Roxburgh TC – 5 January 2007 –

hearingid: 7d7d1abb2e745c5e98ebd67c7ae15337

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 05/01/2007

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Roxburgh TC - 5 January 2007 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Mr Allison, stipendiary steward, alleged that with approximately 1100 metres to run in race 9 at Roxburgh on Friday 5 January Mr Thornley driving NATURE FRANCO improved into the passing lane in breach of passing lane reg 3 and was as a consequence in breach of rule 869(3)(f). The Committee observed that having upheld the protest on the

Mr Allison, stipendiary steward, alleged that with approximately 1100 metres to run in race 9 at Roxburgh on Friday 5 January Mr Thornley driving NATURE FRANCO improved into the passing lane in breach of passing lane reg 3 and was as a consequence in breach of rule 869(3)(f). The Committee observed that having upheld the protest on the day, strictly speaking the charge was found to be proved. The Committee noted the use of the word "shall" in reg 3. Nonetheless, in the interests of natural justice Mr Thornley was permitted to plead and he entered a plea of not guilty.

Mr Allison, with the aid of the head on video, demonstrated that Mr Thomas driving MY GIRL ANNE moved out slightly while leading when progressing down the home straight with a round to go. Mr Allison submitted that this is not unusual, and required the following horses to "trail up" behind. This did not happen on this occasion, according to Mr Allison, who alleged that Mr Beck driving LETSGO JACCKA improved well inside the passing lane pushing Mr Thomas into the parked position when he was in fact the lead horse. Mr Allison alleged that Mr Thornley followed Mr Beck's line also into the passing lane, in moving into a trailing position. He demonstrated that Mr Thornley steered his horse down into the passing lane and that Mr Thornley chose to follow Mr Beck.

Mr Thornley stated that he was trailing up behind Mr Beck at the time. He said that in his view neither Mr Beck nor himself had moved into the passing lane. He drew an imaginary line on the video screen which he said was the passing lane. This commenced at the marker peg at the top of the straight. Mr Allison disagreed with this line. But we observed that even were we to accept Mr Thornley's line, he transgressed in that he clearly moved into the passing lane about half-way down the straight when he continued to trail up behind Mr Beck when LETSGO JACCKA made a move on the inside of MY GIRL ANNE. Mr Thornley accepted this but said it was due to a fault in the design of the passing lane and not his or Mr Beck's driving. He said he was not going fast enough to get in behind MY GIRL ANNE. He said on a number of occasions that "the gap was going quicker than I was going". He added he could not push out because there was a horse on his outer.

We gave an oral decision on the day and indicated that it would be incorporated verbatim into our written decision which would also recount the evidence that had been placed before us.

Mr Allison has demonstrated on the video that in the home straight with a lap to run Mr Beck moved into the passing lane and progressed on the inner of the leading horse MY GIRL ANNE. Mr Thornley has said he had nowhere else to go but to follow Mr Beck because his horse did not have the speed to take the gap that Mr Beck's inwards movement had created behind MY GIRL ANNE. Mr Thornley demonstrated on the side-on video that when Mr Beck first moved, his horse was left flat-footed for a short time. We note that even at this point Mr Thornley makes no movement other than to continue to trail up behind Mr Beck.

Mr Thornley has accepted that he encroached into the passing lane but says this was because he had nowhere else to be. We disagree. We accept Mr Thornley's statement that he had only a split second to make a decision whether to follow Mr Beck or to continue on the established running line in behind MY GIRL ANNE. Whether or not he had the momentum to take the gap that had presented itself, he had the option to retain his line because at that time Mr Hackett driving TIMELY STAR had not moved in and Mr Hackett could not have done so without being in breach of the Rules of Harness Racing himself. Mr Thornley, in our view, made the decision to follow Mr Beck and in so doing left the space which was eventually taken by Mr Hackett. We observe that Mr Thornley certainly had the speed to get up behind Mr Beck.

Despite the endeavours of Mr Thornley to describe his appraisal of the limits of the passing lane, we note that NATURE FRANCO was clearly within a metre of the markers for several strides, and was thus clearly within the confines of the passing lane while that horse was improving. We do not accept that Mr Thornley was pushed into the passing lane.

Mr Thornley made reference to regulations 4 and 7 of the passing lane regulations. We do not agree that reg 7 which we believe applies to the obligation on every horse in the run home, assists Mr Thornley, whereas reg 4 applies to the obligation on the leading horse. Similarly, Mr Thornley's reference to rule 869(7A) does not assist with reference to this particular rule.

We find that Mr Thornley improved his position by following Mr Beck into the passing lane and thus we find the charge proved.

Mr Thornley you?ve been found to be in breach of rule 869(3)(f). This rule covers a wide variety of improper actions by a driver. In this case, other than the fact it led to the disqualification of NATURE FRANCO, the breach was very much at the lower end. You had a split second decision to make as to whether to follow Mr Beck into the passing lane and unfortunately you chose to do so.

You are an experienced driver with some 3,420 drives and 221 winners. Your record is excellent. Mr Allison has asked for a "moderate" fine. You have emphasised that you are not a cheat. We agree. There was no element of cheating with respect to this particular breach of the rule.

We believe a fine of $250 is appropriate and so order. We also note your concerns as to the configuration of the passing lane at Roxburgh and the ambiguities with reference to the passing lane regulations.

GG Hall, Chairman

N Johnstone

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.3.f, 869.7A

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: