NZ Metro TC 17 February 2011 – R 9 (heard at Rangiora on 6 March 2011)

hearingid: c4beec4b6a4d6cdc79d630f4e13b7c3e

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 17/02/2011

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 17 February 2011 - R 9 (heard at Rangiora on 6 March 2011)

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Stipendiary Steward N. M. Ydgren
Defendant: Mr R. D. Close – Junior Horseman
Information No: 69102
Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club
Date: 17 February 2011
Venue: Addington Raceway
Race No. 9: Burwood Cycles, 269 Burwood Road Mobile Pace
Rule No: 868(2)
Judicial Committee: J. M. Phelan Chairman R. G. McKenzie Committee Member
Plea: Not Admitted
Also Present: Mr R. D. Holmes – Licensed Trainer

Charge:
This matter was heard at the Cheviot Harness Racing Club’s race meeting at Rangiora Raceway on 6 March 2011.

Following the running of Race 9, the Burwood Cycles, 269 Burwood Road Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren against Mr R. D. Close, the driver of “Letsdanceupastorm” (12), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(2) in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to finish in the best possible place.

Mr Close is a Junior Horseman, and he was assisted at this hearing by Mr R. D. Holmes, who is the trainer of “Letsdanceupastorm”, and Mr Close’s employer.

The charge reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 868(2) in that R. Close (Letsdanceupastorm) failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that his horse was given full opportunity to win the race”

Rule 868(2) reads as follows.

”(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that his horse was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.”

Mr Close had indicated on the Information that he did not admit this breach of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Close also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

Facts:
Mr Ydgren opened this hearing by making lengthy submissions which can be summarised as follows.

Rule 868(2) is aimed at ensuring that the integrity of harness racing is protected. A driver has two main obligations, and they are to drive his horse in a manner that is both permissible and reasonable in order to gain the best possible finishing place, as an investor is entitled to have a driver do his best to gain a return from that investment.

Mr Ydgren referred to the 2005 case of HRNZ v. H where it was stated that –

“The Rule requires both a demonstration of tactics which can, by objective standards, be said to be both reasonable and permissible. Those have to be tactics which can be seen by not only the Stipendiary Stewards, but also those present at the racetrack, and in particular the betting public, to be tactics which are designed to give the horse every chance to finish in the best possible position that it can. The informant does not have to prove any deliberate intent not to win the race. There may be circumstances in which a drivers manner of driving may amount merely to a permissible error of tactics, but where that error of tactics amounts to bad judgement that results in disadvantage to his horse, then such manner of driving falls within the terms of the rule.”

Mr Ydgren went on to say that the Stipendiary Stewards did not have to prove any intent or deliberateness by Mr Close, but rather whether he made an error which would result in a reasonable thinking person asking the question as to why he did not move out earlier.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault used video coverage to illustrate this incident, and both he and Mr Ydgren gave evidence about the facts of the matter, and these can be summarised as follows.

This was a 1950 metre mobile start race and “Letsdanceupastorm” started from three (the outside) on the second line. From shortly after the start Mr Close was able to place his horse in the 1/1 position where he remained until the 450 metre mark. At that time “Hollywood Sue” moved up on his outside putting him in a pocket. In the straight Mr Close had difficulty in obtaining a clear run, but when he did he ran on well for fourth, finishing .8 of a length from the winner.

The Stipendiary Stewards case was that Mr Close should have moved his horse three wide at the 450 metre mark before “Hollywood Sue” moved up alongside him. This would have given Mr Close a clear run to the winning post. It was also the Stipendiary Stewards belief that had Mr Close moved out he would have finished in a better finishing position.

Mr Close, assisted by Mr Holmes, gave evidence that this was “Letsdanceupastorm’s” fourth race day start. It was a 4yo mare and it was described as “weak” and having a maximum sprinting ability if about 200 metres. The horse is part-owned by Mr Close and he has driven it in all four starts. At the previous start, which was also a mobile 1950 metre race on the same track, Mr Close had started to sprint from about the 350 metre mark, and it had weakened a little towards then end of the race, and finished in second place. After the race Mr Holmes said that he thought Mr Close had made his run too soon.

Video coverage of this horse’s previous three starts were shown, and it was stated that the horse could not be “used” during a race because it was weak and had a limited sprint.

It was also disputed that moving three wide at the 450 metre mark was a good option. It was pointed out that that this would have meant that the horse would have had to travel three wide for the last 450 metres, and this would have meant covering extra ground. There was also no guarantee that this option would have resulted in a clear run.

Mr Holmes said that he believed that Mr Close had been right to drive the horse the way that he did, as he was well aware of the horse’s limited abilities. There was no luck for Mr Close in the straight, and he had spent some time obtaining a clear run.

Submissions:
In his closing submissions Mr Ydgren said that Mr Close’s drive displayed bad judgement, and that this resulted in his horse finishing further back than it should have.

In his closing submissions Mr Holmes said that he believed that Mr Close had driven his horse in the best way possible having regard to the characteristics of the horse.

We adjourned to consider our decision.

Decision:
In considering our decision in this matter we carefully considered all the evidence and the video coverage. We accept that the passage Mr Ydgren quoted from HRNZ v. H is a correct statement of a drivers requirements under Rule 868(2).

In this particular case Mr Close’s failure to move his horse out at the 450 metre mark did require an explanation. However one cannot look at a driver’s actions in isolation. The character of the horse must also be taken into account. It is well known that every horse has its own idiosyncrasies and a driving style that might suit one horse might not suit another.

In the HRNZ v. H case the facts were on no way similar to the present case. We refer to three cases where a charge under this Rule was dismissed because of proven peculiarities of the horses concerned. These were the “Tough Nut”, “Boogies Barnett” and “Bold Jester” cases. In each of these cases there was evidence from the connections of each horse which clearly showed that the horse had to be driven in a particular way to have a chance of winning.

In the present case it may well be that a supporter of the horse would ask why Mr Close did not move his horse out at the 450 metre mark. The explanation from the persons who know the horse best is that to do so would have impaired its chances rather than assisting them.

We are satisfied that Mr Close was well aware of his horses abilities, and drove it in a way that was best suited to those abilities. Taking all the above matters into account we decided that this charge should be dismissed.

On resuming the hearing we gave the following oral decision.

“Having carefully considered the evidence and the video coverage, we are satisfied that “Letsdanceupastorm” finished 4th in this race, and that it had no luck in the home straight when looking for a clear run.

During the race “Letsdanceupastorm” raced in the 1/1. At about the 450 metre mark “Hollywood Sue” had moved up alongside it, putting it in a pocket. The Stipendiary Stewards case is that Mr Close should have moved out before this so that he could have a clear run later in the race. The driving tactics by Mr Close were described as “bad judgement”, damaging to the integrity of racing, and in breach of 868(2) which requires a driver to “take all reasonable and permissible measures” to obtain the best possible placing.

Mr Close gave evidence that he had driven this horse, which he part owns, in all of its previous three starts. Mr Holmes is the trainer. The horse is described as “weak” and having only a 200 metre sprint. At its previous start Mr Close had made a move at the 350 metre mark, and the horse had faded towards the end of the race. Mr Holmes said that he believed that Mr Close had made his move too early.

Mr Close said he made a conscious decision to remain in the 1/1 when he became pocketed at the 450 metre mark, as it was too early to move. He said that he had trouble getting clear in the straight, but ran on well.

We are satisfied that Mr Close has a thorough knowledge of this horse, and its limited ability to sustain a sprint for more than 200 metres. In our view Mr Close’s decision to remain where he was, rather than pull out, was a reasonable one, given his knowledge of his horses’ ability. We are satisfied that Mr Close did take all reasonable and permissible measures to win the race etc. and the charge is dismissed.”

Decision:
The charge was dismissed.

________________          __________________
J. M. Phelan                   R. G. McKenzie
Chairman                      Committee Member
 

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 868(2)

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: