NZ Metro TC – 6 December 2007 – Race 7
ID: JCA20752
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 6 December 2007
Race Date:
2007/12/06
Race Number:
Race 7
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 7, the Paul Renwick Laminated Sink Benches Pace, an information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr R. T. May the driver of "Victory Ball" (13) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3)
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 7, the Paul Renwick Laminated Sink Benches Pace, an information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr R. T. May the driver of "Victory Ball" (13) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3). The charge reads as follows.
------"I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 868(3) in that driver R. T. May (Victory Ball) failed to drive Victory Ball out over the concluding stages."
--Rules 868(3) reads as follows.
--"(3) Every horseman shall drive his horse out to the end of the race if he has any reasonable chance of running first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth"
--Mr May had indicated on the information that he did not admit this breach of the Rules, and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr May also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.
--Mr Escott gave evidence that Mr May drove "Victory Ball" which led into the straight for the final time. Mr Escott said that Mr May used his whip on one occasion in the run home, but otherwise showed little vigour in driving his horse out. At the finish Mr May’s horse had been beaten into 2nd place by an official margin of ½ a neck.
--Mr McIntyre used video coverage of the race to show this incident. It could be seen that Mr May used his whip on one occasion as described by Mr Escott. Mr May was also seen to use little vigour in the last 100 metres or so, other than to flick the reins. It was the Stipendiary Steward’s case that Mr May had failed to drive his horse out to the finish of the race when he had a reasonable chance of finishing in the first six placings. In practical terms it would be necessary to show that "Victory Ball" would have had a chance of winning the race had it been driven out to the finish.
--Mr May gave evidence that "Victory Ball" was "trying his heart out" and that he would not have beaten the winner. He said that he led into the straight and that the eventual winner had come up the passing lane after trailing three back on the marker line. Mr May said that the winner ("Bon Ton Boy") had headed him 70 – 80 metres from the finish and put about ½ a length on him close to the finish, and although the margin at the winning post was a half neck, it was Mr May’s opinion that he was always going to finish second. Mr May also said that he did not use the whip a lot when he drove, and Mr Escott agreed that this was so.
--Mr May also said that he had considered using the whip, but he did not know how the horse would react. As he believed that the horse was trying his hardest anyway, he decided not to use the whip or to drive it any more vigorously than he did. In answer to a question Mr May said that he had no instructions from the trainer about how to drive the horse, and that the only comment from the trainer before the race was "good luck". Mr May also said that he had no pre-conceived thoughts about whether he would use the whip or not, and repeated that he did not use the whip because he knew his horse was doing its best.
--Mr May also said that "Victory Ball" had been a problem horse. It had won two races out of its three starts as a 3 year old. It is now a 6 year old and has only had three other starts before this one. Mr May has driven the horse in all of its race day starts. It was found that since its three year old season the horse refused to try in its races, and the previous trainer (Mr L. R. Hanrahan) had given up on him. This was the first start for Mr Hill.
--Mr B. R. Hill, the trainer of "Victory Ball", gave evidence that Mr May knew the history of "Victory Ball" and that in its most recent starts it had not tried. Mr Hill emphasised that "Victory Ball" had travelled three wide from about the 1500 metre mark, and that it had then run a very fast last half. He also said that he didn’t think the horse could have run any faster than it did. Mr Hill also supported Mr May’s evidence with his opinion that "Victory Ball" was doing the best he could at the end of the race.
--After hearing the evidence I adjourned the hearing to consider my decision.
--The race was shown in full during the hearing. This was a 2600 metre standing start race and "Victory Ball" drew the inside barrier on the second line. After a slow start he ended up second last in a strung out field. With about 1500 metres to run he was improving three wide with cover, and with 800 metres to run he took the lead from "Kates Rocket" which finished third, with the eventual winner, "Bon Ton Boy", three back on the fence.
--"Victory Ball" led into the straight and both "Bon Ton Boy" and "Kates Rocket" were able to make their runs on its inside. "Bon Ton Boy" passed "Victory Ball" in the last 100 metres and had a ½ length advantage a short distance before the winning post. The official margin at the finish was a ½ neck. "Kates Rocket" was driven vigorously with the whip but never threatened to make up the long neck leeway that "Victory Ball" held over her at the finish.
--It is also relevant that the leaders in the race ran their last 800 metres in 57.6 seconds, and the last 400 metres in 28.8 seconds. In addition "Victory Ball" travelled three wide from about the 1500 metre mark to the 800 metre mark when it took the lead.
