Rangiora HRC 10 November 2017 – R 9 (heard on 1 December 2017 at Addington) – Chair, Mr P Williams

hearingid: 734a94d73c54422755125385ec157d44

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 10/11/2017

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Rangiora HRC 10 November 2017 - R 9 (heard on 1 December 2017 at Addington) - Chair, Mr P Williams

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: Mr S Wallis, Stipendiary Steward

Respondent: Mr T Chmiel, Open Horseman

Information: A9595

Meeting: Rangiora HRC

Date: 10 November 2017

Venue: Addington (heard at Addington on Friday, 1 December 2017)

Race: 9

Rule: 869(3)(b)

Judicial Committee: P Williams, Chairman – D Jackson, Committee Member

Date of Decision: 1 December 2017

FACTS

Following the running of Race 9 the “Ashley Mobile Pace” at the Rangiora HRC meeting on 10 November 2017, Information A9595 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S Wallis alleging a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) by Open Horseman Mr T Chmiel. The hearing was opened and adjourned and the adjourned hearing was heard at the NZMTC’s meeting at Addington on 1 December 2017. The Information stated “you failed to take sufficient corrective action to ensure your runner did not lock wheels with “Twitter Bromac” in the run home”. Mr Chmiel signed the Information indicating he did not admit the breach and at the beginning of the hearing confirmed that was correct and that he understood the Rule under which he was charged.

Rule 869(3)(b) states: - “No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly”.

SUBMISSIONS

Mr Wallis showed the films of the horses racing just prior to entering the home straight for the final time. He highlighted Mr Chmiel driving “Man of Steel” racing in the 3-wide line and following Mr Williams who was driving “Twitter Bromac”. He said as the horses raced down the straight Mr Chmiel angled out to go past Mr Williams but as he closed the gap on Mr Williams contact was made with the sulky of “Twitter Bromac”, which resulted in the two sulky’s locking heels near the 50m mark. Mr Wallis said the wheels remained locked from there to the winning post. Mr Wallis said it was the submission of the Stewards that when Mr Chmiel started to come up alongside Mr Williams he did not take the required corrective action to avoid making contact with Mr Williams. Using the head on film, Mr Wallis said as Mr Chmiel started to come up alongside Mr Williams he continued to drive his horse out and just prior to the 50m mark the inside wheel of Mr Chmiel’s sulky went inside the outside wheel of Mr Williams’ sulky with the locking of wheels happening soon after. Mr Wallis confirmed that “Twitter Bromac” finished 4th and “Man of Steel” finished 5th.

Mr Chmiel used the film to show that soon after straightening, he moved out from behind Mr Williams in order to go past him, but as he did Mr Williams commenced drifting outwards and continued to do so. (Mr Chmiel later in his evidence described the outwards movement of Mr Williams as “sharp” and on a third occasion “pretty quick”). Mr Chmiel said he maintained a straight line all the way down the straight but because of the outwards movement of Mr Williams the locking of wheels occurred. He said the head on film showed that as he moved to the outside of Mr Williams there was a clear gap between the two sulkies. Mr Chmiel said whilst he did move inwards very slightly once outside of Mr Williams it was the latter’s continuous outwards movement, which he estimated to be at half a horse’s width, that led to the wheels locking. Mr Chmiel said his horse “was not hanging all over the other horse but maintaining a straight line” and he was trying to get out of the way of Mr Williams. He said he was trying to do the best for his owners in driving his horse out to the line and felt that had he not locked wheels he would have finished ahead of Mr Williams.

To a question from the Committee Mr Chmiel said he did not believe Mr Williams made any attempt to straighten his horse and he was the one who should have been charged with careless driving.

Mr Wallis asked Mr Chmiel if he thought the outward movement of “Twitter Bromac” was abrupt or gradual. Mr Chmiel said as he got alongside “Twitter Bromac” that horse came out “pretty quickly” onto him. Mr Wallis also asked Mr Chmiel to confirm that he thought he would have definitely run fourth and beaten “Twitter Bromac”. Mr Chmiel said he definitely would have run fourth but when asked by Mr Wallis why he chose not to protest on the day, he said he did not think about it because he thought his horse was not totally blameless as it had been hanging in coming around the bend. He said that it wasn’t until he got home that evening and was watching a replay of the race that he realised how far Mr Williams had moved out on him. Prior to seeing the replay he thought his horse may have also contributed to the incident but he changed his mind after seeing it.

To a question from the Committee Mr Wallis estimated Mr Williams had moved out no more than half a horse width which he described as acceptable and not unusual inside the final 200m of a race. He reiterated that the Stewards believed that as Mr Chmiel started to come up alongside Mr Williams he had ample time to move out and continue on uninterrupted to the finish. Mr Wallis also confirmed that after the race Mr Williams was not spoken to about his driving in the final 200m of the race.

REASON FOR DECISION

The Committee has carefully reviewed all the available views of the incident and considered the evidence and submissions of both parties. Mr Chmiel has emphasized that as he came up alongside Mr Williams he (Mr Williams) was moving outwards “pretty quickly” and continued that outwards movement which meant he (Mr Chmiel) did not have enough time to take the required corrective action. Mr Chmiel said he was always going to beat “Twitter Bromac” and was focused on doing the best for the owners of the horse.

The Committee believes Mr Williams has moved out prior to the incident. However, we believe the movement is not sudden and at best no more than half a horse width. When reviewing the head on film, at the point in the race where the head of “Twitter Bromac” starts to face outwards, the side on view shows that Mr Chmiel was 2 lengths behind Mr Williams. We believe therefore that as an experienced horseman Mr Chmiel had plenty of time to take the necessary action to ensure he was able to move slightly to his outside and run on past “Twitter Bromac”. Mr Chmiel understandably was trying to achieve the best possible finishing position for “Man of Steel” but his focusing on that, and not taking the necessary action to move slightly out from Mr Williams, has resulted in the locking of wheels.

The Committee also notes that Mr Chmiel did not choose to protest after the race notwithstanding that he has said that on the day he thought he would have definitely beaten “Twitter Bromac”. We also note that the Stipendiary Stewards report on the race did not include any comments indicating they had any issues with the driving of Mr Williams inside the final 200m of the race.

DECISION

After considering all the matter above the Committee find the charge proved.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

Mr Wallis said Mr Chmiel was a very busy horseman having had 77 drives so far this season, 210 last season and 275 in 2015/16. In mitigation he said Mr Chmiel had an excellent record and had not breached the Rule in the previous 12 months. He also said that whilst “Man of Steel” and “Twitter Bromac” went across the finish line with their wheels locked no other horses were impacted and as such the severity of the breach could be described as low. Mr Wallis said the aggravating factors to be considered were that the actions of Mr Chmiel had cost him finishing ahead of “Twitter Bromac” and also that he chosen not to admit the breach although he accepted that any person charged with a breach of the Rules was entitled to defend themselves. Mr Wallis said the JCA’s Penalty Guidelines state a starting point for a breach of this Rule is a $500 fine or a 10 drive suspension and after taking into account all of the above he said it was the Stewards submission that a fine of $400 be imposed.

Mr Chmiel reiterated that it was the actions of Mr Williams that caused the incident and that whatever the penalty he would be appealing the decision.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

The Committee believes the severity of the carelessness to be in the low range as no other horses were affected in the incident. Because of that we have decided the starting point for this breach will be $400. Whilst it is it possible that “Man of Steel” would have beaten “Twitter Bromac” we will never know for sure if that would have happened. For that reason we increase the starting point by only $50 to $450. We do not consider Mr Chmiel’s non-admittance of the breach as an aggravating factor. In recognition of Mr Chmiel’s excellent driving record, in not having breached this Rule for at least 2 years, we have reduced the penalty by $100.

PENALTY

Mr Chmiel is fined $350.

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: