Charisma was the 3rd win and 4th place favourite in the betting.
Mr Muirhead gave evidence of his 29 years experience as a stipendiary steward in harness racing. He was on duty and viewed the race from the viewing position opposite the winning post. Alta Charisma led from the standing start and was travelling well in the lead in the run home.
With approximately 300 metres to run Mr Macfarlane drifted off the running line about a sulky width which allowed the trailing runner Regal Petite to improve on his inside before the passing lane commenced at the 200 metre mark.
His attention was drawn to the fact that Mr Macfarlane did not appear to respond to this challenge for the lead. He did not appear to use his reins or whip to competitively maintain his lead. Near the 200 metre mark and a length behind Mr Macfarlane activated the removable deafeners.
Over the final 200 metres he did not see Mr Macfarlane use his whip or his reins to encourage Alta Charisma which appeared to finish the race under a hold. In his opinion the horse appeared to be trotting rhythmically and well within itself. Despite the lack of encouragement Alta Charisma improved on the winner finishing in second place by a neck.
Mr Muirhead explained that the lack of vigour displayed by Mr Macfarlane fell well short of the competitive displays demanded of all horsemen under Rule 868.
In cross examination Mr Muirhead confirmed the Stewards concerns over the state of the track. The track was pretty rough and 34 horses had broken during the meeting mainly near the crossing. Seven horses had broken out of eleven during race 1 but he noted that Alta Charisma had negotiated the crossing well. The general consensus was that the track was in a substandard state.
Mr Macfarlane enjoyed a good reputation with the stewards for his honesty and they were not suggesting his lack of vigour was for some improper motive. Mr Macfarlane had let himself down and had driven at a standard below that expected of an experienced horseman.
He should have done more to give himself a greater chance of winning the race.
Mr Muirhead confirmed there were no irregularities in the wagering on this race.
Mr Taumanu told the hearing he had been a Stipendiary Steward for 35 years. He was also on duty at the meeting and observed Mr Macfarlane driving Alta Charisma in race 1.
Mr Macfarlane made no effort over the concluding stages to urge his horse to the winning post. He finished 2nd to Regal Petite by a neck. After reviewing the film of the race Mr Taumanu confirmed his earlier observations that Mr Macfarlane although carrying a whip, was virtually motionless and not openly competitive over the concluding stages of the race.
In his experience Mr Taumanu found that Trainer Drivers often nursed their horses and drove with less aggression than catch drivers.
Mr Macfarlane was subsequently interviewed and told him that his horse was running well but had no show of beating the winner who was under a hold throughout.
Mr Taumanu confirmed they had inspected the track before the first race which was not in good shape. Their main concern was with the crossing. With the pylons being out two metres it gave the harness horses a better running surface but the track surface was still substandard. All drivers got the opportunity to look at the track prior to each race and the general opinion was the venue did not have a good surface. It was not unsafe.
In his dealings with the stewards Mr Macfarlane was always cooperative and professional.
Mr Muirhead replayed the race day footage and identified the relevant runners. Alta Charisma got away safely and went to the lead with Regal Petite in the trail. The two horses negotiated the crossing and continued in the same respective positions to the home straight.
Mr Macfarlane’s horse ran out from the rail prior to the passing lane with about 300 metres to run allowing Regal Petite to improve on the inside and pass him to lead by about a length. Mr Macfarlane did nothing in response until about 200 metres to run when he pulled the deafeners very casually. He was holding the whip in the right hand and did not appear to be using it at all.
Regal Petite was ahead by a length before Alta Charisma closed to within a neck at the line.
The steward’s concern was not so much that Mr Macfarlane had moved out from the running line allowing Mr Balle to improve but that he had failed to respond when being challenged for the lead. A normal response would include urging the horse by use of the whip or the reins.
Alta Charisma was travelling well and the two horses behind it were being urged on with use of the whip. People watching the race would be disturbed by the fact the Mr Macfarlane didn’t look like he was interested in challenging for the lead position.
Exhibits
Mr Muirhead provided the following exhibits to the Committee
Copy of the official photo finish and judge’s placings
Turnover event summary
Alta Charisma’s race start history
Race video coverage
Transcript of the post race interview with Mr Macfarlane
Evidence for Defendant:
Mr Macfarlane told the inquiry that his horse was prone to galloping. In referring to video footage he explained that as Mr Balle was passing him he was flicking his whip. He pulled the deafeners in a slow deliberate motion to minimise the chance of his horse breaking. The horse’s gait particularly in the hind legs was rough on occasions. He continued to flick the horse with the whip to the finish line.
They were well clear of the field at the finish post because they were travelling so well going as fast as they could. He did not pull the plugs when Mr Balle challenged him because there was still 350 metres to run. It is a very long straight and from experience he knew if he pulled them too early there would be “no gas left in the tank” approaching the winning post.
After pulling the plugs he used a wrist action and flicked the whip on his horse all the way to the line may be four or five times. Mr Balle had his horse under a strangle hold and they were both travelling well. He claimed he was driving his horse all the way to the line and doing the best work he could. He couldn’t strike his horse with the whip.
Alta Charisma was travelling well and felt good all race but he was the type of horse that could break at the drop of a hat. This was his 9th race day start and he had broken in four of his previous 8 starts in the concluding stages of the race. This race was his second of the season with the only other race being in January.
Mr Macfarlane also showed video footage of more recent occasions of Alta Charisma racing and of its propensity to break without any pressure. He told the committee the horse was fragile and would break without any pressure being applied.
He confirmed to Mr Muirhead that Alta Charisma had travelled without problem on other occasions. In the race on the 29th March he had shown more vigour, encouraged the horse with the reins and the horse came home strongly.
Mr Muirhead referred to the concluding stages of race 1 at the Franklin Trotting Club. He did not immediately respond to the challenge because there was still 350 metres to run. His horse was doing his best work and trotting as quickly as he could. He didn’t react by using the reins because he was flicking his horse on the rump using his whip. As Mr Balle came up towards him he used his whip in response. He didn’t put any pressure on his horse in the last 50 metres as he was travelling the quickest he could and the other horse always had him covered. He could have broken and lost his place.
He said it was important on an uneven surface to maintain the balance on a trotter and to do so required both hands on the reins. He wanted to do his best to beat Mr Balle and claimed he was getting Alta Charisma to do his best work. He used the whip to its best effect on that horse. He didn’t believe that as a trainer of the horse he drove it overly conservatively, he drove the horse as it felt on the day.
Mr Balle driver of Regal Petite gave evidence of his observations of the race. He explained that he had trailed Mr Macfarlane through most of the race under a fair hold. Both horses were travelling well on an uneven track and as soon as he went inside Alta Charisma he knew he had him covered and carried on for a comfortable win. There was no show of Alta Charisma winning unless his horse broke. He carried a whip but didn’t turn it around. If they had gone any faster the horses could have galloped. He was not surprised that he got a run with 300 metres to run but it was only a matter of time before he got past Alta Charisma.
As he went past Mr Macfarlane he saw him tap his horse a couple of times. He was hanging onto his horse to make sure it didn’t gallop. His own horse had galloped in its next start when challenged for the lead.
Exhibits
Stipendiary steward’s reports
Submissions for Informant
Mr Muirhead submitted that the rule was clear in its intention. An objective standard was to be applied requiring a horseman to take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times throughout the race to get the best position in the race. He contended that if drivers were able to say that any apparent failure was due to a fear that the horse would break or otherwise react badly to vigour, the rule would be stripped of its meaning.
When a driver fails to take reasonable and permissible measures the race goer can only feel cheated. There is an expectation that every driver will drive their horse with vigour and that those actions are demonstrable and discernible.
When a driver does not fully encourage a horse there must always arise the damaging suspicion that there is collusion, conspiracy or some other anti competitive conduct.
Mr Macfarlane should have shown more vigour in driving with the reins anytime within the last 300 metres of the race; he could have activated the deafeners immediately on being challenged and displayed a competitive response.
If reasonable and permissible measures had been used the Mr Macfarlane would have increased the opportunity for Alta Charisma to run down Regal Petite and win the race.
Alta Charisma trotted soundly during this race and did not any concerns to prevent it from being driven with more demonstrable and discernible vigour. Despite the lack of vigour Alta Charisma reduced the winning margin on the leading horse over the concluding 50 metres being beaten for first place by a neck.
Submissions for Defence
Mr Lawson told the committee that the intent of the rule was to ensure that every horse is given every opportunity to finish in the best possible finishing place in a race. Drivers must ensure that they drive the horse in a manner to ensure that they do. The test is objective with the definition meaning ‘dealing with the facts uncoloured by feelings or opinion’.
With about 350 metres to run Regal Petite went to the lead and held on very strongly to win with ease.
Alta Charisma held on gallantly for second. Mr Macfarlane took all reasonable measures including slowly and deliberately removing the deafeners and holding the horse together so that it didn’t gallop. He took permissible measures by pulling the deafeners and by very gentle use of the whip.
He was endeavouring to obtain the best possible position and finishing place in the race.
On the race day 34 horses had broken on the track which was from all accounts substandard.
Alta Charisma to that point had galloped in the majority of its starts.
Mr Macfarlane’s integrity was not in question and this was confirmed by the Stipendiary Stewards.
In conclusion Mr Lawson contended that Mr Macfarlane had done the best for the public and the horse by not using extreme vigour to ensure the horse stayed in its trotting gait and ran to its best ability in finishing second.
With the mitigating circumstances of the horse trotting roughly, uneven track surface the questionable record of his horse, the ease with which the winner had finished and the integrity of Mr Macfarlane it was clear that the horse had been given the best opportunity in the race. He had complied with the rule and should be therefore found not guilty.
Reasons for Decision
The Committee carefully listened to and evaluated the evidence of both parties and reviewed video footage of the relevant stages of the race. Submissions made by both parties were helpful in reaching our decision.
The informant’s case was that Mr Macfarlane by his lack of vigour in the concluding stages of the race, failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure Alta Charisma was given full opportunity to win.
The defence contention was that Mr Macfarlane had good cause to treat Alta Charisma with caution and that in essence had had done all that could be reasonably expected of him. By taking the measures he had ensured that Alta Charisma finished in the best possible position and finishing place.
From our observations we were satisfied of the following:
There was no discernible response from Mr Macfarlane when challenged for the lead. There was no urgency in the removal of the deafeners and no overt movements by Mr Macfarlane to support his contention that he was taking all reasonable and permissible measures.
There was no urging of Alta Charisma and there appeared to be a lack of vigour displayed in the use of the whip using a wrist motion. Other means of encouraging the horse including use of the reins or more strenuous use of the whip were not employed.
In fact there was no clear evidence of any contact being made with the horse when the whip was used. Use of the reins in urging Alta Charisma in the run home would have removed all doubt that there was a genuine effort to ensure the best possible result for his drive.
From video footage viewed Alta Charisma appeared to be trotting tractably.
The general racing conduct of Mr Macfarlane did not enhance the image of harness racing and could understandably cause disquiet. Supporters of the industry particularly the gambling public expect clear signs that the driver of a horse in a race is doing his best.
Clearly discernible and demonstrable actions by the driver to enhance his horse’s chances would support this contention.
The official margin between first and second was a neck and Alta Charisma was closing on the winner in the final stages. The lack of vigour did not impress particularly with the finishing performance of Alta Charisma in gaining almost a length in the final 50 or so metres without obvious encouragement.
There was good reason for Mr Macfarlane to be concerned of the potential for Alta Charisma to break based on its previous race record, its fragile nature and the condition of the Counties race track. There was no suggestion of any impropriety by Mr Macfarlane and his integrity is not in question. He clearly did not take sufficient action to have met the standard of driving required by the rules.
Decision
The Committee was satisfied the Mr Macfarlane made an error of judgement and in doing so breached this rule.
By his lack of vigour he had failed to show all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure Alta Charisma was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.
Therefore the charge is established.
Penalty:
Submissions on Penalty
The Committee requests that the Informant provides written submissions on penalty to the Executive Officer by 5pm Wednesday 25 April 2012. The Defendant will then have a further 7 (seven) days to respond with their written submissions on penalty to the Executive Officer (5pm Wednesday 2 May 2102).
J N Holloway A J Dooley
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 18/04/2012
Publish Date: 18/04/2012
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: f4c88885b4861dba46625cf78d514aa5
informantnumber: A4065
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 18/04/2012
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - RIU v T Macfarlane 5 April 2012 - Decision dated 16 April 2012
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v Mr T Macfarlane – Decision dated 16 April 2012
Rules: 868(2)
Information Number: A4605
Informant: Mr J M Muirhead – Stipendiary Steward RIU
Respondent: Open Horseman Mr T A Macfarlane
Other Parties: Mr T W Taumanu - Stipendiary Steward RIU, Mr D Balle - Horseman driver of Regal Petite, Mr R Lawson Lay advocate for Mr Macfarlane
Venue: Cambridge Raceway
Judicial Committee: J N Holloway (Chairman) – A J Dooley (Committee Member)
Date of Hearing: 5 April 2012
Plea: Denied
Charge:
That in Race 1 at the race meeting of the Franklin Trotting Club at Pukekohe on the 6 March 2012, Mr T Macfarlane, by his lack of vigour when driving ALTA CHARISMA over the concluding stages of the race, failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure ALTA CHARISMA was given full opportunity to win.
An alleged breach of Rule 868(2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing which reads
“Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.”
NON RACEDAY HEARING – DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Informant Mr J M Muirhead lodged an Information at the Franklin Trotting Club meeting of the 6 March 2012 alleging a breach of Rule 868(2) by Mr T Macfarlane whilst driving Alta Charisma in Race 1.
The charge was denied and adjourned and subsequently heard as a non raceday inquiry on the 5th April 2012 at the Cambridge Raceway.
Stipendiary Stewards J M Muirhead and T W Taumanu appeared and gave evidence in support of the prosecution.
Mr T A Macfarlane was supported at the hearing by Mr R Lawson – Lay Advocate.
Mr Macfarlane gave evidence in his defence and also called horseman Mr D Balle to give evidence.
Mr Muirhead read the rule and Mr Macfarlane confirmed he was denying the charge.
Evidence for Informant
Mr Muirhead told the enquiry that Mr Macfarlane was the holder of a public trainer and open horseman’s licence. He was the trainer driver of Alta Charisma entered in race one at the Franklin Trotting Club meeting on the 6th March 2012.
Alta Charisma drew barrier four for the standing start and led for the majority of the 2300 metre race before being beaten into second place by Regal Petite (Driver D Balle). The judge’s margins were a neck first to second and 6 ¾ lengths to third. Alta Charisma was the 3rd win and 4th place favourite in the betting.
Mr Muirhead gave evidence of his 29 years experience as a stipendiary steward in harness racing. He was on duty and viewed the race from the viewing position opposite the winning post. Alta Charisma led from the standing start and was travelling well in the lead in the run home.
With approximately 300 metres to run Mr Macfarlane drifted off the running line about a sulky width which allowed the trailing runner Regal Petite to improve on his inside before the passing lane commenced at the 200 metre mark.
His attention was drawn to the fact that Mr Macfarlane did not appear to respond to this challenge for the lead. He did not appear to use his reins or whip to competitively maintain his lead. Near the 200 metre mark and a length behind Mr Macfarlane activated the removable deafeners.
Over the final 200 metres he did not see Mr Macfarlane use his whip or his reins to encourage Alta Charisma which appeared to finish the race under a hold. In his opinion the horse appeared to be trotting rhythmically and well within itself. Despite the lack of encouragement Alta Charisma improved on the winner finishing in second place by a neck.
Mr Muirhead explained that the lack of vigour displayed by Mr Macfarlane fell well short of the competitive displays demanded of all horsemen under Rule 868.
In cross examination Mr Muirhead confirmed the Stewards concerns over the state of the track. The track was pretty rough and 34 horses had broken during the meeting mainly near the crossing. Seven horses had broken out of eleven during race 1 but he noted that Alta Charisma had negotiated the crossing well. The general consensus was that the track was in a substandard state.
Mr Macfarlane enjoyed a good reputation with the stewards for his honesty and they were not suggesting his lack of vigour was for some improper motive. Mr Macfarlane had let himself down and had driven at a standard below that expected of an experienced horseman.
He should have done more to give himself a greater chance of winning the race.
Mr Muirhead confirmed there were no irregularities in the wagering on this race.
Mr Taumanu told the hearing he had been a Stipendiary Steward for 35 years. He was also on duty at the meeting and observed Mr Macfarlane driving Alta Charisma in race 1.
Mr Macfarlane made no effort over the concluding stages to urge his horse to the winning post. He finished 2nd to Regal Petite by a neck. After reviewing the film of the race Mr Taumanu confirmed his earlier observations that Mr Macfarlane although carrying a whip, was virtually motionless and not openly competitive over the concluding stages of the race.
In his experience Mr Taumanu found that Trainer Drivers often nursed their horses and drove with less aggression than catch drivers.
Mr Macfarlane was subsequently interviewed and told him that his horse was running well but had no show of beating the winner who was under a hold throughout.
Mr Taumanu confirmed they had inspected the track before the first race which was not in good shape. Their main concern was with the crossing. With the pylons being out two metres it gave the harness horses a better running surface but the track surface was still substandard. All drivers got the opportunity to look at the track prior to each race and the general opinion was the venue did not have a good surface. It was not unsafe.
In his dealings with the stewards Mr Macfarlane was always cooperative and professional.
Mr Muirhead replayed the race day footage and identified the relevant runners. Alta Charisma got away safely and went to the lead with Regal Petite in the trail. The two horses negotiated the crossing and continued in the same respective positions to the home straight.
Mr Macfarlane’s horse ran out from the rail prior to the passing lane with about 300 metres to run allowing Regal Petite to improve on the inside and pass him to lead by about a length. Mr Macfarlane did nothing in response until about 200 metres to run when he pulled the deafeners very casually. He was holding the whip in the right hand and did not appear to be using it at all.
Regal Petite was ahead by a length before Alta Charisma closed to within a neck at the line.
The steward’s concern was not so much that Mr Macfarlane had moved out from the running line allowing Mr Balle to improve but that he had failed to respond when being challenged for the lead. A normal response would include urging the horse by use of the whip or the reins.
Alta Charisma was travelling well and the two horses behind it were being urged on with use of the whip. People watching the race would be disturbed by the fact the Mr Macfarlane didn’t look like he was interested in challenging for the lead position.
Exhibits
Mr Muirhead provided the following exhibits to the Committee
Copy of the official photo finish and judge’s placings
Turnover event summary
Alta Charisma’s race start history
Race video coverage
Transcript of the post race interview with Mr Macfarlane
Evidence for Defendant:
Mr Macfarlane told the inquiry that his horse was prone to galloping. In referring to video footage he explained that as Mr Balle was passing him he was flicking his whip. He pulled the deafeners in a slow deliberate motion to minimise the chance of his horse breaking. The horse’s gait particularly in the hind legs was rough on occasions. He continued to flick the horse with the whip to the finish line.
They were well clear of the field at the finish post because they were travelling so well going as fast as they could. He did not pull the plugs when Mr Balle challenged him because there was still 350 metres to run. It is a very long straight and from experience he knew if he pulled them too early there would be “no gas left in the tank” approaching the winning post.
After pulling the plugs he used a wrist action and flicked the whip on his horse all the way to the line may be four or five times. Mr Balle had his horse under a strangle hold and they were both travelling well. He claimed he was driving his horse all the way to the line and doing the best work he could. He couldn’t strike his horse with the whip.
Alta Charisma was travelling well and felt good all race but he was the type of horse that could break at the drop of a hat. This was his 9th race day start and he had broken in four of his previous 8 starts in the concluding stages of the race. This race was his second of the season with the only other race being in January.
Mr Macfarlane also showed video footage of more recent occasions of Alta Charisma racing and of its propensity to break without any pressure. He told the committee the horse was fragile and would break without any pressure being applied.
He confirmed to Mr Muirhead that Alta Charisma had travelled without problem on other occasions. In the race on the 29th March he had shown more vigour, encouraged the horse with the reins and the horse came home strongly.
Mr Muirhead referred to the concluding stages of race 1 at the Franklin Trotting Club. He did not immediately respond to the challenge because there was still 350 metres to run. His horse was doing his best work and trotting as quickly as he could. He didn’t react by using the reins because he was flicking his horse on the rump using his whip. As Mr Balle came up towards him he used his whip in response. He didn’t put any pressure on his horse in the last 50 metres as he was travelling the quickest he could and the other horse always had him covered. He could have broken and lost his place.
He said it was important on an uneven surface to maintain the balance on a trotter and to do so required both hands on the reins. He wanted to do his best to beat Mr Balle and claimed he was getting Alta Charisma to do his best work. He used the whip to its best effect on that horse. He didn’t believe that as a trainer of the horse he drove it overly conservatively, he drove the horse as it felt on the day.
Mr Balle driver of Regal Petite gave evidence of his observations of the race. He explained that he had trailed Mr Macfarlane through most of the race under a fair hold. Both horses were travelling well on an uneven track and as soon as he went inside Alta Charisma he knew he had him covered and carried on for a comfortable win. There was no show of Alta Charisma winning unless his horse broke. He carried a whip but didn’t turn it around. If they had gone any faster the horses could have galloped. He was not surprised that he got a run with 300 metres to run but it was only a matter of time before he got past Alta Charisma.
As he went past Mr Macfarlane he saw him tap his horse a couple of times. He was hanging onto his horse to make sure it didn’t gallop. His own horse had galloped in its next start when challenged for the lead.
Exhibits
Stipendiary steward’s reports
Submissions for Informant
Mr Muirhead submitted that the rule was clear in its intention. An objective standard was to be applied requiring a horseman to take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times throughout the race to get the best position in the race. He contended that if drivers were able to say that any apparent failure was due to a fear that the horse would break or otherwise react badly to vigour, the rule would be stripped of its meaning.
When a driver fails to take reasonable and permissible measures the race goer can only feel cheated. There is an expectation that every driver will drive their horse with vigour and that those actions are demonstrable and discernible.
When a driver does not fully encourage a horse there must always arise the damaging suspicion that there is collusion, conspiracy or some other anti competitive conduct.
Mr Macfarlane should have shown more vigour in driving with the reins anytime within the last 300 metres of the race; he could have activated the deafeners immediately on being challenged and displayed a competitive response.
If reasonable and permissible measures had been used the Mr Macfarlane would have increased the opportunity for Alta Charisma to run down Regal Petite and win the race.
Alta Charisma trotted soundly during this race and did not any concerns to prevent it from being driven with more demonstrable and discernible vigour. Despite the lack of vigour Alta Charisma reduced the winning margin on the leading horse over the concluding 50 metres being beaten for first place by a neck.
Submissions for Defence
Mr Lawson told the committee that the intent of the rule was to ensure that every horse is given every opportunity to finish in the best possible finishing place in a race. Drivers must ensure that they drive the horse in a manner to ensure that they do. The test is objective with the definition meaning ‘dealing with the facts uncoloured by feelings or opinion’.
With about 350 metres to run Regal Petite went to the lead and held on very strongly to win with ease.
Alta Charisma held on gallantly for second. Mr Macfarlane took all reasonable measures including slowly and deliberately removing the deafeners and holding the horse together so that it didn’t gallop. He took permissible measures by pulling the deafeners and by very gentle use of the whip.
He was endeavouring to obtain the best possible position and finishing place in the race.
On the race day 34 horses had broken on the track which was from all accounts substandard.
Alta Charisma to that point had galloped in the majority of its starts.
Mr Macfarlane’s integrity was not in question and this was confirmed by the Stipendiary Stewards.
In conclusion Mr Lawson contended that Mr Macfarlane had done the best for the public and the horse by not using extreme vigour to ensure the horse stayed in its trotting gait and ran to its best ability in finishing second.
With the mitigating circumstances of the horse trotting roughly, uneven track surface the questionable record of his horse, the ease with which the winner had finished and the integrity of Mr Macfarlane it was clear that the horse had been given the best opportunity in the race. He had complied with the rule and should be therefore found not guilty.
Reasons for Decision
The Committee carefully listened to and evaluated the evidence of both parties and reviewed video footage of the relevant stages of the race. Submissions made by both parties were helpful in reaching our decision.
The informant’s case was that Mr Macfarlane by his lack of vigour in the concluding stages of the race, failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure Alta Charisma was given full opportunity to win.
The defence contention was that Mr Macfarlane had good cause to treat Alta Charisma with caution and that in essence had had done all that could be reasonably expected of him. By taking the measures he had ensured that Alta Charisma finished in the best possible position and finishing place.
From our observations we were satisfied of the following:
There was no discernible response from Mr Macfarlane when challenged for the lead. There was no urgency in the removal of the deafeners and no overt movements by Mr Macfarlane to support his contention that he was taking all reasonable and permissible measures.
There was no urging of Alta Charisma and there appeared to be a lack of vigour displayed in the use of the whip using a wrist motion. Other means of encouraging the horse including use of the reins or more strenuous use of the whip were not employed.
In fact there was no clear evidence of any contact being made with the horse when the whip was used. Use of the reins in urging Alta Charisma in the run home would have removed all doubt that there was a genuine effort to ensure the best possible result for his drive.
From video footage viewed Alta Charisma appeared to be trotting tractably.
The general racing conduct of Mr Macfarlane did not enhance the image of harness racing and could understandably cause disquiet. Supporters of the industry particularly the gambling public expect clear signs that the driver of a horse in a race is doing his best.
Clearly discernible and demonstrable actions by the driver to enhance his horse’s chances would support this contention.
The official margin between first and second was a neck and Alta Charisma was closing on the winner in the final stages. The lack of vigour did not impress particularly with the finishing performance of Alta Charisma in gaining almost a length in the final 50 or so metres without obvious encouragement.
There was good reason for Mr Macfarlane to be concerned of the potential for Alta Charisma to break based on its previous race record, its fragile nature and the condition of the Counties race track. There was no suggestion of any impropriety by Mr Macfarlane and his integrity is not in question. He clearly did not take sufficient action to have met the standard of driving required by the rules.
Decision
The Committee was satisfied the Mr Macfarlane made an error of judgement and in doing so breached this rule.
By his lack of vigour he had failed to show all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure Alta Charisma was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.
Therefore the charge is established.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
Submissions on Penalty
The Committee requests that the Informant provides written submissions on penalty to the Executive Officer by 5pm Wednesday 25 April 2012. The Defendant will then have a further 7 (seven) days to respond with their written submissions on penalty to the Executive Officer (5pm Wednesday 2 May 2102).
J N Holloway A J Dooley
Chairman Committee Member
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 868(2)
Informant: Mr JM Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward RIU
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr R Lawson - Lay Advocate for Mr Macfarlane, Mr T Taumanu - Stipendiary Steward RIU, Mr D Balle - Driver of REGAL PETITE
Respondent: Mr T Macfarlane - Open Horseman
StipendSteward:
raceid:
race_expapproval:
racecancelled:
race_noreport:
race_emailed1:
race_emailed2:
race_title:
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid:
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport:
waitingforpublication:
meet_emailed1:
meet_emailed2:
meetdate: no date provided
meet_title:
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation:
meet_racingtype:
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: