Oamaru HRC – 17 May 2009 – Race 8

hearingid: 8d8c420b8a3c776eb91460739e7a7e27

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 17/05/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Oamaru HRC - 17 May 2009 - Race 8

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 8, the Julius Caesar Handicap Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S. P. Renault against Mr D. E. Johnston, the driver of  HERE COMES SOKY (19), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(b). The charge reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) in that Mr Johnston drove carelessly when striking the sulky wheel of ROADNIGHT CHARLIE causing his horse to break.”

Rule 869(3)(b) reads as follows.

“No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly.”

Following the running of Race 8, the Julius Caesar Handicap Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S. P. Renault against Mr D. E. Johnston, the driver of  HERE COMES SOKY (19), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(b). The charge reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) in that Mr Johnston drove carelessly when striking the sulky wheel of ROADNIGHT CHARLIE causing his horse to break.”

Rule 869(3)(b) reads as follows.

“No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly.”

Mr Johnston had indicated on the information that he did not admit this

breach of the rules, and he confirmed this at the hearing.   Mr Johnston also agreed

that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault gave evidence that with about 400 metres to run Mr Chmiel, driving ROADNIGHT CHARLIE (11), was stopping in the middle of the field.  Mr May (PUMPED UP) was following Mr Chmiel at that stage, and got off his back and took up a position on the inside of ROADNIGHT CHARLIE.  At that time Mr Johnston was last and 3 – 4 lengths off those two horses and he moved forward on to Mr May’s back, but in doing so struck the wheel of Mr Chmiel’s sulky.  As a result Mr Johnston’s horse broke losing its chance in the race.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Ydgren used video coverage to show this incident.  He pointed out where Mr Chmiel was tiring back through the field, and the actions of other drivers who were able to get out of his way.  Mr May could be seen to move inside of Mr Chmiel’s horse, and on to the marker line, and Mr Johnston had followed him. 

Mr Johnston was given the opportunity to ask questions of the two Stipendiary Stewards, which he did at length.  Mr Johnston’s line of questioning was to have it agreed that he had his horse on the “fence” at the time, and that it was an inwards movement by Mr Chmiel’s horse that caused the incident, and not his driving.

Mr May gave evidence and confirmed that he moved his horse on to the marker line inside ROADNIGHT CHARLIE to avoid that horse, and that there was sufficient room there for him.

Mr Johnston raised with Mr May that he had hit two or three markers.  Mr May said he thought he had only hit one, and after some discussions, and after viewing the video replays, it was agreed by both Mr May and Mr Johnston that two markers had been hit.  In answer to further questions Mr May said that his sulky wheel would have gone inside one marker by a very small amount.  Mr Johnston’s line of questions was aimed at showing that he was following Mr May, and that it was an inwards movement by Mr Chmiel that caused the incident.  Mr May queried that Mr Johnston was in fact following him, because if this was correct, then Mr Johnston would also have been making contact with the markers.

Mr Chmiel gave evidence that his horse was tiring and that Mr May was able to move inside his horse on to the marker line.  Mr Chmiel also said that there was enough room for Mr May to be in that position. 

In answer to questions from Mr Johnston Mr Chmiel confirmed that there was enough room for Mr May on his inside.  During these questions Mr Johnston also asked Mr Chmiel if he (Mr Johnston) was on the fence, but Mr Chmiel did not agree with this, and said he was “sort of half off”.  Mr Johnston stated during this questioning that he (Mr Johnston) would have had to run over the markers if he had wanted to follow Mr May’s line.

Mr Chmiel was asked if he had moved inwards at the time of this incident.  He agreed that he did move in a little (about a foot) but also said that at the time of the incident he was still outside Mr May.

It was also established from Mr Chmiel’s evidence that at the time of the incident he was about a half a length behind Mr May, and that Mr Johnston’s horse struck his inside sulky wheel.

Mr Renault summarised his case.  He said that there was no contact between the horses driven by Mr May and Mr Chmiel, and that Mr Chmiel had said quite clearly there should not have been any problem in Mr Johnston getting his horse

in behind Mr May.

Mr Johnston summarised his case and said that before he could be found guilty of careless driving it had to be established that he did something wrong.  All that had been shown was that the drivers believed that he should have avoided them, even though they had deviated, by Mr May going inside the marker line, and Mr Chmiel agreeing that he had moved in by a foot.

We advised the parties that there were two issues that we had to decide on in this case.  Firstly – did Mr Johnston drive carelessly when he allowed his horse to make contact with Mr Chmiel’s sulky wheel?  Or secondly – did Mr Chmiel’s horse move inwards making contact with Mr Johnston’s horse’s leg?  Both parties agreed that these were the issues to be decided.

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.  We were satisfied that there was no dispute that HERE COMES SOKY’s” leg had made contact with the sulky wheel of ROADNIGHT CHARLIE, and that this contact had caused HERE COMES SOKY to break and lose its chance in the race. 

The evidence was that at the time of the incident Mr May had his horse positioned on the marker line with Mr Chmiel’s horse on his outside.  We were satisfied that Mr May did hit two markers, but that his sulky wheel only went inside the marker line by a very small amount.  Mr May said that he was not pushed over the markers by Mr Chmiel, and that there was always a little room between their two sulkies.  It was also stated by Mr May that if Mr Johnston had been following his line he also would have been running over markers, which he was not.

It was Mr Johnston’s case that he was following Mr May and that it was an inwards movement by Mr Chmiel that caused contact to be made.  We are satisfied that there was in fact room for Mr Johnston to follow Mr May, and that the reason for the contact was that he was not in fact following Mr May on the same line, and that he had allowed his horse to move out slightly.  Mr Johnston was therefore careless in allowing this to happen. We rejected Mr Johnston’s assertion that Mr Chmiel moved inwards and caused the incident.

In summary we were quite satisfied that Mr Johnston was not on the “fence” as he stated, but was in fact a little distance out from the marker line, and that this is why he struck Mr Chmiel’s sulky wheel when he tried to follow Mr May.

On returning the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.

“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence we are satisfied that with about 400 metres to run there was contact between HERE COMES SOKY driven by Mr Johnston, and ROADNIGHT CHARLIE driven by Mr Chmiel.

The issue to be decided was whether Mr Johnston drove carelessly in allowing his horse to strike the wheel of PUMPED UP or did Mr Chmiel move inwards and in doing so make contact with HERE COMES SOKY.

We are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the former [note that in our oral decision it was incorrectly said “the latter”] is the case and we find the charge proved.”

Penalty: 

Mr Renault advised that Mr Johnston had no previous relevant convictions for careless driving.  Mr Renault said that he believed that this breach was at the upper end of the scale of carelessness and recommended a fine of between $300-00 and   $350-00.   

There was some discussion as to whether Mr Johnston would prefer a suspension to a fine, but in the end he said that he preferred a fine to a suspension.

We adjourned to consider the matter of penalty.  We were satisfied that this breach could fairly be assessed as in the middle to high range, and that a fine in the vicinity of $300-00 to $350-00 would be appropriate.  We decided that a fine of $300-00 should be imposed in this case, and on returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that Mr Johnston was fined the sum of $300-00.

J.  M. Phelan

Chairman

67996

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.3.b

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 169210b6a66842be90bdac32bb4638b8

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 8

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 30b5b8d8f841a954b42d282b4dd83df4

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 17/05/2009

meet_title: Oamaru HRC - 17 May 2009

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: oamaru-hrc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Oamaru HRC