Manukau TC – 22 June 2010 – R 2

hearingid: 6ff9488f6aa657f4db1336946fa8cdd2

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 22/06/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Manukau TC - 22 June 2010 - R 2

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  J M Muirhead Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  P Ferguson

Information No:  68636

Meeting:  Manukau Trotting Club

Date:  22^nd June 2010

Venue:  Alexandra Park

Race:  2

Rule No:  869(4)

Judicial Committee:  Jeff Holloway, Chairman – Bryan Rowe Committee Member 

Plea: Not Admitted

CHARGES:

Mr Ferguson was charged with a breach of Rule 869(4) when during the running of race 2 he improved Happy Skipper outward resulting in the wheel of his sulky contacting the hind leg of Mcracky causing it to gallop and whilst in a gallop to fall with 150 metres to run.

Mr Fergusson appeared for the hearing and denied the breach.

FACTS:

Mr Muirhead in giving his evidence referred to video footage of the concluding stages of the race and identified the relevant runners.  He described with reference to head on and rear footage Mr Fergusson driving Happy Skipper rounding the final bend 4 wide and moving to 5 wide with Mcracky immediately outside.  He was leading by about half a length, as he angled his horse out his sulky wheel came into contact with the hind leg of Mr Dickey on Mcracky.  Mr Ferguson’s wheel had come out underneath Mcracky’s belly and the horse’s leg had struck the sulky wheel. 

Mr Dickey was tapping his horse up with the whip.  He had a rein bar on its left side which was fitted to prevent it running out.  Because Mr Fergusson was ahead of Mr Dickey he couldn’t ease him out by forcing against Dickey’s sulky wheel and had instead come into contact with the horse’s leg.

Mcracky began to gallop and shortly after slipped and fell.  The horse had panicked from the contact and the stipendiary stewards did not blame the resultant fall completely on the actions of Mr Ferguson.

Mr Muirhead referred the committee to rule 869 (4) which states

  “No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with any other horse of its progress”

He also referred to Rule 869(a) “horsemen are permitted to move ground inwards or outwards at any stage of the race to improve their racing position” 

with the overriding qualification that ‘such moves be made with safety’.

It was not the job of Mr Dickey to move out of the way.  It was Mr Ferguson’s responsibility not to cause interference.

Mr Ferguson asked if his manoeuvre in shifting out gradually was safe.  In response Mr Muirhead agreed the speed in changing ground was fine but the problem was that Mr Dickey’s horse was too far back to allow him to safely change ground coming out because of the relative position of his sulky and Mr Dickey’s horse.

Mr Dickey in evidence told the hearing his horse his horse lost it gait because its back leg ran over the wheel of Mr Ferguson’s sulky as he was improving out..  He said his horse was hanging in slightly but his horse was running a straight line and didn’t run in.  He said Mr Ferguson was coming out gradually and in a racing situation in his opinion was entitled to have the outside horse give ground as long as the movement was reasonable.  His horse may have contributed to the contact by not moving out of the way.  He agreed that it was Mr Ferguson’s responsibility not to cause interference to him and that it wasn’t his job to get out of Mr Ferguson’s way.

In defence Mr Ferguson contended he had moved out with safety and well within reason and that Mr Dickey’s horse had touched his sulky wheel and broken.  He conceded in response to questions from Mr Muirhead that he was moving outwards and there was contact between his wheel and the other horse’s leg as a result.

Mr Herlihy was called as an expert witness and confirmed the rules did not provide any obligation on Mr Dickey to give ground to Mrs Ferguson’s outwards movement.  He did say however that it was a known fact that you had to give ground when ground was being taken inside you.  His evidence was that Mr Ferguson had come out quite rightly and if Mr Dickey’s horse hadn’t overreacted the manoeuvre would have been fine.  It was one of those things that happened. It was a racing mishap.

In response to questioning from Mr Muirhead Mr Herlihy conceded that Mr Dickey wasn’t obligated to give ground but he appeared to be trying to get his horse out from Mr Ferguson.  Mr Ferguson had to pull his horse out to get it into the race.

SUBMISSIONS

Mr Muirhead reiterated the rules and submitted that they were quite clear. He said Mr Ferguson was changing ground outwards, the wheel of his sulky came into contact with Mcracky.  The fact was that Mr Ferguson thought he was making the movement with safety but if Mr Dickey could not or did get out of his way then it was Mr Ferguson’s obligation to stop his manoeuvre.  The obligation was not on the horseman holding the straight line.  Mr Dickey might have been able to do better however he was not obliged to.  Mr Ferguson had initiated the movement and was obliged not to cause interference. 

In conclusion Mr Ferguson admitted his horse came out but gradually and very safely.  Mr Dickey couldn’t pull his horse out. He said it was dangerous territory for Mr Muirhead to comment that Mr Dickey was under no obligation however as that was not how race day driving was carried on.  Mr Ferguson felt he was not careless or driving in a manner likely to cause interference or cause problems to any other horse.  It was an unfortunate culmination of events that led to the incident

 ORAL DECISION:

“The Committee have considered all the evidence including the footage extensively during the adjournment and we are satisfied that you have breached rule 869(4)

Full reasons  will be given later but we are satisfied that your outward movement where your sulky wheel got ahead of Mr Dickey’s meant that contact with continual further outward movement was inevitable.

And the footage shows if you look at it and I daresay you will see that you moved outwards.  In the normal course of events that movement with safety was acceptable but the ensuing clash, the contact meant that it wasn’t safe.

We also find briefly there was no evidence of any inwards movement by Mr Dickey and in fact the footage if you look at the head on and rear footage immediately prior to the contact, it appears to the committee that his horse actually moved outwards slightly as you moved across

We find the charge proven”

REASONS:

The Committee closely examined the footage of the incident from the various angles provided  It was clear that Mr Dickey was driving Mcracky outside of Mr Fergusson and maintaining a straight line.  He had every right to hold his position and the same responsibility as every other driver to obtain the best possible place in the field.

Mr Ferguson in improving outwards and changing his line had an obligation to make the move with safety.  By moving outwards and half a length forward of Mr Dickey meant that unless Mr Dickey moved out there would be contact.  The widest part of the sulky came under the flank of Mcracky and that horse’s leg contacted the wheel causing interference.

Mcracky was fitted with a rein bar on its left side to prevent the horse running outwards

This also limited the drivers ability to shift the horse outwards.  Mcracky panicked broke into a gallop and shortly after fell.  The fall was an over reaction but would not have happened had there been no contact.

Mr Dickey gave evidence which was contradictory and not particularly helpful.  However, he confirmed that he had maintained a straight line throughout the incident and the horse was travelling normally prior to contact.

Mr Herlihy gave expert evidence of the incident which suggested that although the rules had been technically breached there was in fact large element of “give and take” and there was more of an obligation on Mr Dickey to assist Mr Ferguson’s outward movement where he could.  In his opinion the incident was a mishap in a manoeuvre that Mr Ferguson had otherwise successfully negotiated a thousand times before

The committee is satisfied that there existed an obligation on Mr Ferguson to complete his outwards movement in safety.  His expectations that Mr Dickey would or was obligated to move outwards to accommodate his intentions were wrong and contrary to the rules.  Furthermore the potential consequence of him moving his sulky wheel under the flank of Mcracky when improving outwards were transparently clear and to be safe relied on a response by Mr Dickey that he was not obliged to make.  He was entitled to be there.

Mr Ferguson has clearly interfered with the progress of Mcracky by his actions.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:

Mr Muirhead suggested a fine in the region of $250 to $300.  He said that although it was at the lower end of the scale the fall of Mcracky should be ignored. The horse had contributed to the fall by its reaction and it would be unfair to take that into consideration.

Mr Ferguson had no relevant breaches in the previous 12 months in 644 drives this current driving year.  Mr Ferguson submitted that he had moved out with safety.  A fine of any more than $200 on a Tuesday with the stakes would be excessive and he requested that if it was to be the case then he would like to be offered the opportunity to take a suspension.

His offending was at the lower end of the scale  His driving record was outstanding and he thought a discount should reflect the genuine nature of his challenge to the charge

REASONS;

In arriving at an appropriate penalty the committee took into account the submissions of both parties and the penalty guidelines which indicate a starting point of $400 and or 2 weeks suspension.

We were satisfied the offending was at the lower end of the scale and did not consider the fall of Mcracky happened as a direct consequence of the breach.  Mr Ferguson with no recorded breaches in almost 700 drives this season had a superb driving record which we considered significant

PENALTY:

The committee ordered a fine of $250.

Jeff Holloway                                       Bryan Rowe

Chairman                                            Committee Member

68636

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869(4)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 85c9b94f5df5d7dda10c03c293fbb90e

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R 2

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 67e58b144647958dc7311ceb16ac1376

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 22/06/2010

meet_title: Manukau TC - 22 June 2010

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: manukau-tc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair: tom

meet_pm1: tom

meet_pm2: tom

name: Manukau TC