hearingid: d46125de48b041ddb91a83d7dd09a299

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 15/06/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Rangiora HRC - 15 June 2010 - R 8

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: G B Bull, Licensed Advanced Amateur Driver

Information No: 68984

Meeting: Rangiora Harness Racing Club

Date: 15 June 2010

Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Race: 8

Rule No: 862 (2) and 869 (2) (a)

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - S C Ching, Committee Member

Plea: Not Admitted

Also present:

FACTS:

Following the running of Race 8, 3 TAB’S Bishopdale-Bush Inn-Holy Grail Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mrs K R Williams, against Licensed Advanced Amateur Driver, Mr G B Bull, alleging breaches of Rule 862 (2) and Rule 869 (2) (a) in that Mr Bull, as the driver of GUERASSIMOFF in the race, “permitted his horse to start from 2 on the second line when it was drawn the unruly position and used his whip unnecessarily on a beaten runner”.

Mr Bull was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he did not admit either breach.

Rule 862 provides as follows:

(2)     No horseman shall permit a horse to start and no horse shall start other than from its correct barrier position (either at a standing or mobile start), unless directed by the Starter in accordance with Rule 860 (8).

Rule 869 provides as follows:

(2)   No horseman shall during any race:-

       (a)    use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner.

SUBMISSIONS:

Mrs Williams pointed out that the information contained two separate charges under two different Rules and in respect of separate incidents.

She referred to Rule 860 (5) which provides:

Unless otherwise directed by a Stipendiary Steward, a horse declared to be unruly shall be placed:

(a)  in the case of a mobile start from the second line no closer in than barrier five.

Mrs Williams said that Mr Bull appeared to draw up into position 2 on the second row behind the mobile gate behind STAR MACH (B J Lilley), which had drawn 2 on the front line, and certainly did not appear to draw up behind the horses that had drawn 5 and wider, as required. Mrs Williams referred the Committee to the official race book for the meeting which showed GUERASSIMOFF as having drawn Unruly 1. She showed a video replay which clearly showed that the horse had started from barrier position 2 on the second line.

Mr Bull stated that he knew his horse was number 12. He did not finish work until late and, when he got to the course, he did not get a race book. The trainer, Mr R C Rochford, had not told him the horse was unruly and, therefore, he assumed that he was drawn at position 2 on the second line, the 11 horse being a scratching. He told the trainer that he would follow out STAR MACH and, again, the trainer had said nothing. He conceded that the correct barrier position for the horse was Unruly 1 but it was too late now, he said.

On the charge under Rule 869 (2) (a), Mrs Williams said that the Stewards were alleging that Mr Bull had used the whip on a clearly beaten runner. She used video replays and pointed out GUERASSIMOFF, driven by Mr Bull, last on the markers turning into the home straight. The horse continued to give ground but Mr Bull, thereafter, used the whip on 14 occasions before the video coverage ended. Mr Bull could be seen to look to see that there was no runner behind him – he was clearly not going to run in a stakes or dividend-bearing placing. The horse was running in last placing and not improving its position on any other runner.

In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr Bull freely acknowledged that, to an observer, the horse was an obviously beaten runner.

Mr Bull said that the trainer had told him the horse was lazy and he, Mr Bull, did not want the horse to think it was acceptable to stop before the winning post. Turning into the straight, he said, he gave the horse “4 or 5 good ones” and after that was just “touching” the shaft. He acknowledged to the Committee that he was aware of the guidelines in relation to hitting the shaft rather than the horse. 

REASONS:

In relation to the charge under Rule 862 (2) the Committee rejected Mr Bull’s explanation as a defence. It is incumbent on any driver, amateur drivers included, to do his “homework” and be aware, before going to the start, of the barrier position that his horse is to start from. Mr Bull admitted that the horse had started from barrier 2 on the second line and not from its correct Unruly 1 position, and this was obvious from the video replay. There was no merit whatsoever in Mr Bull’s defence and he had committed a clear breach of the Rule.

In relation to the charge under Rule 869 (2) (a) of using his whip in an unnecessary manner, Mr Bull’s defence was rejected. The horse was clearly a beaten runner when Mr Bull commenced using his whip and the horse did not improve its position despite Mr Bull’s continuing to use the whip. Mr Bull admitted this. There is no justification for using the whip that many times on a horse that is in last position and is never going to improve its position. The Stewards have clearly proved the charge.

DECISION:

Both charges were found proved.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:

Mrs Williams said that she believed that there were three more meetings at which a race for amateur drivers was to be held between today and the end of the season. She submitted that an appropriate penalty for the breach of Rule 869 (2) would be a suspension until the end of the current racing season – in line with the penalties imposed earlier on Messrs Lilley and Maynard for breaches of the whip Rule. Mr Bull had been fined $250 on 30 June 2009 for excessive use of the whip.

In relation to the other charge, Mrs Williams submitted that an appropriate penalty was a fine of $250.

REASONS:

The Committee was satisfied that a term of suspension was an appropriate penalty for the whip offence, in the circumstances of the case. The maximum penalty that could be imposed by way of a suspension was a suspension to the end of the current season.

Anything less than that would be an inadequate penalty for the particular breach. The Committee saw the need for consistency in dealing with penalty and had regard to the penalties imposed on Messrs Lilley and Maynard.

In respect of the breach of Rule 862 (2), the Committee referred to the Penalty Guide which recommended, as a starting point, a fine of $400. The Committee took into account Mr Bull’s amateur status and, also, Mrs Williams’ submission for a fine of $250 which, the Committee believed, was appropriate for the particular breach.

PENALTY:

In respect of the breach of Rule 869 (2) (a), Mr Bull’s Advanced Amateur Driver’s Licence was suspended from after the close of racing on this raceday up to and including 31 July 2010 which period will encompass, we believe, a maximum of 3 race drives for Mr Bull.

In respect of the breach of Rule 862 (2), Mr Bull was fined the sum of $250.

R G McKenzie                  S C Ching

Chairman                        Committee Member

68984 

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 862(2) & 869(2)(a)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: a3fb01c579454bee587911e2cc3612a5

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R 8

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 015b1b6e791a827866bac47b019b54a9

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 15/06/2010

meet_title: Rangiora HRC - 15 June 2010

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: rangiora-hrc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair: tom

meet_pm1: tom

meet_pm2: tom

name: Rangiora HRC