Non-Raceday Inquiry – L Neal

hearingid: d81760d81e5c7694283ef96fab7a60f5

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non-Raceday Inquiry - L Neal

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

An Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward, Mr JM Muirhead against Mrs LM Neal the driver of Citra Jati alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that by her actions and/or displaying a lack of vigour when driving Citra Jati over the concluding stages of Race 1 at the Taranaki Trotting Club's Meeting on the 18^th of December 2005, Mrs Neal failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times to ensure that Citra Jati had full opportunity to win the race.

Mrs Neal denied the breach of the Rule.

Rule 868 (2) states ? Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.

Present at this Hearing were the following:

Mrs LM Neal represented by Mr M Branch

Mr JM Muirhead appeared for the Informant

Witnesses called at the Hearing were Mr TW Taumanu, Stipendiary Steward for HRNZ and Mr AP Neal as a witness for Mrs Neal.

This information was first called before the Judicial Committee at the Auckland Trotting Club's Meeting on Saturday the 31^st of December 2005 and adjourned by that Committee to be heard at Cambridge Raceway on Friday the 20^th of January 2006 to allow the parties reasonable time to prepare for the Hearing.

This Committee was presented with copies of Mr Muirhead's letter of the 27^th of December 2005 to the Acting General Manager of Harness Racing New Zealand requesting permission to lodge the within information and a letter from Harness Racing New Zealand dated the 28^th of December 2005 giving permission to lodge the information. This satisfied the provisions of Rule 1103 (4)(c).

Mr Muirhead in presenting his case said that this was a serious charge relating to the actions of Mrs Neal when driving Citra Jati in Race 1 at the Taranaki Trotting Club's Meeting on the 18^th of December 2005. Mr Muirhead produced the official results sheet showing that Citra Jati ran second to Braig and that the margin between the two horses was half a head. Mr Muirhead said that he watched Race 1 on the day and he was concerned about Mrs Neal's drive and he considered that she hadn?t driven the horse in such a manner as to give it every opportunity to win. He further stated that her actions were at best bad judgment and that there might even be probable intent.

Mr Muirhead produced to this Committee three video films of three different races that Citra Jati had competed in. Those films were when Citra Jati won at Cambridge Raceway on the 15^th of December 2005, the race that is the subject of this enquiry and when Citra Jati ran third at Cambridge Raceway on the 24^th of December 2005. Mr Muirhead spent some time showing the Committee the three videos and demonstrated the apparent lack of vigour that Mrs Neal appeared to show at the Taranaki Meeting when compared with her drives at the two Cambridge Meetings. Mr Muirhead also pointed out to the Committee that the winning stake for the Taranaki Race was $2,500.00 whereas the winning stake for the Cambridge Race on the 15^th of December 2005 was $3,650.00 and the winning stake for the Cambridge Race on the 24^th of December 2005 was $3,345.00. Mr Muirhead also stated that Citra Jati was a five win horse and the tightessed assessed horse in the race and that if it had won then it would be subject to a re-handicap.

Mr Muirhead did advise this Committee that he was not suggesting any intent on Mrs Neal's part but rather was saying that she had an opportunity to win the race which she did not take and did not take all reasonable and permissible measures to enable Citra Jati to win the race.

Mr Muirhead produced to this Committee a copy of the Racing Programme for the Taranaki Trotting Club Meeting on the 18^th of December 2005 together with the approved programmes for the Morrinsville Trotting Club Meeting on December the 15^th 2005 and the Cambridge Te Awamutu Trotting Club Meeting on the 24^th of December 2005. Mr Muirhead produced the official results sheets for both the Morrinsville and Cambridge Meetings as well.

Mr Muirhead provided this Committee with copies of previous decisions relating to Rule 868 (2) concerning Mr WE Higgs on the 18^th of February 2005, Mrs SM Fenning on the 28^th of February 2003 and the Appeal by Mrs Fenning on the 16^th of April 2003.

Mr Muirhead under cross examination by Mr Branch stated that Citra Jati was under a good hold on the turn and accelerated easily when coming into the home straight and was probably bolting.

Mr Muirhead was asked about the decision concerning Mr GA Martin and the Appeal from the Martin decision. Mr Muirhead stated that he didn?t have a problem with the test set out in the Martin Appeal decision relating to Rule 868 (2). Mr Muirhead again stated that he thought that Mrs Neal's actions in driving Citra Jati appeared to be unreasonable and as far as he was concerned he knew that her actions were unreasonable. When asked about the films Mr Muirhead acknowledged that the side-on film looked worse in relation to vigour and the use of the whip by Mrs Neal but that the use of the whip could be seen more clearly in the head-on film.

Mr Muirhead was also asked if he recalled from the Fenning Decision the types of measures that were permissible when using the whip. These were waving the whip in the air, hitting the sulky shaft and/or hitting the horse. Mr Muirhead acknowledged those elements but stated that although Mrs Neal used the whip she did not use it in a manner that he thought she should have and certainly did not display sufficient vigour.

Mr Muirhead also stated that he did watch the Race but did not call Mrs Neal into the Enquiry Room at the time. He spoke to her later and spoke about the hanging problems that he was aware that Citra Jati had and that Mrs Neal would have to do something about the horse's hanging tendencies and he also told her that he was unhappy with her drive.

Mr Muirhead said that although he did not open an enquiry into the incident on the day, he did in fact discuss it during the day with Mr Carmichael the Racecourse Inspector and requested Mr Carmichael to obtain certain information for him.

Mr Muirhead said that following the meeting Mr Escott the Chief Stipendiary Steward, had instructed him to open an enquiry into Mrs Neal's drive. Mr Muirhead was of the understanding that there had been some telephone calls to HRNZ concerning the drive and Mr Muirhead was told to amend the Stipendiary Steward's Race Day Report to include a statement that an enquiry had been opened into Mrs Neal's drive behind Citra Jati. This was despite the fact that the original Report prepared by Mr Muirhead did not have anything in it concerning an enquiry.

Mr Muirhead acknowledged that there was nothing stopping him opening an enquiry and in fact charging Mrs Neal on Race Day but he pointed out that he had 12 months from Race Day to do this.

Mr Muirhead was asked why he needed to look at the previous film of Citra Jati's race at Cambridge and was he happy with the drive at Taranaki otherwise. He said he was not happy with the Taranaki drive and he used the film of the previous Cambridge Race and the subsequent Race to show that horse could be driven under a more vigorous drive. Mr Muirhead was also asked about the difference in track conditions between the Taranaki track and Cambridge Raceway and he did not think that the track conditions made any difference. In his evidence Mr Muirhead had endeavoured to show that the winner, Braig, had trotted roughly in the straight whereas Citra Jati in his opinion appeared to be trotting very smoothly and did not have any difficulty with the track at all. Mr Muirhead did not believe that Citra Jati was hanging and that Mrs Neal was holding the horse with the left rein to prevent it from running out. In respect to the Taranaki track, he did state that it was classed as officially slushy at the start of the day and then later on upgraded to easy. Mr Muirhead did acknowledge that the Taranaki track has always been known to be shifty.

Mr Muirhead called Stipendiary Steward Mr TW Taumanu as an expert witness. Mr Taumanu acknowledged that he was not at the Taranaki Trotting Club Meeting on the day in question and he had only had an opportunity to watch the race on the films that were presented to this Committee. He stated that in his opinion Mrs Neal had not done enough as far as her drive was concerned and he could understand why she was present today facing the charge under Rule 868 (2).

Mr Taumanu acknowledged that Citra Jati had a few little funny traits but did have ability and he did not think that the horse was giving Mrs Neal any driving problems. Mr Taumanu stated that in respect to the state of the track that trotters cope better with off tracks than pacers.

Mr Taumanu in answer to Mr Branch acknowledged the actions of the other drivers in the race and in particular Mr W Chittenden, the driver of the third horse, in that he only slapped his horse with the reins.

Mr Branch called Mrs Neal to give evidence and in her opening statement she said that regardless of how the drive looked, that there was an explanation.

Mrs Neal said that the Taranaki track is a sand track and it had been raining very heavily over night and she understood that approximately five inches of rain had fallen. Mrs Neal was aware that rain will often compact an all weather track but she believed that this track was different and that as a result of the very heavy rain it became patchy.

Mrs Neal stated that her husband and herself drove to the races on that day from Cambridge and weren?t fully aware of the extent of the track conditions until they arrived. She also stated that one of the Stipendiary Stewards on the day commented on how bad the track was. In her opinion the track for Race 1 was at it's worst for the day.

Mrs Neal also advised that her horse was wearing special shoes known as "FLIP FLOP" shoes. These were on the front hooves and her horse had plain steel shoes behind. Mrs Neal produced the shoes at the Hearing to show the Committee and acknowledged that she was remiss in advising the Stipendiary Stewards on the day that the shoes might have contributed to her horse's difficulties with the track.

Mrs Neal stated that her horse was travelling well behind Braig up to the home turn but when she pulled the horse it ran outwards in the straight. She stated that she had to hold onto it tightly with the left rein to prevent it from running out further and that it does have that tendency from time to time. She also stated that her horse had slipped in the straight because of the track conditions and she pointed this out in the film of the race. Mrs Neal said that she had tried to drive her horse out despite it's hanging tendencies and the track conditions and in fact she thought that she might have just got up and won the race. She was adamant as far as the track conditions were concerned that the track was messy on top.

Mrs Neal stated that the flip flop shoes would have contributed to her horse slipping in that it had only worn those shoes this season. She commented that although the horse had won at Cambridge on the 15^th of December 2005 and ran third on the 24^th of December 2005, that those were on a hard and fast dry track on each occasion. In Mrs Neal's opinion the track conditions at Taranaki were significantly worse and contributed greatly to the situation. She also commented on the Taranaki race being three days after the Cambridge win and that her horse didn?t feel as good at Taranaki.

Mrs Neal stated that Mr Muirhead came down to see her husband and herself after Race 9 on the 15^th of December 2005 at the Taranaki Meeting and she assumed it was to give them a warning about the performance of their other horse, Summer Dreaming. Mr Muirhead did warn them about Summer Dreaming and in the conversation told them that he was aware of Citra Jati's tendencies to hang out and that she was driving it on one rein but that they would have to do something about Citra Jati's tendencies because it didn?t look good as far as the public were concerned.

Mrs Neal was quite certain that Mr Muirhead had not mentioned anything about her drive and had certainly not told her that he was not happy with the drive.

Mrs Neal also pointed out that she was using the whip and that she was using sufficient vigour on her horse considering the circumstances. She also pointed out the actions of the other drivers in the race and the lack of vigour from a number of them and again pointed to the track conditions. Mrs Neal stated that she did hit her horse at least twice in the straight and she did think that she was doing everything possible on the day and was trying to win the race.

Mrs Neal also stated that at lunch time the next day she had checked the Stipendiary Steward's Report on the HRNZ website in relation to the warning for Summer Dreaming. She noted that there was no comment as far as Citra Jati was concerned. She also advised that some time later a friend of Mr and Mrs Neal who was staying with them looked at the Stipendiary Steward's Report and told her that an investigation had been opened into the running of Citra Jati. This came as a complete surprise to her.

Mrs Neal finally stated that she had to both hold her horse together with the left rein and she was trying to drive it with the right hand but was concerned to ensure that her horse didn?t break. She drew the Committee's attention to the distance between her horse and third horse and said that if she had of broken then she would have most likely lost her position as a result of the "lapped on Rule".

Mr Andrew Neal was called to give evidence and he confirmed that Mr Muirhead had called down to the stables after Race 9 to see Mrs Neal and himself. Mr Muirhead gave them a warning about Summer Dreaming.

Mr Neal confirmed also that Mr Muirhead had said that they would have to try to get Citra Jati's steering problems corrected because he had noted that Mrs Neal was holding the horse with one hand and driving with the other. He said that it didn?t look good as far as the public were concerned.

Mr Neal was asked if he heard Mr Muirhead say that he wasn?t happy with the drive and he said no.

In summary Mr Muirhead stated that a driver must take all reasonable and permissible measures to achieve the best possible position in a race and that the test is an objective one to be tested by an objective standard. He submitted that as far as the Informant was concerned he needed to prove more than an error of judgment and as far as he was concerned Mrs Neal had not met the required standard.

Mr Branch, in his summary pointed out that Mr Muirhead had not taken any steps concerning the drive on Race Day and that the investigation was only instigated after the instruction from Mr Escott.

Mr Branch pointed out that the side-on view of the race looked worse than the head-on but that the later view showed that Mrs Neal was taking all steps required of her to win.

This Judicial Committee has taken into account all of the evidence put before it and is also helped by the copies of previous decisions that have been provided by Mr Muirhead and Mr Branch. The GA Martin Appeal Decision is of particular benefit to us particularly because of the way in which the Appeal Committee set out the test in relation to Rule 868 (2).

Mr Muirhead has said that this is a serious charge and that Mrs Neal has not taken all reasonable and permissible measures but despite that he did not open an enquiry on Race Day nor did he charge Mrs Neal on Race Day. Mr Muirhead stated that he told Mrs Neal after Race 9 that he was not happy with her drive but this was refuted in evidence by both Mr and Mrs Neal. This Committee notes that the prosecution of this matter only arose at the instruction of Mr Escott and then possibly only because of some public pressure relating to the drive. We believe that Mr Muirhead was satisfied with the drive on Race Day and that he was aware of Citra Jati's particular tendencies and indeed the evidence has borne this out in that he spoke to Mr and Mrs Neal about this after Race 9.

Citra Jati was in Race 1 on the day and if this was a serious offence then this Committee is at a loss to understand why nothing was said to Mrs Neal until after Race 9 and why a formal investigation was not opened on the day.

It goes without saying that this Committee takes a dim view of the Race Day Stipendiary Steward's Report being amended to show the opening of an investigation which in fact did not occur. The integrity of Stipendiary Steward's Reports on the HRNZ website is most important as far as this Committee is concerned and it would appear that this Report in its amended version is incorrect.

We accept that, looked at objectively and particularly viewing the side-on film it might appear that the drive by Mrs Neal was unreasonable. The margin of the finish between first and second place would also contribute to this.

We are however clearly of the view that the charge has not been proven and that it is dismissed for the following reasons:

(a) Mrs Neal gave evidence that the track conditions were slushy and that her horse slipped in the straight. She also stated that her horse was hanging and that she had to hold tightly on the left rein to prevent him running out and that she used the right hand to try to drive the horse out. This evidence in our view is corroborated by Mr Muirhead's conversation with Mr and Mrs Neal after Race 9 on Race Day and we accept this evidence.

(b) Mrs Neal thought that if her horse galloped then it would be relegated as a result of the lapped on Rule. Mrs Neal also pointed to the other drivers in the race who were in her view driving to the conditions and we accept this evidence.

(c) Mr Muirhead did not take any steps on Race Day as far as the drive was concerned and as stated above he acknowledged that he was aware of the difficulties that Mrs Neal was experiencing. It is surprising in our view that as a result of that acknowledgement and the lack of any action on Race Day that this information should have subsequently been laid.

(d) The circumstances relating to the enquiry into this matter at the direction of Mr Escott suggests to us that although Mr Escott and/or members of the public might have had some concerns about the drive that Mr Muirhead being the Chief Stipendiary Steward on the day did not.

(e) It is clear that when one takes into account the horses tendencies, the actions of the other drivers in the race and the track conditions that Mrs Neal was taking all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best possible finishing place.

For the above reasons the information is dismissed.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 868.2, 1103.4.c

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: