Ashburton TC – 13 February 2010 – Race 9
ID: JCA20685
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Ashburton TC - 13 February 2010
Race Date:
2010/02/13
Race Number:
Race 9
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68331
--Meeting: Ashburton Trotting Club Date: 13 February 2010
--Venue: Ashburton Raceway Race No: 9
--Rule(s): 869 (4)
--Judicial Committee:
--Chairman: R G McKenzie , Panel Member: J Millar
--Plea: Admitted
--Appearing:
--Informant: B D Williams, Stipendiary Steward
--Defendant: A L Clark, Licensed Open Driver
--DECISION AND REASONS:
Following the running of Race 9, Neumanns Bandag Hambletonian Classic Mobile Trot, Information No. 68331 was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr B D Williams, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr A L Clark, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (4) in that Mr Clark, as the driver of THE FIERY GINGA in the Race, “restrained THE FIERY GINGA when it broke at the start resulting in JINJA GAL (S F Smolenski) being checked and breaking losing all chance”.
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68331
--Meeting: Ashburton Trotting Club Date: 13 February 2010
--Venue: Ashburton Raceway Race No: 9
--Rule(s): 869 (4)
--Judicial Committee:
--Chairman: R G McKenzie , Panel Member: J Millar
--Plea: Admitted
--Appearing:
--Informant: B D Williams, Stipendiary Steward
--Defendant: A L Clark, Licensed Open Driver
--DECISION AND REASONS:
Following the running of Race 9, Neumanns Bandag Hambletonian Classic Mobile Trot, Information No. 68331 was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr B D Williams, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr A L Clark, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (4) in that Mr Clark, as the driver of THE FIERY GINGA in the Race, “restrained THE FIERY GINGA when it broke at the start resulting in JINJA GAL (S F Smolenski) being checked and breaking losing all chance”.
Mr Clark was present at the hearing of the information and indicated that he did not admit the breach.
--Rule 869 provides as follows:
(4) No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Williams referred the Committee to Rule 870 (1) which provides:
When any horse breaks from its gait in any race its horseman shall immediately take all reasonable steps to return it to its proper gait and where clearance exists immediately take such horse clear of the field.
Mr S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward, showed the start of the 1609 metres mobile start event. He pointed out THE FIERY GINGA, drawn at barrier No.3, break from its gait shortly after the start. JINJA GAL, which had drawn immediately behind THE FIERY GINGA on the second row, received a check, broke and lost its chance. Mr Renault alleged that Mr Clark had taken a hold of THE FIERY GINGA and “pulled back” onto FIERY GAL. He had taken a hold of the horse too sharply instead of letting it continue in a gallop, knowing that he had another horse following.
--Mr Smolenski said that he did not have much chance of getting clear room when THE FIERY GINGA broke in front of him. He felt that it had come back “pretty sharply” on him and he had no chance to go on either the inside or outside of it. He said that his filly lost all chance. Mr Smolenski acknowledged, when asked by Mr Williams, that his filly was not “foolproof”. He had not been hard on Mr Clark’s back, he said. It would have helped him avoid Mr Clark if Mr Clark had kept going.
--Mr Williams explained that it was the Stewards’ contention that, while Mr Clark was driving a favourite and had an obligation to return it to its gait as quickly as possible, he should not have restrained so quickly. Mr Clark could have “hauled back” more, but the consequences of Mr Clark’s actions, in pulling back too much, were that the trailing runner was not able to clear him. Mr Clark’s priority was not to his own horse but to other horses – his priority was to return his own horse to its proper gait.
--Mr Clark admitted that he did take hold of his horse but he did not “drag it back unduly”. He submitted that JINGA GAL was obviously not that tractable in the mouth. That horse was a half length behind him when his horse galloped. When Mr Smolenski took hold of his horse, it threw its head round and went into a gallop. It was more a case of JINGA GAL running away from him than him pulling back. He submitted that this was borne out by the video replay. He was not pulling back hard but was in “a holding motion” attempting to settle his horse and let other runners get around him. He submitted that JINGA GAL had not reacted until after THE FIERY GINGA had galloped for approximately 20 metres and that Mr Smolenski had time to get around him but his filly had not reacted in time. There was room on either side of him for JINGA GAL, Mr Clark submitted. Mr Williams acknowledged that THE FIERY GINGA had galloped for two strides before it lost ground.
--The Committee was required to determine whether Mr Clark had driven his horse in a manner which interfered with JINGA GAL or its progress after THE FIERY GINGA galloped at the start of the Race. It was not disputed that JINGA GAL had galloped and it was, essentially, for the Committee to determine whether this was as a result of Mr Clark’s actions. The Stewards alleged that Mr Clark had pulled the horse back too quickly and Mr Smolenski stated that his filly went off stride when THE FIERY GINGA broke in front of her and came back “pretty sharply” and he was unable to avoid that horse. Mr Clark denied that he had restrained his horse unduly but submitted that he was simply holding it in an attempt to settle it back into its gait, as he was required to do.
--The Committee had to determine the culpability of Mr Clark, principally, from its own assessment of the video evidence available. In the Committee’s view, it was not apparent from the video evidence that Mr Clark had unduly restrained THE FIERY GINGA or that it was this that caused JINGA GAL to break. It is not uncommon for a horse on the front row of a mobile start race to go off stride after the start and neither is it uncommon for a following runner to receive interference or at least be inconvenienced. Such an occurrence is often a “racing incident”, something that can occur in a race by the very nature of the contest without any blame or fault attaching to a particular runner or, as in the present case, a driver. There were several possible causes of the breaking of JINGA GAL, in the Committee’s view, but the issue before the Committee was whether that cause was attributable to the actions of Mr Clark, in restraining THE FIERY GINGA shortly after the start when it went off stride. The Committee was not satisfied, from its assessment of the evidence, that this was the case.
--The Rules imposed an obligation on Mr Clark to take “all reasonable steps” to return THE FIERY GINGA to its proper gait. In this case, the Committee was satisfied that the steps taken by Mr Clark were not unreasonable.
--The charge was dismissed.
--R G McKenzie J Millar
CHAIR Committee Member
68331
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: 7baf30f26b52a4be500a01bc7e56b749
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 13/02/2010
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Ashburton TC - 13 February 2010 - Race 9
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68331
--Meeting: Ashburton Trotting Club Date: 13 February 2010
--Venue: Ashburton Raceway Race No: 9
--Rule(s): 869 (4)
--Judicial Committee:
--Chairman: R G McKenzie , Panel Member: J Millar
--Plea: Admitted
--Appearing:
--Informant: B D Williams, Stipendiary Steward
--Defendant: A L Clark, Licensed Open Driver
--DECISION AND REASONS:
Following the running of Race 9, Neumanns Bandag Hambletonian Classic Mobile Trot, Information No. 68331 was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr B D Williams, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr A L Clark, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (4) in that Mr Clark, as the driver of THE FIERY GINGA in the Race, “restrained THE FIERY GINGA when it broke at the start resulting in JINJA GAL (S F Smolenski) being checked and breaking losing all chance”.
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68331
--Meeting: Ashburton Trotting Club Date: 13 February 2010
--Venue: Ashburton Raceway Race No: 9
--Rule(s): 869 (4)
--Judicial Committee:
--Chairman: R G McKenzie , Panel Member: J Millar
--Plea: Admitted
--Appearing:
--Informant: B D Williams, Stipendiary Steward
--Defendant: A L Clark, Licensed Open Driver
--DECISION AND REASONS:
Following the running of Race 9, Neumanns Bandag Hambletonian Classic Mobile Trot, Information No. 68331 was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr B D Williams, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr A L Clark, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (4) in that Mr Clark, as the driver of THE FIERY GINGA in the Race, “restrained THE FIERY GINGA when it broke at the start resulting in JINJA GAL (S F Smolenski) being checked and breaking losing all chance”.
Mr Clark was present at the hearing of the information and indicated that he did not admit the breach.
--Rule 869 provides as follows:
(4) No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Williams referred the Committee to Rule 870 (1) which provides:
When any horse breaks from its gait in any race its horseman shall immediately take all reasonable steps to return it to its proper gait and where clearance exists immediately take such horse clear of the field.
Mr S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward, showed the start of the 1609 metres mobile start event. He pointed out THE FIERY GINGA, drawn at barrier No.3, break from its gait shortly after the start. JINJA GAL, which had drawn immediately behind THE FIERY GINGA on the second row, received a check, broke and lost its chance. Mr Renault alleged that Mr Clark had taken a hold of THE FIERY GINGA and “pulled back” onto FIERY GAL. He had taken a hold of the horse too sharply instead of letting it continue in a gallop, knowing that he had another horse following.
--Mr Smolenski said that he did not have much chance of getting clear room when THE FIERY GINGA broke in front of him. He felt that it had come back “pretty sharply” on him and he had no chance to go on either the inside or outside of it. He said that his filly lost all chance. Mr Smolenski acknowledged, when asked by Mr Williams, that his filly was not “foolproof”. He had not been hard on Mr Clark’s back, he said. It would have helped him avoid Mr Clark if Mr Clark had kept going.
--Mr Williams explained that it was the Stewards’ contention that, while Mr Clark was driving a favourite and had an obligation to return it to its gait as quickly as possible, he should not have restrained so quickly. Mr Clark could have “hauled back” more, but the consequences of Mr Clark’s actions, in pulling back too much, were that the trailing runner was not able to clear him. Mr Clark’s priority was not to his own horse but to other horses – his priority was to return his own horse to its proper gait.
--Mr Clark admitted that he did take hold of his horse but he did not “drag it back unduly”. He submitted that JINGA GAL was obviously not that tractable in the mouth. That horse was a half length behind him when his horse galloped. When Mr Smolenski took hold of his horse, it threw its head round and went into a gallop. It was more a case of JINGA GAL running away from him than him pulling back. He submitted that this was borne out by the video replay. He was not pulling back hard but was in “a holding motion” attempting to settle his horse and let other runners get around him. He submitted that JINGA GAL had not reacted until after THE FIERY GINGA had galloped for approximately 20 metres and that Mr Smolenski had time to get around him but his filly had not reacted in time. There was room on either side of him for JINGA GAL, Mr Clark submitted. Mr Williams acknowledged that THE FIERY GINGA had galloped for two strides before it lost ground.
--The Committee was required to determine whether Mr Clark had driven his horse in a manner which interfered with JINGA GAL or its progress after THE FIERY GINGA galloped at the start of the Race. It was not disputed that JINGA GAL had galloped and it was, essentially, for the Committee to determine whether this was as a result of Mr Clark’s actions. The Stewards alleged that Mr Clark had pulled the horse back too quickly and Mr Smolenski stated that his filly went off stride when THE FIERY GINGA broke in front of her and came back “pretty sharply” and he was unable to avoid that horse. Mr Clark denied that he had restrained his horse unduly but submitted that he was simply holding it in an attempt to settle it back into its gait, as he was required to do.
--The Committee had to determine the culpability of Mr Clark, principally, from its own assessment of the video evidence available. In the Committee’s view, it was not apparent from the video evidence that Mr Clark had unduly restrained THE FIERY GINGA or that it was this that caused JINGA GAL to break. It is not uncommon for a horse on the front row of a mobile start race to go off stride after the start and neither is it uncommon for a following runner to receive interference or at least be inconvenienced. Such an occurrence is often a “racing incident”, something that can occur in a race by the very nature of the contest without any blame or fault attaching to a particular runner or, as in the present case, a driver. There were several possible causes of the breaking of JINGA GAL, in the Committee’s view, but the issue before the Committee was whether that cause was attributable to the actions of Mr Clark, in restraining THE FIERY GINGA shortly after the start when it went off stride. The Committee was not satisfied, from its assessment of the evidence, that this was the case.
--The Rules imposed an obligation on Mr Clark to take “all reasonable steps” to return THE FIERY GINGA to its proper gait. In this case, the Committee was satisfied that the steps taken by Mr Clark were not unreasonable.
--The charge was dismissed.
--R G McKenzie J Millar
CHAIR Committee Member
68331
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869.4, 870.1
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 1dda5ae78883f9d0d053f81b63f0ec15
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 7fbc052ff21ae68aaad2338ad8220e4e
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 13/02/2010
meet_title: Ashburton TC - 13 February 2010
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: ashburton-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Ashburton TC