--My purpose in describing the race in detail is to show that "Victory Ball" had quite a hard run for a horse that had not started in a race for almost a year – i.e. not since 17 December 2006.
--During the hearing it was established that Mr May is an experienced senior horseman. After hearing his evidence I was satisfied that he is well qualified to judge when a horse is doing its best, and I accept that he was quite sure that "Victory Ball" was "trying its heart out" and would not have benefited from a more vigorous drive. It is also relevant that Mr May has driven "Victory Ball" in all its seven race day starts, and he would know the horse well. Having seen the video coverage of the final stages of the race on several occasions, I was also of the view that "Victory Ball" was trying its best at the finish of the race.
--This is a serious charge under the Rules of Harness Racing. To prove the charge it must be shown that a driver failed to drive his horse out to the finish of the race, and that by failing to do so he was beaten by a horse which finished in the first six placings. Most importantly it must be shown that the driver failed to drive the horse in such a manner that would ensure it was doing its best to the end of the race.
--In the present case I was satisfied that "Victory Ball" had had a fairly hard run and was still running on strongly at the finish. In this respect I agree with Mr May’s assessment of the situation. I am also satisfied that the video coverage of the race showed that "Bon Ton Boy" had the measure of "Victory Ball" from about the 70 – 80 metre mark, and up to the end of the race.
--I therefore determined that this charge should be dismissed.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room I advised the parties that a full written decision would be made at a later time, and I gave the following oral decision.
--"Mr Escott has brought a charge against Mr May under Rule 868(3) of failing to drive his horse out to the end of the race.
------I have heard evidence from the Stipendiary Stewards and seen video
--coverage of the race. I have also heard evidence from Mr May and the trainer [of "Victory Ball"] Mr Hill.
--It is clear that Mr May appeared to show a lack of vigour over the concluding stages of the race. There was much evidence as to the way the race was run, the specific characteristics of "Victory Ball", and an explanation from Mr May for the reasons he drove "Victory Ball" the way he did. I will go into all these matters in detail in my written decision.
--Taking into account all the evidence before me I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, Mr May’s horse was doing its best and that a more energetic drive would not have changed the result. The charge is therefore dismissed"
----
______________
--J. M. Phelan
--Chairman
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: 8b74ec7ce6c7d17b083b497cbbe0b5df
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 06/12/2007
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 6 December 2007 - Race 7
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 7, the Paul Renwick Laminated Sink Benches Pace, an information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr R. T. May the driver of "Victory Ball" (13) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3)
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 7, the Paul Renwick Laminated Sink Benches Pace, an information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr R. T. May the driver of "Victory Ball" (13) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3). The charge reads as follows.
------"I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 868(3) in that driver R. T. May (Victory Ball) failed to drive Victory Ball out over the concluding stages."
--Rules 868(3) reads as follows.
--"(3) Every horseman shall drive his horse out to the end of the race if he has any reasonable chance of running first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth"
--Mr May had indicated on the information that he did not admit this breach of the Rules, and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr May also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.
--Mr Escott gave evidence that Mr May drove "Victory Ball" which led into the straight for the final time. Mr Escott said that Mr May used his whip on one occasion in the run home, but otherwise showed little vigour in driving his horse out. At the finish Mr May’s horse had been beaten into 2nd place by an official margin of ½ a neck.
--Mr McIntyre used video coverage of the race to show this incident. It could be seen that Mr May used his whip on one occasion as described by Mr Escott. Mr May was also seen to use little vigour in the last 100 metres or so, other than to flick the reins. It was the Stipendiary Steward’s case that Mr May had failed to drive his horse out to the finish of the race when he had a reasonable chance of finishing in the first six placings. In practical terms it would be necessary to show that "Victory Ball" would have had a chance of winning the race had it been driven out to the finish.
--Mr May gave evidence that "Victory Ball" was "trying his heart out" and that he would not have beaten the winner. He said that he led into the straight and that the eventual winner had come up the passing lane after trailing three back on the marker line. Mr May said that the winner ("Bon Ton Boy") had headed him 70 – 80 metres from the finish and put about ½ a length on him close to the finish, and although the margin at the winning post was a half neck, it was Mr May’s opinion that he was always going to finish second. Mr May also said that he did not use the whip a lot when he drove, and Mr Escott agreed that this was so.
--Mr May also said that he had considered using the whip, but he did not know how the horse would react. As he believed that the horse was trying his hardest anyway, he decided not to use the whip or to drive it any more vigorously than he did. In answer to a question Mr May said that he had no instructions from the trainer about how to drive the horse, and that the only comment from the trainer before the race was "good luck". Mr May also said that he had no pre-conceived thoughts about whether he would use the whip or not, and repeated that he did not use the whip because he knew his horse was doing its best.
--Mr May also said that "Victory Ball" had been a problem horse. It had won two races out of its three starts as a 3 year old. It is now a 6 year old and has only had three other starts before this one. Mr May has driven the horse in all of its race day starts. It was found that since its three year old season the horse refused to try in its races, and the previous trainer (Mr L. R. Hanrahan) had given up on him. This was the first start for Mr Hill.
--Mr B. R. Hill, the trainer of "Victory Ball", gave evidence that Mr May knew the history of "Victory Ball" and that in its most recent starts it had not tried. Mr Hill emphasised that "Victory Ball" had travelled three wide from about the 1500 metre mark, and that it had then run a very fast last half. He also said that he didn’t think the horse could have run any faster than it did. Mr Hill also supported Mr May’s evidence with his opinion that "Victory Ball" was doing the best he could at the end of the race.
--After hearing the evidence I adjourned the hearing to consider my decision.
--The race was shown in full during the hearing. This was a 2600 metre standing start race and "Victory Ball" drew the inside barrier on the second line. After a slow start he ended up second last in a strung out field. With about 1500 metres to run he was improving three wide with cover, and with 800 metres to run he took the lead from "Kates Rocket" which finished third, with the eventual winner, "Bon Ton Boy", three back on the fence.
--"Victory Ball" led into the straight and both "Bon Ton Boy" and "Kates Rocket" were able to make their runs on its inside. "Bon Ton Boy" passed "Victory Ball" in the last 100 metres and had a ½ length advantage a short distance before the winning post. The official margin at the finish was a ½ neck. "Kates Rocket" was driven vigorously with the whip but never threatened to make up the long neck leeway that "Victory Ball" held over her at the finish.
--It is also relevant that the leaders in the race ran their last 800 metres in 57.6 seconds, and the last 400 metres in 28.8 seconds. In addition "Victory Ball" travelled three wide from about the 1500 metre mark to the 800 metre mark when it took the lead.
--My purpose in describing the race in detail is to show that "Victory Ball" had quite a hard run for a horse that had not started in a race for almost a year – i.e. not since 17 December 2006.
--During the hearing it was established that Mr May is an experienced senior horseman. After hearing his evidence I was satisfied that he is well qualified to judge when a horse is doing its best, and I accept that he was quite sure that "Victory Ball" was "trying its heart out" and would not have benefited from a more vigorous drive. It is also relevant that Mr May has driven "Victory Ball" in all its seven race day starts, and he would know the horse well. Having seen the video coverage of the final stages of the race on several occasions, I was also of the view that "Victory Ball" was trying its best at the finish of the race.
--This is a serious charge under the Rules of Harness Racing. To prove the charge it must be shown that a driver failed to drive his horse out to the finish of the race, and that by failing to do so he was beaten by a horse which finished in the first six placings. Most importantly it must be shown that the driver failed to drive the horse in such a manner that would ensure it was doing its best to the end of the race.
--In the present case I was satisfied that "Victory Ball" had had a fairly hard run and was still running on strongly at the finish. In this respect I agree with Mr May’s assessment of the situation. I am also satisfied that the video coverage of the race showed that "Bon Ton Boy" had the measure of "Victory Ball" from about the 70 – 80 metre mark, and up to the end of the race.
--I therefore determined that this charge should be dismissed.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room I advised the parties that a full written decision would be made at a later time, and I gave the following oral decision.
--"Mr Escott has brought a charge against Mr May under Rule 868(3) of failing to drive his horse out to the end of the race.
------I have heard evidence from the Stipendiary Stewards and seen video
--coverage of the race. I have also heard evidence from Mr May and the trainer [of "Victory Ball"] Mr Hill.
--It is clear that Mr May appeared to show a lack of vigour over the concluding stages of the race. There was much evidence as to the way the race was run, the specific characteristics of "Victory Ball", and an explanation from Mr May for the reasons he drove "Victory Ball" the way he did. I will go into all these matters in detail in my written decision.
--Taking into account all the evidence before me I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, Mr May’s horse was doing its best and that a more energetic drive would not have changed the result. The charge is therefore dismissed"
----
______________
--J. M. Phelan
--Chairman
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 868.3
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d860a7a291bf6834065751aaf83f98f9
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 093babfe45ff5e575c9d7835a5610417
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 06/12/2007
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 6 December 2007
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: NZ Metro TC