Rangiora HRC – 2 February 2010 – Race 7
ID: JCA21455
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Rangiora HRC - 2 February 2010
Race Date:
2010/02/02
Race Number:
Race 7
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68705
--Meeting: Rangiora Harness Racing Club
--Date: 2 February 2010
--Venue: Addington Raceway
--Race No. 7: Good Craic @ Bailie’s Pace
--Rules: 868(3)
--Judicial Chairman: J. M. Phelan, Committee: J. Millar
Plea: Not admitted.
Appearing: Informant: Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren
Defendant: Mr C. J. De Filippi – Open Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 7, the Good Craic @ Bailie’s Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren against Mr C. J. De Filippi, the driver of “Baileys Pearl” (10), 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 Mr De Filippi stopped driving Bailies Pearl out with 30m to run whilst leading the race.”
--
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68705
--Meeting: Rangiora Harness Racing Club
--Date: 2 February 2010
--Venue: Addington Raceway
--Race No. 7: Good Craic @ Bailie’s Pace
--Rules: 868(3)
--Judicial Chairman: J. M. Phelan, Committee: J. Millar
Plea: Not admitted.
Appearing: Informant: Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren
Defendant: Mr C. J. De Filippi – Open Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 7, the Good Craic @ Bailie’s Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren against Mr C. J. De Filippi, the driver of “Baileys Pearl” (10), 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 Mr De Filippi stopped driving Bailies Pearl out with 30m to run whilst leading the race.”
--Rule 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 De Filippi had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted, and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr De Filippi also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
--As this was a serious charge Mr De Filippi was asked if he would prefer to have this matter heard at a later date, but he said that he preferred to have the hearing without any delay.
--Mr Ydgren gave evidence and used video coverage to show that “Baileys Pearl” had been in the lead when entering the home straight for the final time. Mr De Filippi had used his whip for the final time (it was established) about 35 metres from the winning post, after which he made no other efforts to drive his horse out. At this time Mr De Fillipi was still in the lead, but he was passed late in the race by “Breeny’s Luck” (6), and beaten by a nose. It could also be seen that Mr M. P. Jones, the driver of “Breeny’s Luck”, had driven his horse with vigour over the final stages of the race.
--The video coverage also showed that Mr De Fillipi had used his whip on a total of 12 occasions in the straight, and that the final three strikes were made in quick succession just before the final 35 metres of the race.
--It was the Stipendiary Stewards’ case that a driver in a race must take demonstrable and discernable actions to fully drive his horse out to the finish of a race. In this case, it was alleged, Mr De Filippi had driven his horse out in an appropriate manner until the final stages of the race, and had then sat up and stopped doing anything to drive his horse out over the final 35 metres of the race.
--Mr De Fillipi gave evidence that this was the first time he had driven this horse, and that the trainer had left it up to him as to how he drove it. He also said that he believed he had driven his horse out, and that the result of the race would have been the same regardless of what else he might have done.
--He said that his assessment during the race was that the horse on his back (“Breeny’s Luck”, the eventual winner) was the horse to beat. He said that he tried to put a break on this horse, and had used his whip to try and achieve this. With about 50 metres to run he had used his whip three more times, and didn’t believe it would have made any difference if he had used his whip over the final stages of the race.
--Mr Ydgren summarised his case as follows.
--- That Mr De Filippi did not fulfil his obligation to drive his horse out as required by the Rules, in that he took no discernable and demonstrable actions to do so.
- That there should have been some obvious urging of his horse to the finish of the race.
- That there was only a nose margin at the finish, although it would only be speculation as to whether Mr De Filippi’s horse would have won or not.
Mr De Filippi summarised his defence as follows.
--- That he did give his horse every chance in the race.
- That at the top of the straight he had tried to get a break on the field.
- That nothing would have changed had he done more.
We adjourned to consider our decision.
--After we had reviewed the evidence and the video coverage, we were satisfied that Mr De Filippi had not driven his horse out to the end of the race as required by the Rules. In particular we were concerned that Mr De Fillipi had clearly sat up and stopped driving his horse about 35 metres from the finish. It is well established that the test in a case such as this is an objective one, and an alleged breach of the Rule is to be considered by objective standards and not by the subjective views of the driver. The Rule requires a demonstration of tactics which can, by objective standards, be said to show that a horse was driven out to the end of the race. Mr De Filippi’s explanation for not driving his horse out over the final 35 metres of the race was not convincing.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having heard the evidence and having seen the video coverage we are satisfied that “Baileys Pearl” finished second in this race, beaten by a nose. The charge is that Mr De Filippi failed to drive his horse out to the end of the race.
