NZ Metro TC 25 January 2011 – R 4 (heard 12 February 2011 at Ashburton)
ID: JCA20039
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: D J Dunn, Licensed Junior Driver
Information No: 69066
Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club
Date: 25 January 2011
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Race: 4
Rule No: 869 (3) (b)
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman – S C Ching, Panellist
Plea: Not Admitted
Also Present: Mr A M Butt, Licensed Open Driver (assisting Mr Dunn)
THE CHARGE:
Following the running of Race 4, Avon City Ford Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, against Licensed Junior Driver, Mr D J Dunn, alleging that Mr Dunn, as the driver of MARLON in the race, “drove carelessly when attempting to shift into the passing lane when there is [sic] insufficient room resulting in his own horse breaking”.
The information was filed with the Registrar on the raceday and served on Mr Dunn. The hearing of the information was adjourned.
The hearing of the information took place at the meeting of Ashburton Trotting Club at Ashburton on Saturday, 12 February 2011.
Mr Dunn was present at the hearing of the information and he confirmed that he did not admit the breach. He was assisted at the hearing by Mr A M Butt, Licensed Open Driver.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
EVIDENCE:
Mr Renault said that, following the race, the Stewards were concerned at the manner in which Mr Dunn had driven MARLON in attempting to improve on the inside of COUNT DRACULA (J L Noakes) when there was never sufficient room – Mr Dunn had anticipated a run and had run out of room. His horse had galloped and lost its chance, Mr Renault said.
Mrs K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward, showed video replays of the final 300 metres of the race. She showed the field, entering the home straight, being led by TALLULAH BELLE with BERRY BROMAC trailing, COUNT DRACULA (J L Noakes) 3-back and Mr Dunn on MARLON racing 4-back on the markers. She pointed out the leader run out slightly allowing BERRY BROMAC full access to the passing lane. It did not need the passing lane as it had a clear run. This left the passing lane clear for any other trailing runner.
She pointed out Mr Noakes looking for a run on the inside of BERRY BROMAC with Mr Dunn still behind him. She submitted that BERRY BROMAC had first right to the passing lane, then COUNT DRACULA and then MARLON. BERRY BROMAC was not travelling well enough, she said, and it maintained its line. Mr Noakes had come on its inside looking for the passing lane. It had to shift down, as it was entitled to do, to get inside the wheel of BERRY BROMAC by which time there was not sufficient room for Mr Dunn. Mr Dunn was entitled to look for a gap but was not entitled to continue to do so and should have restrained. Mr Noakes had the first right to the run, Mrs Williams submitted. There was never enough room for Mr Dunn’s horse and sulky on the inside of Mr Noakes, she submitted.
Mr Renault showed that Mr Dunn had “chased his horse along with the reins” to attempt to take the gap. He pulled out when he realised there was no room but he had anticipated a gap by “chasing” his horse in the manner he did.
Mr Butt questioned Mrs Williams’ interpretation of the Passing Lanes Regulations which, he submitted, made no reference to trailing runners having access to the passing lane in turn. Mrs Williams read to the hearing paragraph 4 of the Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations.
Mr Butt referred to the video replays. He submitted that both BERRY BROMAC and COUNT DRACULA had clear runs. Mr Dunn was “angling down” but had not quite cleared the wheel of the latter but there was still “ample room” for him to go in further. He submitted that Mr Noakes had moved down further than he should have. If he had maintained a straight line, there would have been plenty of room for Mr Dunn. The incident had been caused by Mr Noakes. Initially, there was room and Mr Dunn’s actions in attempting to take the gap were reasonable, Mr Butt submitted. He further submitted that Mr Dunn was clearly up inside Mr Noakes, who had shifted down when Mr Dunn was already there.
Mr Dunn said that he had gone into the passing lane when, he believed, there was a gap there or going to be there. He had attempted to restrain some 50 metres before his horse actually galloped. Mr Noakes’ horse had not been travelling that well turning for home and he believed he was going to get up inside him. If Mr Noakes’ horse had not run down, his horse would not have galloped, Mr Dunn said. He did not know Mr Noakes was going to move down.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Committee finds that, upon entering the home straight, Mr Dunn driving MARLON was racing 4-back on the markers. The field was being led by TALLULAH BELLE, trailing was BERRY BROMAC and racing 3-back on the markers was COUNT DRACULA, driven by J L Noakes, immediately in front of MARLON, driven by Mr Dunn.
Upon straightening, the leader shifted out from the markers leaving access to the passing lane for the trailing runner, BERRY BROMAC. That runner did not move into the passing lane as it was not progressing. This left room for COUNT DRACULA, driven by Mr Noakes, to enter the passing lane.
It was Mr Butt’s contention, on behalf of Mr Dunn, that not only was there room for Mr Noakes but also there was room for Mr Dunn, who had been looking for a run inside Mr Noakes.
In attempting a run inside of Mr Noakes, Mr Dunn’s horse struck a pylon and broke losing its chance, finishing last.
The Committee believes that the key to whether Mr Dunn drove carelessly is whether there was ever a sufficient gap inside of Mr Noakes for Mr Dunn’s horse and sulky.
Mrs Williams put forward an interesting interpretation of the Passing Lane Regulations. She suggested that each runner on the marker line is entitled to take the passing lane successively, or in racing order. We agree with Mr Butt and do not believe that the wording of the Regulations supports that interpretation. In the Regulations, “passing lane” is defined as “an inward expansion of the racetrack on the inside of the home straight for the purpose of allowing a horse or horses in the last lap of any race to pass on the inside any horse on the running line” Paragraph 4 of the Regulations states:
“In the last lap of any race the leading horse on the running line shall, upon entering the home straight, maintain as straight a course as possible parallel to the running line and allow the trailing horses full access to the expanded inside lane.
Both of those provisions refer to “horse or horses” or “trailing horses”, so they clearly contemplate the passing lane being available for all trailing runners. However, it must be implicit that a trailing runner can only enter the passing lane if it can do so with safety.
As stated earlier, we believe that the key question in this case is whether there was ever a sufficient gap inside of Mr Noakes for Mr Dunn’s horse and sulky. The Committee finds that there was not. We accept that Mr Noakes did move down but Mr Dunn has attempted a run inside of him. Mr Dunn said that he anticipated that a run would come but he was not able to do any more than put his horse’s legs into a half-gap inside of Mr Noakes.
Mr Noakes was entitled to take the run in the passing lane – he was safely ahead of Mr Dunn and had the right of first access to it. In our view, Mr Dunn was not entitled to be where he was.
We find that Mr Dunn’s actions, in attempting a run, in the circumstances that we have outlined, were not those of a reasonable and prudent driver.
We are satisfied that Mr Dunn drove carelessly as alleged in the information.
DECISION:
The charge was found proved.
SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:
Mr Renault said that Mr Dunn was a “very busy driver”. He had recently breached the Rule on 18 January 2011 and was fined the sum of $225. Prior to that, he had been fined $300 on 21 November 2010 for driving causing interference. Mr Renault referred to the Penalty Guide which referred to a staring point of $400 for a breach of the Rule.
Mr Dunn has had 632 drives in the season to date
Mr Renault submitted that a fine of $400 was appropriate.
Mr Dunn submitted that his record was a good one having regard to the number of drives he has had this season. He further submitted that a fine of $400 was excessive when the race was for a total stake of $3,000. A fine of less that $400 was appropriate, he said.
REASONS FOR PENALTY:
In determining penalty, the Committee took into account a number of factors as mitigating factors. Firstly, Mr Dunn’s driving record is a good one when looked at in the light of the number of drives he has had. Secondly, the Committee assessed the breach at no higher than low-to-mid range. Thirdly, no other runner was affected by Mr Dunn’s actions. Finally, the Committee gave some weight to Mr Dunn’s submission regarding the stake payable for the race.
PENALTY:
Mr Dunn was fined the sum of $350.
R G McKenzie S C Ching
CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE MEMBER
Decision Date: 25/01/2011
Publish Date: 25/01/2011
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: 661c4f1ede359ccd61e28697ac01b1d6
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 25/01/2011
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 25 January 2011 - R 4 (heard 12 February 2011 at Ashburton)
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: D J Dunn, Licensed Junior Driver
Information No: 69066
Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club
Date: 25 January 2011
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Race: 4
Rule No: 869 (3) (b)
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman – S C Ching, Panellist
Plea: Not Admitted
Also Present: Mr A M Butt, Licensed Open Driver (assisting Mr Dunn)
THE CHARGE:
Following the running of Race 4, Avon City Ford Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, against Licensed Junior Driver, Mr D J Dunn, alleging that Mr Dunn, as the driver of MARLON in the race, “drove carelessly when attempting to shift into the passing lane when there is [sic] insufficient room resulting in his own horse breaking”.
The information was filed with the Registrar on the raceday and served on Mr Dunn. The hearing of the information was adjourned.
The hearing of the information took place at the meeting of Ashburton Trotting Club at Ashburton on Saturday, 12 February 2011.
Mr Dunn was present at the hearing of the information and he confirmed that he did not admit the breach. He was assisted at the hearing by Mr A M Butt, Licensed Open Driver.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
EVIDENCE:
Mr Renault said that, following the race, the Stewards were concerned at the manner in which Mr Dunn had driven MARLON in attempting to improve on the inside of COUNT DRACULA (J L Noakes) when there was never sufficient room – Mr Dunn had anticipated a run and had run out of room. His horse had galloped and lost its chance, Mr Renault said.
Mrs K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward, showed video replays of the final 300 metres of the race. She showed the field, entering the home straight, being led by TALLULAH BELLE with BERRY BROMAC trailing, COUNT DRACULA (J L Noakes) 3-back and Mr Dunn on MARLON racing 4-back on the markers. She pointed out the leader run out slightly allowing BERRY BROMAC full access to the passing lane. It did not need the passing lane as it had a clear run. This left the passing lane clear for any other trailing runner.
She pointed out Mr Noakes looking for a run on the inside of BERRY BROMAC with Mr Dunn still behind him. She submitted that BERRY BROMAC had first right to the passing lane, then COUNT DRACULA and then MARLON. BERRY BROMAC was not travelling well enough, she said, and it maintained its line. Mr Noakes had come on its inside looking for the passing lane. It had to shift down, as it was entitled to do, to get inside the wheel of BERRY BROMAC by which time there was not sufficient room for Mr Dunn. Mr Dunn was entitled to look for a gap but was not entitled to continue to do so and should have restrained. Mr Noakes had the first right to the run, Mrs Williams submitted. There was never enough room for Mr Dunn’s horse and sulky on the inside of Mr Noakes, she submitted.
Mr Renault showed that Mr Dunn had “chased his horse along with the reins” to attempt to take the gap. He pulled out when he realised there was no room but he had anticipated a gap by “chasing” his horse in the manner he did.
Mr Butt questioned Mrs Williams’ interpretation of the Passing Lanes Regulations which, he submitted, made no reference to trailing runners having access to the passing lane in turn. Mrs Williams read to the hearing paragraph 4 of the Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations.
Mr Butt referred to the video replays. He submitted that both BERRY BROMAC and COUNT DRACULA had clear runs. Mr Dunn was “angling down” but had not quite cleared the wheel of the latter but there was still “ample room” for him to go in further. He submitted that Mr Noakes had moved down further than he should have. If he had maintained a straight line, there would have been plenty of room for Mr Dunn. The incident had been caused by Mr Noakes. Initially, there was room and Mr Dunn’s actions in attempting to take the gap were reasonable, Mr Butt submitted. He further submitted that Mr Dunn was clearly up inside Mr Noakes, who had shifted down when Mr Dunn was already there.
Mr Dunn said that he had gone into the passing lane when, he believed, there was a gap there or going to be there. He had attempted to restrain some 50 metres before his horse actually galloped. Mr Noakes’ horse had not been travelling that well turning for home and he believed he was going to get up inside him. If Mr Noakes’ horse had not run down, his horse would not have galloped, Mr Dunn said. He did not know Mr Noakes was going to move down.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Committee finds that, upon entering the home straight, Mr Dunn driving MARLON was racing 4-back on the markers. The field was being led by TALLULAH BELLE, trailing was BERRY BROMAC and racing 3-back on the markers was COUNT DRACULA, driven by J L Noakes, immediately in front of MARLON, driven by Mr Dunn.
Upon straightening, the leader shifted out from the markers leaving access to the passing lane for the trailing runner, BERRY BROMAC. That runner did not move into the passing lane as it was not progressing. This left room for COUNT DRACULA, driven by Mr Noakes, to enter the passing lane.
It was Mr Butt’s contention, on behalf of Mr Dunn, that not only was there room for Mr Noakes but also there was room for Mr Dunn, who had been looking for a run inside Mr Noakes.
In attempting a run inside of Mr Noakes, Mr Dunn’s horse struck a pylon and broke losing its chance, finishing last.
The Committee believes that the key to whether Mr Dunn drove carelessly is whether there was ever a sufficient gap inside of Mr Noakes for Mr Dunn’s horse and sulky.
Mrs Williams put forward an interesting interpretation of the Passing Lane Regulations. She suggested that each runner on the marker line is entitled to take the passing lane successively, or in racing order. We agree with Mr Butt and do not believe that the wording of the Regulations supports that interpretation. In the Regulations, “passing lane” is defined as “an inward expansion of the racetrack on the inside of the home straight for the purpose of allowing a horse or horses in the last lap of any race to pass on the inside any horse on the running line” Paragraph 4 of the Regulations states:
“In the last lap of any race the leading horse on the running line shall, upon entering the home straight, maintain as straight a course as possible parallel to the running line and allow the trailing horses full access to the expanded inside lane.
Both of those provisions refer to “horse or horses” or “trailing horses”, so they clearly contemplate the passing lane being available for all trailing runners. However, it must be implicit that a trailing runner can only enter the passing lane if it can do so with safety.
As stated earlier, we believe that the key question in this case is whether there was ever a sufficient gap inside of Mr Noakes for Mr Dunn’s horse and sulky. The Committee finds that there was not. We accept that Mr Noakes did move down but Mr Dunn has attempted a run inside of him. Mr Dunn said that he anticipated that a run would come but he was not able to do any more than put his horse’s legs into a half-gap inside of Mr Noakes.
Mr Noakes was entitled to take the run in the passing lane – he was safely ahead of Mr Dunn and had the right of first access to it. In our view, Mr Dunn was not entitled to be where he was.
We find that Mr Dunn’s actions, in attempting a run, in the circumstances that we have outlined, were not those of a reasonable and prudent driver.
We are satisfied that Mr Dunn drove carelessly as alleged in the information.
DECISION:
The charge was found proved.
SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:
Mr Renault said that Mr Dunn was a “very busy driver”. He had recently breached the Rule on 18 January 2011 and was fined the sum of $225. Prior to that, he had been fined $300 on 21 November 2010 for driving causing interference. Mr Renault referred to the Penalty Guide which referred to a staring point of $400 for a breach of the Rule.
Mr Dunn has had 632 drives in the season to date
Mr Renault submitted that a fine of $400 was appropriate.
Mr Dunn submitted that his record was a good one having regard to the number of drives he has had this season. He further submitted that a fine of $400 was excessive when the race was for a total stake of $3,000. A fine of less that $400 was appropriate, he said.
REASONS FOR PENALTY:
In determining penalty, the Committee took into account a number of factors as mitigating factors. Firstly, Mr Dunn’s driving record is a good one when looked at in the light of the number of drives he has had. Secondly, the Committee assessed the breach at no higher than low-to-mid range. Thirdly, no other runner was affected by Mr Dunn’s actions. Finally, the Committee gave some weight to Mr Dunn’s submission regarding the stake payable for the race.
PENALTY:
Mr Dunn was fined the sum of $350.
R G McKenzie S C Ching
CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE MEMBER
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
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: