NZ Metro TC – 7 October 2005 – Race 1

Following the running of Race 1, the Regency Tax & Duty Free Mobile Pace, an information was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mr B. D. Williams against Mr K. M. James the driver of "Kotare Jago" (3) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3) or 838(2). The charge reads as follows.

"I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 868(3) or 838(2) in that K. M. James (Kotare Jago) failed to drive his horse out over the concluding stages to finish in the best possible position."

Rules 869(2) and (3) read as follows.

"(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to

win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing pace.

(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 James had pleaded not guilty to these breaches of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr James also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charges.

Mr Williams gave evidence that Mr James was observed, over the concluding

stages of the race, to show little vigour in driving his horse out to the finish. The

end result was that Mr James's horse was run down near the end of the race and was

beaten by a ? head into 4^th place. "Kotare Jago" was the favourite for the race.

Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre gave evidence and used video coverage of

the race to show that Mr James was in the trail entering the straight and had full

access to the passing lane. He was seen to drive with the reins and sat up and

stopped driving his horse approximately 30 metres from the finish . Mr McIntyre

also illustrated that Mr James was carrying a whip which he did not use, it being at

all times tucked under his arm.

It was Mr McIntyre's belief that Mr James had a reasonable chance of running

3^rd and that he did not drive his horse out as required.

Mr James gave evidence that by the time he entered the straight his goggles were "completely covered" in mud, and that he had tried to pull his goggles down so that he could see better, but had been unable to do so. Mr James also said that he had not used his whip as he wanted to keep the reins in both hands. Mr James also said that his horse was lugging out, and that this affected the way he drove his horse.

Under cross-examination Mr James agreed that the problem with his goggles did not affect his ability to drive his horse out.

Mr Williams summarised the Informant's case as follows.

--

--
• Mr James did not drive his horse out over the last 30 metres.
--
• He did not use his whip or even attempt to, and Mr Williams said that if a driver carries a whip he has an obligation to at least try and use it.
--
• He did pull the ear plugs, and he did use the reins.

Mr James was given an opportunity to summarise his defence but did not wish to.

We then adjourned to consider our decision.

After we had reviewed the evidence and the video coverage we were satisfied that Mr James had not driven his horse out to the end of the race as required by the Rules. It is well established that the test 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.

On returning to the Enquiry Room we gave the following oral decision.

"Having heard the evidence and having seen the videos of the incident we are satisfied that, firstly, Mr James did not use the whip on his horse. Secondly Mr James stopped driving his horse about 30 metres from the finish and was beaten in to 4^th place by ? a head.

Mr James's explanation was that his goggles were covered in "slush" and that

this was a factor. However Mr James later agreed that this did not stop him from driving his horse out. We reject Mr James's explanation about the goggles.

Mr James also said that he didn?t use his whip as he wanted to keep the reins in both hands, and that his horse was lugging out. We also reject this evidence as it doesn?t amount to a defence to this charge.

We find that the charge under Rule 868(3) of failing to drive his horse out to be proved. The charge under Rule 868(2) is dismissed."

Mr James had no relevant submissions relating to penalty.

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 penalty was appropriate in the circumstances.

The recommended suspension of approximately 12 weeks would have expired after the completion of racing on 29 December 2005, which is in the middle of the Xmas ? New Year racing circuit. We determined that Mr James should be suspended from race driving from after the completion of racing on 9 October 2005 until after the completion of racing on 22 December 2005, which is effectively an 11 week suspension.

On returning the Enquiry Room we advised the parties of our decision.