--The evidence was that Mr De Filippi led into the straight, and used his whip on 12 occasions from that point until about 35 metres from the finish. At that point Mr De Filippi took no further actions to urge his horse on.
--It was the Stipendiary Stewards’ case that Mr De Filippi did not drive his horse out over the final 30 metres as required by Rule 868(3).
--Mr De Filippi said that he gave his horse every chance in the race.
--We are satisfied that at the time Mr De Filippi stopped driving his horse he still held a narrow lead.
--A driver in a race must, we believe, show clearly that his horse is being fully tried. We are satisfied that Mr De Filippi did not drive his horse out to the finish of the race, and we find the charge proved.”
--Penalty:
--Mr Ydgren advised us that Mr De Filippi had no relevant previous convictions, and that the Penalty Guide recommended as a starting point for a breach of this Rule as being a fine of $500-00 and/or a four week suspension.
--There were discussions as to whether Mr De Filippi would prefer a fine as opposed to a suspension, and he made it quite clear that he would prefer a fine. Mr Ydgren then recommended that a fine of between $600-00 and $750-00 should be imposed.
--In his submissions Mr De Filippi pointed out that this was a Tuesday meeting and that the stake for the race was $3500-00. He also suggested that the smaller the fine the better as far as he was concerned.
--We adjourned to consider our decision on penalty.
--We were satisfied that this charge is relatively serious, and on checking previous penalties for a breach of this Rule noted that penalties imposed have been quite severe. We were also satisfied that a breach of this particular Rule invariably jeopardises the integrity of harness racing, and this is one of the specific matters which we must have regard to when assessing penalty; see Rule 1114(2)(d). It is expected that all participants in a race will be given every possible opportunity by their drivers and that when the race has been run all participating horses will have been fully tested.
--We were satisfied that the recommended range suggested for a fine was appropriate in the circumstances. We took into account that this was a $3500-00 race and that Mr De Filippi has no previous convictions under this Rule.
--Taking all the above matters into account we determined that an appropriate penalty in this case was a fine of $600-00. On returning the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that Mr De Filippi was fined the sum of $600-00.
--
J. M. Phelan J. Millar
CHAIR Committee Member
68705
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: bbfe0617d26c93ad1b6f92c1e232063c
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 02/02/2010
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Rangiora HRC - 2 February 2010 - Race 7
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68705
--Meeting: Rangiora Harness Racing Club
--Date: 2 February 2010
--Venue: Addington Raceway
--Race No. 7: Good Craic @ Bailie’s Pace
--Rules: 868(3)
--Judicial Chairman: J. M. Phelan, Committee: J. Millar
Plea: Not admitted.
Appearing: Informant: Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren
Defendant: Mr C. J. De Filippi – Open Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 7, the Good Craic @ Bailie’s Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren against Mr C. J. De Filippi, the driver of “Baileys Pearl” (10), 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 Mr De Filippi stopped driving Bailies Pearl out with 30m to run whilst leading the race.”
--
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68705
--Meeting: Rangiora Harness Racing Club
--Date: 2 February 2010
--Venue: Addington Raceway
--Race No. 7: Good Craic @ Bailie’s Pace
--Rules: 868(3)
--Judicial Chairman: J. M. Phelan, Committee: J. Millar
Plea: Not admitted.
Appearing: Informant: Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren
Defendant: Mr C. J. De Filippi – Open Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 7, the Good Craic @ Bailie’s Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren against Mr C. J. De Filippi, the driver of “Baileys Pearl” (10), 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 Mr De Filippi stopped driving Bailies Pearl out with 30m to run whilst leading the race.”
--Rule 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 De Filippi had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted, and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr De Filippi also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
--As this was a serious charge Mr De Filippi was asked if he would prefer to have this matter heard at a later date, but he said that he preferred to have the hearing without any delay.
--Mr Ydgren gave evidence and used video coverage to show that “Baileys Pearl” had been in the lead when entering the home straight for the final time. Mr De Filippi had used his whip for the final time (it was established) about 35 metres from the winning post, after which he made no other efforts to drive his horse out. At this time Mr De Fillipi was still in the lead, but he was passed late in the race by “Breeny’s Luck” (6), and beaten by a nose. It could also be seen that Mr M. P. Jones, the driver of “Breeny’s Luck”, had driven his horse with vigour over the final stages of the race.
--The video coverage also showed that Mr De Fillipi had used his whip on a total of 12 occasions in the straight, and that the final three strikes were made in quick succession just before the final 35 metres of the race.
--It was the Stipendiary Stewards’ case that a driver in a race must take demonstrable and discernable actions to fully drive his horse out to the finish of a race. In this case, it was alleged, Mr De Filippi had driven his horse out in an appropriate manner until the final stages of the race, and had then sat up and stopped doing anything to drive his horse out over the final 35 metres of the race.
--Mr De Fillipi gave evidence that this was the first time he had driven this horse, and that the trainer had left it up to him as to how he drove it. He also said that he believed he had driven his horse out, and that the result of the race would have been the same regardless of what else he might have done.
--He said that his assessment during the race was that the horse on his back (“Breeny’s Luck”, the eventual winner) was the horse to beat. He said that he tried to put a break on this horse, and had used his whip to try and achieve this. With about 50 metres to run he had used his whip three more times, and didn’t believe it would have made any difference if he had used his whip over the final stages of the race.
--Mr Ydgren summarised his case as follows.
--- That Mr De Filippi did not fulfil his obligation to drive his horse out as required by the Rules, in that he took no discernable and demonstrable actions to do so.
- That there should have been some obvious urging of his horse to the finish of the race.
- That there was only a nose margin at the finish, although it would only be speculation as to whether Mr De Filippi’s horse would have won or not.
Mr De Filippi summarised his defence as follows.
--- That he did give his horse every chance in the race.
- That at the top of the straight he had tried to get a break on the field.
- That nothing would have changed had he done more.
We adjourned to consider our decision.
--After we had reviewed the evidence and the video coverage, we were satisfied that Mr De Filippi had not driven his horse out to the end of the race as required by the Rules. In particular we were concerned that Mr De Fillipi had clearly sat up and stopped driving his horse about 35 metres from the finish. It is well established that the test in a case such as this is an objective one, and an alleged breach of the Rule is to be considered by objective standards and not by the subjective views of the driver. The Rule requires a demonstration of tactics which can, by objective standards, be said to show that a horse was driven out to the end of the race. Mr De Filippi’s explanation for not driving his horse out over the final 35 metres of the race was not convincing.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having heard the evidence and having seen the video coverage we are satisfied that “Baileys Pearl” finished second in this race, beaten by a nose. The charge is that Mr De Filippi failed to drive his horse out to the end of the race.
--The evidence was that Mr De Filippi led into the straight, and used his whip on 12 occasions from that point until about 35 metres from the finish. At that point Mr De Filippi took no further actions to urge his horse on.
--It was the Stipendiary Stewards’ case that Mr De Filippi did not drive his horse out over the final 30 metres as required by Rule 868(3).
--Mr De Filippi said that he gave his horse every chance in the race.
--We are satisfied that at the time Mr De Filippi stopped driving his horse he still held a narrow lead.
--A driver in a race must, we believe, show clearly that his horse is being fully tried. We are satisfied that Mr De Filippi did not drive his horse out to the finish of the race, and we find the charge proved.”
--Penalty:
--Mr Ydgren advised us that Mr De Filippi had no relevant previous convictions, and that the Penalty Guide recommended as a starting point for a breach of this Rule as being a fine of $500-00 and/or a four week suspension.
--There were discussions as to whether Mr De Filippi would prefer a fine as opposed to a suspension, and he made it quite clear that he would prefer a fine. Mr Ydgren then recommended that a fine of between $600-00 and $750-00 should be imposed.
--In his submissions Mr De Filippi pointed out that this was a Tuesday meeting and that the stake for the race was $3500-00. He also suggested that the smaller the fine the better as far as he was concerned.
--We adjourned to consider our decision on penalty.
--We were satisfied that this charge is relatively serious, and on checking previous penalties for a breach of this Rule noted that penalties imposed have been quite severe. We were also satisfied that a breach of this particular Rule invariably jeopardises the integrity of harness racing, and this is one of the specific matters which we must have regard to when assessing penalty; see Rule 1114(2)(d). It is expected that all participants in a race will be given every possible opportunity by their drivers and that when the race has been run all participating horses will have been fully tested.
--We were satisfied that the recommended range suggested for a fine was appropriate in the circumstances. We took into account that this was a $3500-00 race and that Mr De Filippi has no previous convictions under this Rule.
--Taking all the above matters into account we determined that an appropriate penalty in this case was a fine of $600-00. On returning the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that Mr De Filippi was fined the sum of $600-00.
--
J. M. Phelan J. Millar
CHAIR Committee Member
68705
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 868.3, 1114.2.d
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 24f78020170a3133493110d887822cd6
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: c515ba2f51c2814fd809fdf841911822
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 02/02/2010
meet_title: Rangiora HRC - 2 February 2010
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: rangiora-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Rangiora HRC