Banks Peninsula TC – 3 April 2005 – Race 4
ID: JCA18575
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Banks Peninsula TC - 3 April 2005
Race Date:
2005/04/03
Race Number:
Race 4
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 4, Morrison's Saddlery/Halswell Butchery Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Horseman, Mr G Lang, alleging that Mr Lang, as the driver of STAR POCKET in the race, used his foot as a bar with approximately 400 metres to run.
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 4, Morrison's Saddlery/Halswell Butchery Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Horseman, Mr G Lang, alleging that Mr Lang, as the driver of STAR POCKET in the race, used his foot as a bar with approximately 400 metres to run.
----Mr Lang did not admit the breach.
----Mr Escott had Stipendiary Steward, Mr N G McIntyre, show the incident on a video replay. He pointed out Mr Lang in the trail and pointed out that he looked down and put his foot down, using it as a bar.
----Mr Escott said it was alleged that Mr Lang had driven improperly by using his foot as a bar and attempting to make contact with the horses's hock, something that is frowned upon in a race. He submitted that the video showed that Mr Lang did have his foot out of the stirrup and used it as a bar.
----Mr Lang explained that he had not looked down but rather had looked around because the horse in front had a tendency to "run off". He was looking around in anticipation of getting a run on the inside of that horse. He referred to the rough nature of the grass surface as opposed to the all-weather tracks on which he was accustomed to driving. He acknowledged that he had dropped his foot for a "brief minute", for maybe two strides before he put it back. His foot had "slipped out". As for the allegation that he used his foot as a bar, he stated that he was held up in the trail and was not about to ask it to go at that point. When he did ask his horse to go, he pulled the earplugs. If he wished to use dropping his foot as an advantage, he would have waited until he got an opening and not while he was held up, he stated.
----Mr Lang stated that there was no contact by his foot on the hind leg of his horse. Mr Escott did not accept this.
----Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:
--"I have listened to the evidence of both parties and carefully viewed the video replay.
--It is clear from the video replay, and acknowledged by Mr Lang, that Mr Lang's foot did briefly come out of the sulky footrest just before the turn into the straight when STAR POCKET was racing in the trail.
--Mr Lang's explanation was that his foot simply slipped from the rest for a couple of strides. He stated that there was no contact between his foot and the near hind leg of STAR POCKET, a statement that was not accepted by Mr Escott. Unfortunately, the video replay was not helpful in establishing whether or not contact had been made.
--In my view, for the charge of improper driving to be proved, such contact must be proved to establish the element of improper driving. In the absence of such proof, Mr Lang's evidence that his foot merely slipped from the rest is quite credible.
--The video evidence as it stands, coupled with Mr Lang's evidence, is consistent with his explanation that his foot slipped from the rest. I have also given some weight to Mr Lang's evidence that, given where his horse was racing at the time, there would have been no point in removing his foot from the rest to use it as a bar.
--For a breach of the Rules to be proved, I need to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities ? that is to say, I am required to be more satisfied than not.
--In this case, I have considerable doubt, on the basis of the evidence presented to me, that Mr Lang was using his foot as a bar. I find his evidence that his foot slipped to be quite credible or, in any event, that there was no improper intent on his part.
--Accordingly, the charges under each Rule referred to in the information are dismissed."
----
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: 0fd1138f602b6ceb2af0ff0b7d5c54b2
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 03/04/2005
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Banks Peninsula TC - 3 April 2005 - Race 4
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 4, Morrison's Saddlery/Halswell Butchery Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Horseman, Mr G Lang, alleging that Mr Lang, as the driver of STAR POCKET in the race, used his foot as a bar with approximately 400 metres to run.
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 4, Morrison's Saddlery/Halswell Butchery Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Horseman, Mr G Lang, alleging that Mr Lang, as the driver of STAR POCKET in the race, used his foot as a bar with approximately 400 metres to run.
----Mr Lang did not admit the breach.
----Mr Escott had Stipendiary Steward, Mr N G McIntyre, show the incident on a video replay. He pointed out Mr Lang in the trail and pointed out that he looked down and put his foot down, using it as a bar.
----Mr Escott said it was alleged that Mr Lang had driven improperly by using his foot as a bar and attempting to make contact with the horses's hock, something that is frowned upon in a race. He submitted that the video showed that Mr Lang did have his foot out of the stirrup and used it as a bar.
----Mr Lang explained that he had not looked down but rather had looked around because the horse in front had a tendency to "run off". He was looking around in anticipation of getting a run on the inside of that horse. He referred to the rough nature of the grass surface as opposed to the all-weather tracks on which he was accustomed to driving. He acknowledged that he had dropped his foot for a "brief minute", for maybe two strides before he put it back. His foot had "slipped out". As for the allegation that he used his foot as a bar, he stated that he was held up in the trail and was not about to ask it to go at that point. When he did ask his horse to go, he pulled the earplugs. If he wished to use dropping his foot as an advantage, he would have waited until he got an opening and not while he was held up, he stated.
----Mr Lang stated that there was no contact by his foot on the hind leg of his horse. Mr Escott did not accept this.
----Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:
--"I have listened to the evidence of both parties and carefully viewed the video replay.
--It is clear from the video replay, and acknowledged by Mr Lang, that Mr Lang's foot did briefly come out of the sulky footrest just before the turn into the straight when STAR POCKET was racing in the trail.
--Mr Lang's explanation was that his foot simply slipped from the rest for a couple of strides. He stated that there was no contact between his foot and the near hind leg of STAR POCKET, a statement that was not accepted by Mr Escott. Unfortunately, the video replay was not helpful in establishing whether or not contact had been made.
--In my view, for the charge of improper driving to be proved, such contact must be proved to establish the element of improper driving. In the absence of such proof, Mr Lang's evidence that his foot merely slipped from the rest is quite credible.
--The video evidence as it stands, coupled with Mr Lang's evidence, is consistent with his explanation that his foot slipped from the rest. I have also given some weight to Mr Lang's evidence that, given where his horse was racing at the time, there would have been no point in removing his foot from the rest to use it as a bar.
--For a breach of the Rules to be proved, I need to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities ? that is to say, I am required to be more satisfied than not.
--In this case, I have considerable doubt, on the basis of the evidence presented to me, that Mr Lang was using his foot as a bar. I find his evidence that his foot slipped to be quite credible or, in any event, that there was no improper intent on his part.
--Accordingly, the charges under each Rule referred to in the information are dismissed."
----
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules:
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 2e717091119fd045de3266e9b433374c
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 9ddce9a19069660dbecf66456bd29629
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 03/04/2005
meet_title: Banks Peninsula TC - 3 April 2005
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: banks-peninsula-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Banks Peninsula TC