NZ Metro TC – 22 March 2008 – Race 3

hearingid: 6af9ba9adab05922e40b8ecbaf1d5e2b

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 22/03/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 22 March 2008 - Race 3

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

DECISION AND REASONS:

Following the running of Race 3, the Mike Stratford Property Developments Mobile Pace, an information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr K. M. Barron the driver of “Mattnamaras Band” (5) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(g). The charge reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(g) in that K. M. Barron driver of Mattnamaras Band drove in a manner capable of diminishing his chances with approx 700m to run.”

Rule 869(3)(g) reads as follows.

“(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-

(g) in any manner capable of diminishing the chances

of his horse winning .”

Mr Barron had indicated on the information that he did not admit the breach

of this rule, and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Barron also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.

          Prior to presenting the evidence Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre stated that when determining this charge an objective test must be applied, and the requirements of the Rule must be looked at.  These requirements prohibit a horseman from driving in a manner which has the ability or capability to diminish the possibility of his horse winning.  The Stipendiary Steward’s believed that the question for the committee was – has the driver through his actions diminished his chances of his winning the race?  An error of tactics amounts to bad judgement. 

Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre used video coverage of this incident to show that at about the 700 metre mark Mr Barron was in the trail behind Mr A. M. Butt who was driving the favourite, “Goldie Blue”.  At that time Mr I. R. Cameron (“Grecian Star”) had moved forward and was apparently about to take the lead.  This was when Mr Barron moved out of the trail.

After Mr Barron moved out of the trail, Mr Orange on “Joni James” took up that position and won the race.  After moving out of the trail Mr Barron had an interrupted run, eventually being beaten by a ½ neck into second place. 

It was submitted that this was an error of tactics by Mr Barron and that this error had diminished the chances of his horse winning the race.  It followed that the Stipendiary Stewards believed that Mr Barron should have stayed in the trail.

Mr Barron gave evidence that he handed up the lead to the hot favourite, “Goldie Blue” and that he had no intention of leaving the trail.  However when Mr Butt pulled back and allowed “Grecian Star” to move forward he could see that Mr Butt might give up the lead.  This possibility became more apparent when “Grecian Star” took the lead and came very close to crossing over to the front.  Mr Barron said that Mr Butt looked back on several occasions and it was his view that Mr Butt was playing “cat and mouse” with him because he knew he was driving a strong horse who would be hard to beat.  Mr Barron emphasised that he genuinely believed that Mr Butt was going to hand up the lead. 

Mr Barron said that in his mind there were two possibilities.  Firstly he could stay in the trail, in which case “Grecian Star” would take the lead, leaving him three back on the fence.  Mr Barron was uncomplimentary about the abilities of “Grecian Star”, and believed that a situation such as this would not help him win the race.  Mr Barron also predicted that if he did move out of the trail Mr Butt would resume the lead, and this is what happened.

I then adjourned to consider my decision.

I agree with the Stipendiary Stewards that an error in tactics, viewed objectively, that results in a horse’s chances being diminished, would be a breach of this Rule.  In the present case we have Mr Barron who is a senior and very experienced horseman.  His tactics up to the 700 metre mark were to stay in the trail.

However at this stage circumstances changed.  Mr Barron was faced with a dilemma.  He could either stay in the trail or move off the fence.  Mr Barron used his best judgement and moved off the fence.

          I was satisfied that Mr Barron had justification for believing that Mr Butt would have handed up the lead to “Grecian Star” had he stayed in the trail, and that he was also justified in moving off the fence.  I was also satisfied that this was not an error in tactics, but a decision that he was forced to make in the circumstances.

          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.

“Having seen the video coverage and having heard the evidence, I am satisfied that, with about 700m metres to run, Mr Barron was in the trail behind the favourite “Goldie Blue”.  Mr Barron moved out of the trail into the two wide line and thereafter did not have a clear run until late in the race, eventually finishing second, beaten by a half neck.

It was the Stipendiary Stewards allegation that Mr Barron made an error in tactics, and that he should have remained in the trail.  The Stipendiary Stewards also stated that an objective test should be used when determining if Mr Barron’s decisions did in fact diminish his horse’s chances.

Mr Barron said that “Grecian Star” had been outside the leader for the entire race.  He had no intention of leaving the trail but when “Grecian Star” went ahead he believed that it was about to take the lead.  Mr Barron said that if this happened he would be three back on the fence, and in a bad position.  He therefore decided to move off the fence, but at the same time Mr Butt on “Goldie Blue” regained the lead.  Mr Barron emphasised that had he remained in the trail Mr Butt would have given up the lead.

I am satisfied that the actions of Mr Barron, were, in the circumstances appropriate, and dictated by the way Mr Butt drove his horse.  Simply making a decision during a race that in hindsight turns out to be wrong is not sufficient to amount to a breach of this rule.  The charge is dismissed.”

J.  M. Phelan

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.3.g

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: