NZ Metro TC – 23 January 2009 – Race 7
ID: JCA18455
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 23 January 2009
Race Date:
2009/01/23
Race Number:
Race 7
Decision: Following the running of Race 7, the Merivale Mall Handicap Pace, an information was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren against Mr R. T. May, the driver of “Live A Vision” (3), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3).
DECISION AND REASONS:
----
--
Following the running of Race 7, the Merivale Mall Handicap Pace, an information was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren against Mr R. T. May, the driver of “Live A Vision” (3), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3). The charge reads as follows.
----
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 868(3) in that Mr May stopped driving his horse out with just under 50m to run potentially costing his horse 2nd placing with the margin being a nose.”
----
Rules 868(3) reads as follows.
----
”(3) Every horseman shall drive his horse out to the end of the race if he has any reasonable chance of running first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth”
----
Mr May had indicated on the information that he did not admit this breach of the Rules, and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr May also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.
--Mr Ydgren gave evidence that Mr May drove “Live A Vision” which was second on the outer on entering the home straight. “Live A Vision” maintained this position with Mr May using acceptable methods to urge his horse on. “Live A Vision” was still comfortably holding second place with a little less than 50 metres to run, at which time Mr May stopped driving his horse out. At this stage “Chilli” (4) ran on strongly beating “Live A Vision” by a nose for second place.
----
Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault used video coverage to illustrate this incident. It was stressed by the Stipendiary Stewards that it was not suggested that Mr May had deliberately set out to have his horse beaten, and that it was their case that Mr May had made an error of judgement.
----
Mr May said that he did not believe that his actions had necessarily cost his horse second place, and he was also doubtful that it could have done any better. Mr May also said that he was concerned that “Live A Vision” may have broken had it been driven too hard. It was also established that this was the second time that Mr May had driven “Live A Vision”, and that his first drive was at Ashburton on 26 December 2008 when the horse had won. Mr May did not dispute that he had stopped driving “Live A Vision” over the last 40 or so metres of the race.
----
After hearing the evidence I adjourned the hearing to consider my decision. On reviewing the evidence I was satisfied that Mr May had stopped driving his horse out with a little less than 50 metres to run. Rule 868(3) is quite clear that a driver has a responsibility to drive his horse out to the finish, and I was satisfied that Mr May did not do so.
----
Whether or not Mr May’s inaction resulted in his horse being beaten into third place is not relevant. It is well established that the test is an objective one and an alleged breach of the Rule is to be considered by objective standards and not by the subjective views of the driver. The Rule requires a demonstration of tactics which can, by objective standards, be said to show that a horse was driven out to the end of the race.
----
On returning to the Enquiry Room I advised the parties that a full written decision would be given later, and I gave the following oral decision.
----
“Mr May is charged with failing to drive his horse out to the end of the race when he had a reasonable chance of finishing in the first six places. The Stipendiary Stewards case is that “Live A Vision” was in second place after entering the straight, and that Mr May was driving it out in an acceptable manner until about 40 metres from the finish, when he stopped. “Chilli” made up about a length in the last 40 metres beating “Live A Vision” by a nose.
----
The Stipendiary Stewards stressed that there was no suggestion that Mr May’s actions were deliberate, but were an error of judgement.
----
Mr May said that he did not believe his actions had necessarily cost his horse second place, and was doubtful it could have done any better. He was also concerned his horse might have broken if driven too hard.
----
Whether or not “Live A Vision” would have finished second is not relevant. Mr May had a clear duty under Rule 868(3) to drive his horse out to the finish, and this he failed to do. I find the charge proved.”
----
Penalty:
----
Mr Ydgren advised that Mr May had no previous convictions under this Rule. A breach of this Rule is regarded seriously and a fine between $500-00 and $600-00 was recommended.
----
Mr May said that he thought that the amount of fine recommended was excessive.
----
In considering the matter of penalty I referred to the “Guides For Judicial Committees”. This guide is not intended to be a rigid reference book from which penalties are to be set. On page 27 the guide states –
--“The following table provides guidance as to penalties that might, in ordinary circumstances, be considered as an appropriate starting point for each specified breach.”
--The suggested starting point for a breach of Rule 868(3) is a $500-00 fine and/or a 4 week suspension.
----
I was satisfied that this breach was brought about by an error of judgement on Mr May’s part, and I also took into account his clear record. I was satisfied that an appropriate fine in this case was $500-00, and Mr May was fined this amount.
----
--
J. M. Phelan
ChairmanJCA 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: 0a15758f5bb54c7e59f51128366b82c1
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 23/01/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 23 January 2009 - Race 7
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Following the running of Race 7, the Merivale Mall Handicap Pace, an information was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren against Mr R. T. May, the driver of “Live A Vision” (3), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3).DECISION AND REASONS:
----
--
Following the running of Race 7, the Merivale Mall Handicap Pace, an information was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren against Mr R. T. May, the driver of “Live A Vision” (3), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3). The charge reads as follows.
----
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 868(3) in that Mr May stopped driving his horse out with just under 50m to run potentially costing his horse 2nd placing with the margin being a nose.”
----
Rules 868(3) reads as follows.
----
”(3) Every horseman shall drive his horse out to the end of the race if he has any reasonable chance of running first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth”
----
Mr May had indicated on the information that he did not admit this breach of the Rules, and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr May also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.
--Mr Ydgren gave evidence that Mr May drove “Live A Vision” which was second on the outer on entering the home straight. “Live A Vision” maintained this position with Mr May using acceptable methods to urge his horse on. “Live A Vision” was still comfortably holding second place with a little less than 50 metres to run, at which time Mr May stopped driving his horse out. At this stage “Chilli” (4) ran on strongly beating “Live A Vision” by a nose for second place.
----
Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault used video coverage to illustrate this incident. It was stressed by the Stipendiary Stewards that it was not suggested that Mr May had deliberately set out to have his horse beaten, and that it was their case that Mr May had made an error of judgement.
----
Mr May said that he did not believe that his actions had necessarily cost his horse second place, and he was also doubtful that it could have done any better. Mr May also said that he was concerned that “Live A Vision” may have broken had it been driven too hard. It was also established that this was the second time that Mr May had driven “Live A Vision”, and that his first drive was at Ashburton on 26 December 2008 when the horse had won. Mr May did not dispute that he had stopped driving “Live A Vision” over the last 40 or so metres of the race.
----
After hearing the evidence I adjourned the hearing to consider my decision. On reviewing the evidence I was satisfied that Mr May had stopped driving his horse out with a little less than 50 metres to run. Rule 868(3) is quite clear that a driver has a responsibility to drive his horse out to the finish, and I was satisfied that Mr May did not do so.
----
Whether or not Mr May’s inaction resulted in his horse being beaten into third place is not relevant. It is well established that the test is an objective one and an alleged breach of the Rule is to be considered by objective standards and not by the subjective views of the driver. The Rule requires a demonstration of tactics which can, by objective standards, be said to show that a horse was driven out to the end of the race.
----
On returning to the Enquiry Room I advised the parties that a full written decision would be given later, and I gave the following oral decision.
----
“Mr May is charged with failing to drive his horse out to the end of the race when he had a reasonable chance of finishing in the first six places. The Stipendiary Stewards case is that “Live A Vision” was in second place after entering the straight, and that Mr May was driving it out in an acceptable manner until about 40 metres from the finish, when he stopped. “Chilli” made up about a length in the last 40 metres beating “Live A Vision” by a nose.
----
The Stipendiary Stewards stressed that there was no suggestion that Mr May’s actions were deliberate, but were an error of judgement.
----
Mr May said that he did not believe his actions had necessarily cost his horse second place, and was doubtful it could have done any better. He was also concerned his horse might have broken if driven too hard.
----
Whether or not “Live A Vision” would have finished second is not relevant. Mr May had a clear duty under Rule 868(3) to drive his horse out to the finish, and this he failed to do. I find the charge proved.”
----
Penalty:
----
Mr Ydgren advised that Mr May had no previous convictions under this Rule. A breach of this Rule is regarded seriously and a fine between $500-00 and $600-00 was recommended.
----
Mr May said that he thought that the amount of fine recommended was excessive.
----
In considering the matter of penalty I referred to the “Guides For Judicial Committees”. This guide is not intended to be a rigid reference book from which penalties are to be set. On page 27 the guide states –
--“The following table provides guidance as to penalties that might, in ordinary circumstances, be considered as an appropriate starting point for each specified breach.”
--The suggested starting point for a breach of Rule 868(3) is a $500-00 fine and/or a 4 week suspension.
----
I was satisfied that this breach was brought about by an error of judgement on Mr May’s part, and I also took into account his clear record. I was satisfied that an appropriate fine in this case was $500-00, and Mr May was fined this amount.
----
--
J. M. Phelan
Chairmansumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 868.3
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 6f5464d36a9490ca5aeb51ef010e01ad
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 0db16de4ceabeefe4ff7ed155d92425f
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 23/01/2009
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 23 January 2009
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: NZ Metro TC