Timaru HRC – 17 December 2009 – Race 9

hearingid: 183e95e862dbe10405f798d387020f89

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 17/12/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Timaru HRC - 17 December 2009 - Race 9

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Information No: 67843

Meeting: Timaru Harness Racing Club  Date: 17 December 2009

Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch Race No: 9

Rule(s): 868 (2)

Judicial Committee:

Chairman:  R G McKenzie ,  Panel Member:  J M Phelan    

Plea: Not Admitted                         

Appearing:

Informant:  K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: R T May, Licensed Open  Horseman

DECISION AND REASONS:

Following the running of Race 9, Mainland Minerals/Buy On-Line/Staysound Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Mrs K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward, against Mr R T May, Licensed Open Horseman, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that Mr May, as the driver of BOOGIE’S BARNETT in Race 9, , “failed to take all reasonable and permissable [sic] measures to ensure that BOOGIE’S BARNETT was given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible position when ellecting [sic] not to improve out for a run with 400 metres to run”.

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Information No: 67843

Meeting: Timaru Harness Racing Club  Date: 17 December 2009

Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch Race No: 9

Rule(s): 868 (2)

Judicial Committee:

Chairman:  R G McKenzie ,  Panel Member:  J M Phelan    

Plea: Not Admitted                         

Appearing:

Informant:  K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: R T May, Licensed Open  Horseman

DECISION AND REASONS:

Following the running of Race 9, Mainland Minerals/Buy On-Line/Staysound Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Mrs K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward, against Mr R T May, Licensed Open Horseman, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that Mr May, as the driver of BOOGIE’S BARNETT in Race 9, , “failed to take all reasonable and permissable [sic] measures to ensure that BOOGIE’S BARNETT was given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible position when ellecting [sic] not to improve out for a run with 400 metres to run”.

The information was served on Mr May on racenight and Mr May was offered the opportunity to have the hearing of the information adjourned. Mr May elected to have the hearing adjourned.

The information was heard on 22 December 2009 at the meeting of Rangiora Harness Racing Club at Addington Raceway.

Mr May did not admit the breach.

Rule 868 (d) provides as follows:
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.

Mrs Williams said that BOOGIE’S BARNETT had finished 7th in the 1950 metres mobile start event, 2.2 lengths from the winner. She said that the Stewards, after watching the Race, viewing the videos and speaking to Mr May, considered that Mr May had breached Rule 868 (2).

In the race in question, BOOGIE”S BARNETT had raced in the one-one until approximately the 1,000 metres after which it raced 3-back on the outer. Mrs Williams alleged that between the 800 and the 400 metres the horse was travelling very well but Mr May elected not to improve out for a run prior to two other runners improving 3-wide. Thereafter BOOGIE’S BARNETT was unable to obtain a run in the straight, finishing 7th, hard on the back of another runner. Mrs Williams alleged that Mr May ought to have put his horse in the race prior to the 400 metres by improving 3-wide when he was able to do so.

The horse was 12/12 in the betting, but it was not a defence to drive a horse conservatively or leave it to luck over the final stages, based on what the horse was paying. Neither should a horse’s performances in previous starts dictate how a horse is driven. The horse’s previous two starts were on grass tracks which did not suit it, Mrs Williams alleged. It had won its last start on an all-weather track at Addington.

Mrs Williams then showed video replays of the Race through Mr Renault, Stipendiary Steward. Mr Renault stated that Mr May had put himself in a position in which he relied on luck to finish off the Race when he had the opportunity to improve his position earlier and not get trapped. The horse had been “under a big hold” and travelling well, Mr Renault said.  Mr May’s actions in not improving out when he should have were culpable, he alleged.

In cross-examining Mr Renault, Mr May observed that the horse that had improved in front of him (CHEE KEY), had also been unplaced in the Race and that the driver of the horse that was trailing him, THE DUKE OF YORK (11/11 in the betting) had also elected not to pull out at the 400 metres. The horse that Mr May had been trailing (MULLINGAR MAC) had finished 4th in the Race.

Mrs Williams then referred to the previous starts of BOOGIE’S BARNETT – at Methven on 13 December and at Banks Peninsula on 29 November. Prior to that, it had won at Addington on 24 November, when driven by Mr May, in a mobile 1950 metres race in a time of 2.25.6, a mile rate of 2.00.1. In the race in question, the overall time was 2.28.6 and the mile rate 2.01.8 – a slower time than the race which BOOGIE’S BARNETT won, she said. Mr May pointed out that the horse’s win was in a $3,000 maiden race and said that the stake of a race made a difference to him, as a professional driver, as to how he drove in a race. Mrs Williams showed a video replay of the horse’s winning run at Addington.

It was alleged by the Stewards that Mr May had made an error of judgment. The mile rate of 2.00.1 (in its Addington win) was not the mile rate of a “poor horse” but that of a horse that would continue to race competitively.

Mr May said that, as a professional driver, he studied the field prior to a race. When driving a horse paying $50, the best chance of success was “to save the horse as much as you can”, he submitted. His horse had done some work at the start of the Race and had then been parked, so he had to save it as much as he could. While the horse may have been “bolting” at the 200 metres, at the 400 metres, when he could have come out, it was travelling “just fair”.  In contrast to that, in the Addington win, the horse had relaxed in the lead.

Mr May showed the video of the Race in question. He pointed out that the horse had raced keenly behind the gate. He had let it go forward and it overraced for a time. He believed that the horse he was following had been unlucky in recent starts and was a good horse to follow, but it “only battled”. He stated that, had he gone at the 450 metres, he definitely “would have got nothing”, as the horse has only a short sprint. There were several unlucky runners in the Race, including THE DUKE OF YORK which had been following him. The field did not open up in the straight.

Mr May then showed a video replay of the race at Banks Peninsula on 29 November. Mr C J De Filippi, who drove the horse in that race, said that he was beaten out at the start but had a good run thereafter. He said the horse felt good throughout the race and felt like a chance to be in the money. When he asked the horse to go, it never passed a horse but was passed by seven horses in the last 400 metres.

Mr De Filippi described it as “a big jump” from winning a maiden at a Tuesday meeting to a 1-win race. The horse had handled the grass track well in the Banks Peninsula race, Mr De Filippi said. Mr May said the horse had finished 18 lengths from the winner.

At Methven, Mr De Filippi said, BOOGIE’S BARNETT could not have had a “softer trip”. It went backwards from the moment it “saw daylight”. He said he would not have come out at the 400 metres in the race in question – the best chance was to sit as long as you could. If Mr May had pulled it out, it would likely have run last. Mr May had driven the race to suit the horse – his actions were acceptable.

Mr De Filippi said that a driver had to make a number of judgment decisions during the course of any race. BOOGIE’S BARNETT was not good enough to come out at the 400 metres and “get any money”, in that class of field.

Mr S F Smolenski, Junior Driver, had driven BOOGIE’S BARNETT in the Methven race on 13 December. Mr May showed the race on video.  Mr Smolenski said that the horse had travelled well (in the trail) all the way. At the 250 metres, he got a gap on the inner and, at that stage, expected to finish in the first three. Mr May said that the horse had finished 15 lengths from the winner and had not passed another runner. The horse had been travelling as well in that Race as it had been in the race in question. Mr May pointed out that the Methven race was 4 days before the race in question. Mr Smolenski stated that the horse had handled the grass track well.

Mr L C Driver, owner and trainer of BOOGIE’S BARNETT, was shown the race in question. He has been training for 38 years and has won approximately 250 races, he said. He said that the horse had won “the worst maiden race in New Zealand” at Addington on 24 November. After that win, he had been questioned by the Stewards regarding the horse’s improved performance. He described the horse as “a nervous little horse that does not try much”. He was pleased by the manner in which the horse had found the line on 17 December. The horse does not find the line well in its races, he said. Had Mr May pulled out at the 500 metres, it would have finished at the tail of the field. He would be lucky if the horse wins another race. He described the horse’s performance at Methven as “a poor effort”. The horse is a “weak individual” which needs a poor field and to fall over the line, Mr Driver stated.

Mr May said that, when driving a horse like BOOGIE’S BARNETT, an outsider, he relies on his judgment and the horse’s performances in its previous starts. He believed he had given BOOGIE’S BARNETT full opportunity to finish in the first four placings. It was not a reasonable measure to move at the 450 metres but rather to save the horse as much as he could and take the shortest possible route to give it every opportunity. He said that he had driven over 2,000 winners, including three Group 1 races in the last month, in 33 years as a driver. 

The Committee had regard to the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of H (2005) in which that Committee considered the principles applying to a charge under Rule 868 (2). In that case, the Committee said:
The role of this Committee is to arrive at its own assessment of the quality of the driving employed. The Rule requires demonstrations of tactics which can be said to be both reasonable and permissible. Those have to be tactics which can be seen not only by the Stipendiary Stewards but also those present at the racetrack and, in particular, by the betting public tactics which are designed to give the horse every  chance to finish in the best possible position that it can. The Informant does not have to prove any deliberate intent not to win the race and, in this case, no deliberate intent is alleged. The Informant does, however, need to prove more that an error of judgment and, for culpability to attach, there must be some carelessness or incompetence involved and the charge can only be upheld where the driver has failed to take some measure or measures which were reasonably and permissibly open to him. There may be circumstances in which a driver’s manner of driving may amount to merely a permissible error of tactics but when that error of tactics amounts to a bad judgment that results in disadvantage to his horse then such manner of driving falls within the terms of the Rule.

It was Mrs Williams’ allegation that it was both reasonable and permissible for Mr May to improve between the 800 and the 400 metres when he had the opportunity to do so and when his horse was travelling well.

Mr May’s defence was based on his contention that to give his horse the best opportunity to win the Race required him to hold it up for the last run. In retrospect, this may have been an error of judgment on Mr May’s part but, in the Committee’s view, it was no worse than that. It was, in our view, a reasonable and permissible measure for Mr May to elect not to pull out. It was a judgment call that a driver is required to make from time to time and the Committee is aware that a driver has often to make a number of decisions in the course of a race.

We accept that Mr May’s electing not to pull out when he had the opportunity to do so was based on his knowledge of the horse’s ability and how its chances in the Race could be maximized. We believe that the horse’s failure to finish in a higher position was the result of bad luck in the home straight, in failing to secure a run rather than Mr May’s decision to wait until the home straight for a run. Where BOOGIE’S BARNETT would have finished had Mr May pulled it out at the 400 metres can only be a matter of speculation.

It was, at worst, a permissible error of tactics on Mr May’s part but it did not amount to bad judgment that could be said to have resulted in a disadvantage to his horse. The Committee was, therefore, not satisfied that Mr May’s tactics were culpable and, accordingly, the charge was dismissed.
 
 

R G McKenzie        J M Phelan
CHAIR                     Committee Member
67843

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 868.2, 868.d

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

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: