NZMTC 20 May R10

hearingid: e3d45cb927ff84e432152a21d5f3cf93

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZMTC 20 May R10

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 10, Nevele R Fillies Series (Final), an information was filed by Mr N R Escott, Chief Stipendiary Steward, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr R T May, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (4)

Following the running of Race 10, Nevele R Fillies Series (Final), an information was filed by Mr N R Escott, Chief Stipendiary Steward, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr R T May, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (4) in that Mr May, as the driver of MAINLAND BANNER in the Race, drove in a manner likely to cause interference when moving IN THE MIST (D J Butcher) out approximately 450 metres after the start.

Mr May did not admit the breach.

Mr Escott called Mr Butcher and, Stipendiary Steward, Mrs K R Williams to give evidence and Mrs Williams showed video replays of the incident. Mr May made submissions by way of a defence to the charge.

Following the hearing and after a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:

"Mr May has been charged with driving in a manner likely to cause interference by moving IN THE MIST, driven by D J Butcher, out approximately 450 metres after the start.

I stress the words "in a manner likely to cause interference". It was not alleged by the Stipendiary Stewards that any actual interference was caused and it is not necessary to prove actual interference to establish a charge under Rule 869 (4).

Mr Butcher stated that Mr May had tried to push him 3-wide when he was racing outside Mr May. Mr Butcher stated that he tried to hold his ground which, we believe, he was entitled to do. As a consequence, there was not enough room for Mr May's horse and it "went rough" and then eventually dropped in behind Mr Butcher who went on to take the lead which , Mr Butcher said, he had not intended to do. Mr Butcher said that Mr May's move caught him by surprise. He further said, and it is significant, that Mr May was not in a position to push him out.

Mrs Williams showed the video replays and it was her evidence that Mr May's actions in attempting to move Mr Butcher out were "abrupt", "not kind and gentle" and "not safe". Mr May had caused his own horse to break, Mrs Williams said.

Mr May said that he had an advantage over Mr Butcher and that he was entitled to come out. He said that he was out for 50 metres before he suffered interference when Mr Butcher moved back down. At that point, Mr May said, his horse's front legs made contact with the sulky wheel of Mr Butcher's horse.

The Committee found the evidence of Mr Butcher and Mrs Williams to be quite compelling. Their evidence was borne out, in the Committee's view, by the video evidence. The Committee is satisfied that Mr May was not in a position to attempt to move Mr Butcher out at the point he tried to do so. In doing so, he drove in a manner likely to cause interference because the manner in which he drove was unsafe and, were it not for Mr Butcher's skill and experience, the consequences could have been more serious.

On more than one occasion, Mr May referred to the fact that he was driving the hot favourite in the Race. We would like to point out to Mr May that this does not entitle him to take unwarranted risks that are likely to interfere with another runner or runners. Mr May, or any driver, is still expected to conform to the standards of a reasonable, prudent driver.

Accordingly, we find the charge of driving in a manner likely to cause interference to be proved."

Mr Escott said that Mr May had a good record over the past 12 months. He had received a suspension at Moonee Valley in July 2004 for causing a check while crossing. Mr Escott referred to the status of the Race ? a race for a stake of $100,000 at premier meeting. Mr May is a senior and experienced driver and does a lot of driving. Mr Escott stated that he recommended a fine rather than a suspension in this case. In the circumstances, he recommended a fine in the range of $750-1,000.

Mr May indicated that his preference was for a fine but he submitted that a fine of $750 for causing no actual interference was excessive. He also referred the Committee to his good driving record.

Following a brief deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision in relation to penalty:

"We have considered the submissions made by both parties in relation to penalty. While we accept Mr May's submission that no actual interference was caused, we must have regard to the provisions of Rule 1114 (2) (a) and (b). This was a Group 1 race for a stake of $100,000 and these are factors that we must have regard to in determining penalty.

We have also, by way of a mitigating factor, taken into account that Mr May is an experienced, senior horseman who, over the course of a season, has a large number of drives and his record, at least over the last 12 months, is an excellent one. We have given him credit for that.

Mr Escott stated that, in his view, a fine was appropriate and he suggested a range of $750-1,000. Mr May, for himself, expressed a preference for a fine. Mr May will be fined the sum of $750."

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 1114.2.a, 869.4

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: