Marlborough HRC – 14 June 2009 – Race 5
ID: JCA20464
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Marlborough HRC - 14 June 2009
Race Date:
2009/06/14
Race Number:
Race 5
Decision:
Following the running of Race 5, the Braddick Construction Discretionary Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S. P. Renault against Mr R. D. Holmes, Licensed Trainer of THE TIN MAN (11), alleging a breach of Rule 864(2)(d). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of Rule 864(2)(d) in that R. D. Holmes (THE TIN MAN) failed to affix the pull down blinds so as not to malfunction.”
--
Following the running of Race 5, the Braddick Construction Discretionary Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S. P. Renault against Mr R. D. Holmes, Licensed Trainer of THE TIN MAN (11), alleging a breach of Rule 864(2)(d). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of Rule 864(2)(d) in that R. D. Holmes (THE TIN MAN) failed to affix the pull down blinds so as not to malfunction.”
--The rule reads as follows.
--“(2) Every horseman, owner, trainer and assistant thereof of a horse shall
with regard to that horse ensure that :-
(a) ….
(b) ….
(c) ….
(d) all gear is correctly applied and/or affixed so as not to malfunction or come adrift.”
Mr Holmes had indicated on the information that he did not admit this breach
of the Rules and he confirmed this before the hearing began. He also agreed that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
Mr Renault gave evidence that the driver of THE TIN MAN (11) was to race in pull down blinds, and after the race it was noticed that only one of these had activated. Mr Renault also said that this breach was one of strict liability.
--Mr Holmes gave evidence that this blind had come half way down during the preliminaries. He had asked the starter (Mr Lamb) to push it back up for him, which he did. However this blind did not activate during the race. It was established that Mr Lamb had pushed the blind up too far, to the “point of no return”, and that this is why it did not activate.
--Mr Lamb was spoken to by Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre after the race, and Mr Lamb said that he had wondered at the time if he had pushed the blind up too far.
--It was also established during the hearing that –
--1. THE TIN MAN had won the race.
2. That Mr Holmes had informed the Stipendiary Stewards of what had happened.
3. That adjustments to gear before a race happen all the time.
4. That this incident happened shortly before the race, and Mr Holmes said there comes a point where a driver is not entitled to get out of his cart before dispatch.
We adjourned to consider our decision. We were satisfied that Mr Holmes had acted responsibly in this matter. He had asked Mr Lamb to adjust the pull down blind for him as he did not consider he should get out of the sulky to do it himself. He believed that the blind had been adjusted correctly, and it was only later that he became aware that it had been pushed up too far. We were satisfied that it would be taking “strict liability” (Rule 1008(b)) too far to enter a conviction in this case.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written
decision would be completed later, and that the charge was dismissed.
--
J. M. Phelan
Chairman
67517
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: 8c02d3784a2a0359a9ffc7bf9142e2ad
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 14/06/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Marlborough HRC - 14 June 2009 - Race 5
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Following the running of Race 5, the Braddick Construction Discretionary Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S. P. Renault against Mr R. D. Holmes, Licensed Trainer of THE TIN MAN (11), alleging a breach of Rule 864(2)(d). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of Rule 864(2)(d) in that R. D. Holmes (THE TIN MAN) failed to affix the pull down blinds so as not to malfunction.”
--
Following the running of Race 5, the Braddick Construction Discretionary Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S. P. Renault against Mr R. D. Holmes, Licensed Trainer of THE TIN MAN (11), alleging a breach of Rule 864(2)(d). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of Rule 864(2)(d) in that R. D. Holmes (THE TIN MAN) failed to affix the pull down blinds so as not to malfunction.”
--The rule reads as follows.
--“(2) Every horseman, owner, trainer and assistant thereof of a horse shall
with regard to that horse ensure that :-
(a) ….
(b) ….
(c) ….
(d) all gear is correctly applied and/or affixed so as not to malfunction or come adrift.”
Mr Holmes had indicated on the information that he did not admit this breach
of the Rules and he confirmed this before the hearing began. He also agreed that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
Mr Renault gave evidence that the driver of THE TIN MAN (11) was to race in pull down blinds, and after the race it was noticed that only one of these had activated. Mr Renault also said that this breach was one of strict liability.
--Mr Holmes gave evidence that this blind had come half way down during the preliminaries. He had asked the starter (Mr Lamb) to push it back up for him, which he did. However this blind did not activate during the race. It was established that Mr Lamb had pushed the blind up too far, to the “point of no return”, and that this is why it did not activate.
--Mr Lamb was spoken to by Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre after the race, and Mr Lamb said that he had wondered at the time if he had pushed the blind up too far.
--It was also established during the hearing that –
--1. THE TIN MAN had won the race.
2. That Mr Holmes had informed the Stipendiary Stewards of what had happened.
3. That adjustments to gear before a race happen all the time.
4. That this incident happened shortly before the race, and Mr Holmes said there comes a point where a driver is not entitled to get out of his cart before dispatch.
We adjourned to consider our decision. We were satisfied that Mr Holmes had acted responsibly in this matter. He had asked Mr Lamb to adjust the pull down blind for him as he did not consider he should get out of the sulky to do it himself. He believed that the blind had been adjusted correctly, and it was only later that he became aware that it had been pushed up too far. We were satisfied that it would be taking “strict liability” (Rule 1008(b)) too far to enter a conviction in this case.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written
decision would be completed later, and that the charge was dismissed.
--
J. M. Phelan
Chairman
67517
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 864.2.d, 1008.b
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 5863b86c36dd5479573f50c80a24673c
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: aa79fd6b0b682c3c1b8751b6ff2e6330
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 14/06/2009
meet_title: Marlborough HRC - 14 June 2009
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: marlborough-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Marlborough HRC