HR Waikato 17 November 2016 – R 4 (heard on 1 December 2016 at Cambridge) Chair, Mr A Dooley
ID: JCA22236
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr S Mulcay - Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Mr GA Martin – Open Horseman/Trainer
Information No: A3743
Meeting: Harness Racing Waikato
Date: 17 November 2016 (heard on 1 December 2016 at Cambridge Raceway)
Venue: Cambridge
Race: 4
Rule: 868(2) & 868(1)
Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley (Chairman), Mr A Godsalve (Committee Member)
Appearing: Mr JM Muirhead – Stipendiary Steward as a witness
Plea: Admitted Rule 868(2) and Denied Rule 868(1)
Date of Hearing: 1 December 2016 - 3 hours prior to race 1
Date of Decision: 7 December 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Charge:
Information No A3743
THAT on 17 November 2016 at a race meeting conducted by Harness Racing Waikato at Cambridge in Race 4 [Rule 868(1)] Mr G Martin caused or permitted DANKE to be run other than on its merits as a result of his actions and/or lack of actions over the final 200 metres. AND/OR [Rule 868(2)] in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures over the final 200 metres to ensure DANKE was given full opportunity to win the race. An alleged breach of Rule 868(1) AND/OR 868(2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing.
Rule – 868(1) provides: No person, including a horseman shall run a horse or cause or permit a horse to be run other than on its merits.
Rule – 868(2) provides: “ 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 place.
Mr Martin acknowledged that he understood the Rules and he told the Committee that he admitted the breach of Rule 868(2) and he denied the breach of Rule 868(1).
Mr Martin said that he had obtained some legal advice regarding the charges and added that it would have been too costly for the Lawyers to be present at the hearing.
Submissions for Decision:
Summary of Facts by Mr Mulcay
G Martin was the driver of DANKE in Race 4 “ Rotary Cambridge Handicap Trot” at the Harness Racing Waikato Inc’s meeting held at Cambridge Raceway 17/11/16.
The race was run over 2200 metres from a standing start.
DANKE started from barrier 1 off the front and was placed 2nd by the Judge beaten a neck.
Stewards opened an investigation into Mr Martin’s drive and in particular in relation to his apparent lack of vigour over the final stages.
After taking initial evidence from Mr Martin and viewing the replays Stewards issued Mr Martin with 2 charges - Rule 868 (1) “in that he caused or permitted his gelding to be run other than on its merits as a result of his actions and/or lack of actions over the final 200m” and/or Rule 868 (2) “in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures over the final 200m to ensure his gelding was given fill opportunity to win the race.”
The Judicial Committee opened a hearing before adjourning the matter to a date and venue to be fixed.
The Stewards had no objection to an adjournment given the seriousness of the charges. Mr Martin advised the Judicial Committee that he would need some time to seek legal advice on the matter.
Rule 1106 (1)(b) states “An information may allege one or more breach of these rules.” These charges are laid in the alternative.
It is acknowledged that the Burden of Proof lies with the Informant to establish the respective charges to the required Standard of Proof.
This standard is specified in Rule 1008A “Where in any proceeding, any matter is required to be proved by an informant or defendant, the standard of proof shall be the balance of probabilities.” However the Informant acknowledges the accepted legal principle of a greater standard of proof being required and in particular for the charge under Rule 868 (1) given the serious nature of the likely consequential effects on Mr Martin should this charge be found to be proved.
Contained in the transcript of the interview with Mr Martin is his explanation in relation to him putting the stick away some distance short of the winning post before then turning it around again when challenged wide by eventual winner LITTLE BRO. This on Page 2 when asked by myself and again on Page 9 when questioned by Mr Muirhead. His explanation was that DANKE was “all done”.
Mr Martin goes on to say that the gelding would have galloped if tested with the whip and for that reason he did not strike DANKE other than to “flick” him about “40 or 50 before the line.” Mr Martin was unable to demonstrate this on the replays to the Stewards’ satisfaction.
Mr Martin concedes on several occasions that he has driven DANKE vigorously with the reins in the gelding’s recent racing (Pages 5, 6 & 8). He further concedes that DANKE had not galloped on every occasion that he had struck the gelding with the whip in its recent racing (Page 7).
Mr Martin had no objection with the summary of facts presented.
Mr Mulcay produced 7 video films of DANKE’s recent starts and spoke at length about each race. He highlighted that on each occasion Mr Martin had driven DANKE with vigour which included using the reins and the whip.
Mr Mulcay then went onto demonstrate the incident on 17 November by use of the available video films. He said when he was watching the race live it became apparent it was identical to what occurred on the 3rd of November 2016 at Manawatu Harness.
Mr Mulcay identified that DANKE was racing in the lead in the final straight when Mr Martin had lifted his whip up and waved it about. He said it was clear that the whip was not making any contact with DANKE and he highlighted that Mr Martin put his whip away short of the finish line. He stated that Mr Martin was pre occupied with driving DANKE in the manner in which he drove the horse at Manawatu. He said Mr Martin was there for his own benefit and he was clearly not giving his drive the best opportunity to win the race. He believed the failure was so significant that the Stewards charged him with not permitting his horse to run on its merits.
Mr Mulcay reiterated that Mr Martin was there in support of himself by driving DANKE in the same manner as he did at Manawatu. He said the public who had supported DANKE did not get a run for their money. He said the evidence that Mr Muirhead provided for the Manawatu charge are as applicable in this charge. He identified that Mr Martin lifted his whip on several occasions in the home straight but it was a “claytons use of the whip”. He said it was clear that DANKE was not fully tested and was not given a full opportunity to win the race.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Mulcay stated that Mr Martin stopped using his whip 30 metres from the finish. He advised that it was only one component of the charge.
In conclusion Mr Mulcay maintained the way in which Mr Martin drove at Cambridge on 17 November was solely in defence of the manner in which he drove at Manawatu. He added that this incident has put Mr Martin further in the mire.
Mr Martin said the two incidents occurred on totally different days. He said at Manawatu he had a seat problem and at Cambridge he described the incident as an error of judgement. Mr Martin stated that he was blindfolded at Cambridge and he did not see the horses that were finishing strongly down the outside of the track. He demonstrated on the video film that he had a big horse racing outside him and that obscured his vision. He said he had no problem with his sulky at Cambridge and said he was definitely there to win the race and conceded “it was a poor drive”. Mr Martin said he thought he had the race won 30 metres from the finish line and that is why he turned the whip around. Mr Martin confirmed that he believed the race was “all over” and when he spotted the horses wide out on the track with 10 metres to go he then turned his whip back around.
Mr Mulcay questioned Mr Martin why he did not display greater vigour so there was no room for query from the Stewards. Mr Martin emphasised that he was “blindfolded” near the 50 metres. However, Mr Martin again conceded it was an error of judgement on his part when he thought he had the rest of the field covered.
Mr Mulcay said to Mr Martin “I put it to you again you were trying to support your drive at Manawatu”. Mr Martin responded by saying they were totally different meetings and reiterated he had a sulky seat problem at Manawatu.
Both parties agreed they had nothing further to add.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully listened to, and independently assessed, the evidence of both parties and reviewed the video footage several times.
Mr Martin has admitted a breach of Rule 868(2) so therefore this Committee has to determine whether Mr Martin has breached Rule 868(1).
We established that in contrast to the Manawatu race DANKE was not under firm restraint in the home straight nor was DANKE’s head carriage being impeded on 17 November at Cambridge. We identified that DANKE was beaten for 1st placing in the last 2 or 3 strides of the race with the official margin being a neck. The films show that Mr Martin had looked to his outside on 3 occasions in the home straight. It was obvious that Mr Martin was driving with minimal vigour over the final 200 metres when racing in the lead. There was no doubt that Mr Martin put his whip away 30 metres from the finish when he looked the winner. Mr Martin completely misjudged the situation when not driving his horse out to the end of the race when it was entirely permissible to implement more vigour. Mr Mulcay provided 7 recent raceday starts which confirmed that DANKE had responded well when driving with the reins and the whip. The films showed that DANKE was trotting fluently and the horse was showing no signs of breaking near the finish line. It was evident the eventual winner LITTLE BRO finished fast over the final 100 metres and was the widest horse on the track.
After analysing DANKE’s race performances which were provided by Mr Mulcay it is important to identify that on 17 November at Cambridge the mile rate was (2.06.08) and at Manawatu on 3 November the mile rate was (2.09.04). We also note that the Stewards did not raise any concerns regarding the betting records on the race in question.
While we accept there was some merit in charging Mr Martin under Rule 868(1) the video evidence for this breach at Cambridge was not as compelling as the Manawatu race on 3 November. On that occasion Mr Martin’s actions were clearly blatant and fully supported by the video footage when DANKE was firmly restrained from winning the race.
The Committee was not satisfied that Mr Martin’s drive at Cambridge was solely in support of his drive at Manawatu Harness.
Mr Mulcay correctly acknowledged that for a charge of Rule 868(1) to be proved a greater standard of proof is required given the serious nature of the likely consequential effects on Mr Martin.
Decision:
The Committee was not satisfied that the breach Rule 868(1) was proved to the required standard. Accordingly, that part of the charge was dismissed.
However, the Committee was clearly satisfied that Mr Martin failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures, to ensure that DANKE was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place. This is a breach of Rule 868(2).
As Mr Martin admitted the breach of Rule 868(2) we find the charge proved.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Mulcay said the JCA Penalty Guide has a recommended starting point for a breach of Rule 868(2) as 15 drives or a $750 fine. He said the mitigating factors in this case were Mr Martin’s admission of the breach and his clear record under this Rule. He said the culpability was high range and endorsed it was a bad drive. He said a drive like that undermines the public confidence in the industry. He said the penalty needs to act as deterrent to Mr Martin from re offending and other industry participants. Mr Mulcay noted that Mr Martin does support clubs and recently travelled his horses to the Central Districts. Mr Mulcay submitted a penalty in line with similar cases would be appropriate.
Mr Mulcay provided the Committee with a list of offences under this Rule. The penalties varied a lot primarily due to the number of drives the Respondent had in a season.
When asked by the Committee, Mr Mulcay was able to provide Mr Martin’s driving history for the last 4 seasons. He advised that Mr Martin had a career total of 1704 drives for 104 wins. He said to date this season Mr Martin has had 29 drives, in 2015 /2016 season he had 20 drives, in 2014 /2015 season he had 17 drives and in 2013 / 2014 season he had 22 drives.
Mr Martin made no submissions on penalty for this breach.
The submissions for penalty were only received just prior to the last race at Cambridge on 1 December 2016. Therefore, the Committee advised Mr Mulcay and Mr Martin that we would need some time to consider the submissions and we reserved our penalty decision until 2 December 2016 at Alexandra Park.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the submissions presented. The JCA Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of 15 drives or a fine of $750 for a breach of this Rule.
The mitigating fact was Mr Martin’s admission of the breach for which he was given some credit. We note that Mr Martin was co- operative during the hearing.
Although Mr Martin had a clear record under this Rule it was extraordinary that within 2 weeks he was facing 2 charges under Rule 868(1) and 868(2).
The aggravating facts were Mr Martin’s culpability and gravity which we assess as being in the mid to high range. We concur with Mr Martin in that he exercised very poor judgement in the manner with which he drove DANKE. Mr Martin failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure DANKE had every opportunity to finish in the best possible position. Mr Martin only used minimal urgings to encourage his horse over the final 200m. Those urgings have fallen well short of what a reasonable minded person would expect, especially when taking into account that it was entirely permissible to implement more vigour.
With respect to the offending Mr Martin has through his actions had a significant impact on the betting public. The confidence of the punter is something that cannot be meddled with through actions or lack of actions like those of Mr Martin.
The Committee had regard for the number of drives Mr Martin has had in the last 4 seasons and are aware of the infrequency with which he drives. Mr Martin confirmed that he has only driven horses that he trains this season.
It is imperative for the integrity of the Harness Racing Industry, that the betting fraternity and public confidence is maintained at the highest possible level.
The ongoing confidence in Harness Racing needs constant reinforcement, including the display of competent driving using reasonable and permissible measures, to show that participants are genuinely giving their horses every possible opportunity to win races or to do their best.
After taking into account all of the above the Committee considered that a suspension of Mr Martin’s Drivers License for a period of 3 months was an appropriate penalty.
This penalty is to follow on from a separate Information No A7012. (Footnote below)
Penalty:
Information No A3743
Mr Martin’s Horseman’s driving license is suspended for a period to commence after racing on 2 December 2017 and conclude after racing on 2 March 2018 (3 months).
When the penalty was announced Mr Martin sought clarification as to whether he was permitted to drive at trials and workouts while being suspended.
Rule 1311 (1) provides: Any person who is suspended from holding or obtaining a licence shall, during the period of suspension, be prohibited from doing any act or thing which he would otherwise be authorised to do regardless of whether he is the holder of any other licence, permit or authority under these Rules which authorises or permits the driving of such act or thing.
Rule 1311(3) provides: Notwithstanding sub-rule (1) hereof a person who has been suspended from holding or obtaining a horseman’s licence shall not during the period of suspension drive any horse at a race meeting, but shall be permitted to drive at trials and work outs.
Footnote: Information No A7012
The Committee note that on 3 November 2016 at a race meeting conducted by the Manawatu Harness Racing Club at Palmerston North in Race 4 Mr G Martin caused or permitted DANKE to be run other than on its merits as a result of his actions and/or lack of actions over the final 200m. This is a breach of Rule 868(1). Mr Martin’s Horseman’s driving license is suspended for a period to commence after racing on 2 December 2016 and conclude after racing on 2 December 2017 (12 months).
Costs:
The RIU made no application for costs.
As this charge was heard on a raceday, there will be no order for JCA costs.
Adrian Dooley Alan Godsalve
Chairman Committee Member
Decision Date: 17/11/2016
Publish Date: 17/11/2016
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: a1967c343fb43bdc464c560666378d9e
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 17/11/2016
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: HR Waikato 17 November 2016 - R 4 (heard on 1 December 2016 at Cambridge) Chair, Mr A Dooley
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr S Mulcay - Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Mr GA Martin – Open Horseman/Trainer
Information No: A3743
Meeting: Harness Racing Waikato
Date: 17 November 2016 (heard on 1 December 2016 at Cambridge Raceway)
Venue: Cambridge
Race: 4
Rule: 868(2) & 868(1)
Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley (Chairman), Mr A Godsalve (Committee Member)
Appearing: Mr JM Muirhead – Stipendiary Steward as a witness
Plea: Admitted Rule 868(2) and Denied Rule 868(1)
Date of Hearing: 1 December 2016 - 3 hours prior to race 1
Date of Decision: 7 December 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Charge:
Information No A3743
THAT on 17 November 2016 at a race meeting conducted by Harness Racing Waikato at Cambridge in Race 4 [Rule 868(1)] Mr G Martin caused or permitted DANKE to be run other than on its merits as a result of his actions and/or lack of actions over the final 200 metres. AND/OR [Rule 868(2)] in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures over the final 200 metres to ensure DANKE was given full opportunity to win the race. An alleged breach of Rule 868(1) AND/OR 868(2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing.
Rule – 868(1) provides: No person, including a horseman shall run a horse or cause or permit a horse to be run other than on its merits.
Rule – 868(2) provides: “ 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 place.
Mr Martin acknowledged that he understood the Rules and he told the Committee that he admitted the breach of Rule 868(2) and he denied the breach of Rule 868(1).
Mr Martin said that he had obtained some legal advice regarding the charges and added that it would have been too costly for the Lawyers to be present at the hearing.
Submissions for Decision:
Summary of Facts by Mr Mulcay
G Martin was the driver of DANKE in Race 4 “ Rotary Cambridge Handicap Trot” at the Harness Racing Waikato Inc’s meeting held at Cambridge Raceway 17/11/16.
The race was run over 2200 metres from a standing start.
DANKE started from barrier 1 off the front and was placed 2nd by the Judge beaten a neck.
Stewards opened an investigation into Mr Martin’s drive and in particular in relation to his apparent lack of vigour over the final stages.
After taking initial evidence from Mr Martin and viewing the replays Stewards issued Mr Martin with 2 charges - Rule 868 (1) “in that he caused or permitted his gelding to be run other than on its merits as a result of his actions and/or lack of actions over the final 200m” and/or Rule 868 (2) “in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures over the final 200m to ensure his gelding was given fill opportunity to win the race.”
The Judicial Committee opened a hearing before adjourning the matter to a date and venue to be fixed.
The Stewards had no objection to an adjournment given the seriousness of the charges. Mr Martin advised the Judicial Committee that he would need some time to seek legal advice on the matter.
Rule 1106 (1)(b) states “An information may allege one or more breach of these rules.” These charges are laid in the alternative.
It is acknowledged that the Burden of Proof lies with the Informant to establish the respective charges to the required Standard of Proof.
This standard is specified in Rule 1008A “Where in any proceeding, any matter is required to be proved by an informant or defendant, the standard of proof shall be the balance of probabilities.” However the Informant acknowledges the accepted legal principle of a greater standard of proof being required and in particular for the charge under Rule 868 (1) given the serious nature of the likely consequential effects on Mr Martin should this charge be found to be proved.
Contained in the transcript of the interview with Mr Martin is his explanation in relation to him putting the stick away some distance short of the winning post before then turning it around again when challenged wide by eventual winner LITTLE BRO. This on Page 2 when asked by myself and again on Page 9 when questioned by Mr Muirhead. His explanation was that DANKE was “all done”.
Mr Martin goes on to say that the gelding would have galloped if tested with the whip and for that reason he did not strike DANKE other than to “flick” him about “40 or 50 before the line.” Mr Martin was unable to demonstrate this on the replays to the Stewards’ satisfaction.
Mr Martin concedes on several occasions that he has driven DANKE vigorously with the reins in the gelding’s recent racing (Pages 5, 6 & 8). He further concedes that DANKE had not galloped on every occasion that he had struck the gelding with the whip in its recent racing (Page 7).
Mr Martin had no objection with the summary of facts presented.
Mr Mulcay produced 7 video films of DANKE’s recent starts and spoke at length about each race. He highlighted that on each occasion Mr Martin had driven DANKE with vigour which included using the reins and the whip.
Mr Mulcay then went onto demonstrate the incident on 17 November by use of the available video films. He said when he was watching the race live it became apparent it was identical to what occurred on the 3rd of November 2016 at Manawatu Harness.
Mr Mulcay identified that DANKE was racing in the lead in the final straight when Mr Martin had lifted his whip up and waved it about. He said it was clear that the whip was not making any contact with DANKE and he highlighted that Mr Martin put his whip away short of the finish line. He stated that Mr Martin was pre occupied with driving DANKE in the manner in which he drove the horse at Manawatu. He said Mr Martin was there for his own benefit and he was clearly not giving his drive the best opportunity to win the race. He believed the failure was so significant that the Stewards charged him with not permitting his horse to run on its merits.
Mr Mulcay reiterated that Mr Martin was there in support of himself by driving DANKE in the same manner as he did at Manawatu. He said the public who had supported DANKE did not get a run for their money. He said the evidence that Mr Muirhead provided for the Manawatu charge are as applicable in this charge. He identified that Mr Martin lifted his whip on several occasions in the home straight but it was a “claytons use of the whip”. He said it was clear that DANKE was not fully tested and was not given a full opportunity to win the race.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Mulcay stated that Mr Martin stopped using his whip 30 metres from the finish. He advised that it was only one component of the charge.
In conclusion Mr Mulcay maintained the way in which Mr Martin drove at Cambridge on 17 November was solely in defence of the manner in which he drove at Manawatu. He added that this incident has put Mr Martin further in the mire.
Mr Martin said the two incidents occurred on totally different days. He said at Manawatu he had a seat problem and at Cambridge he described the incident as an error of judgement. Mr Martin stated that he was blindfolded at Cambridge and he did not see the horses that were finishing strongly down the outside of the track. He demonstrated on the video film that he had a big horse racing outside him and that obscured his vision. He said he had no problem with his sulky at Cambridge and said he was definitely there to win the race and conceded “it was a poor drive”. Mr Martin said he thought he had the race won 30 metres from the finish line and that is why he turned the whip around. Mr Martin confirmed that he believed the race was “all over” and when he spotted the horses wide out on the track with 10 metres to go he then turned his whip back around.
Mr Mulcay questioned Mr Martin why he did not display greater vigour so there was no room for query from the Stewards. Mr Martin emphasised that he was “blindfolded” near the 50 metres. However, Mr Martin again conceded it was an error of judgement on his part when he thought he had the rest of the field covered.
Mr Mulcay said to Mr Martin “I put it to you again you were trying to support your drive at Manawatu”. Mr Martin responded by saying they were totally different meetings and reiterated he had a sulky seat problem at Manawatu.
Both parties agreed they had nothing further to add.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully listened to, and independently assessed, the evidence of both parties and reviewed the video footage several times.
Mr Martin has admitted a breach of Rule 868(2) so therefore this Committee has to determine whether Mr Martin has breached Rule 868(1).
We established that in contrast to the Manawatu race DANKE was not under firm restraint in the home straight nor was DANKE’s head carriage being impeded on 17 November at Cambridge. We identified that DANKE was beaten for 1st placing in the last 2 or 3 strides of the race with the official margin being a neck. The films show that Mr Martin had looked to his outside on 3 occasions in the home straight. It was obvious that Mr Martin was driving with minimal vigour over the final 200 metres when racing in the lead. There was no doubt that Mr Martin put his whip away 30 metres from the finish when he looked the winner. Mr Martin completely misjudged the situation when not driving his horse out to the end of the race when it was entirely permissible to implement more vigour. Mr Mulcay provided 7 recent raceday starts which confirmed that DANKE had responded well when driving with the reins and the whip. The films showed that DANKE was trotting fluently and the horse was showing no signs of breaking near the finish line. It was evident the eventual winner LITTLE BRO finished fast over the final 100 metres and was the widest horse on the track.
After analysing DANKE’s race performances which were provided by Mr Mulcay it is important to identify that on 17 November at Cambridge the mile rate was (2.06.08) and at Manawatu on 3 November the mile rate was (2.09.04). We also note that the Stewards did not raise any concerns regarding the betting records on the race in question.
While we accept there was some merit in charging Mr Martin under Rule 868(1) the video evidence for this breach at Cambridge was not as compelling as the Manawatu race on 3 November. On that occasion Mr Martin’s actions were clearly blatant and fully supported by the video footage when DANKE was firmly restrained from winning the race.
The Committee was not satisfied that Mr Martin’s drive at Cambridge was solely in support of his drive at Manawatu Harness.
Mr Mulcay correctly acknowledged that for a charge of Rule 868(1) to be proved a greater standard of proof is required given the serious nature of the likely consequential effects on Mr Martin.
Decision:
The Committee was not satisfied that the breach Rule 868(1) was proved to the required standard. Accordingly, that part of the charge was dismissed.
However, the Committee was clearly satisfied that Mr Martin failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures, to ensure that DANKE was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place. This is a breach of Rule 868(2).
As Mr Martin admitted the breach of Rule 868(2) we find the charge proved.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Mulcay said the JCA Penalty Guide has a recommended starting point for a breach of Rule 868(2) as 15 drives or a $750 fine. He said the mitigating factors in this case were Mr Martin’s admission of the breach and his clear record under this Rule. He said the culpability was high range and endorsed it was a bad drive. He said a drive like that undermines the public confidence in the industry. He said the penalty needs to act as deterrent to Mr Martin from re offending and other industry participants. Mr Mulcay noted that Mr Martin does support clubs and recently travelled his horses to the Central Districts. Mr Mulcay submitted a penalty in line with similar cases would be appropriate.
Mr Mulcay provided the Committee with a list of offences under this Rule. The penalties varied a lot primarily due to the number of drives the Respondent had in a season.
When asked by the Committee, Mr Mulcay was able to provide Mr Martin’s driving history for the last 4 seasons. He advised that Mr Martin had a career total of 1704 drives for 104 wins. He said to date this season Mr Martin has had 29 drives, in 2015 /2016 season he had 20 drives, in 2014 /2015 season he had 17 drives and in 2013 / 2014 season he had 22 drives.
Mr Martin made no submissions on penalty for this breach.
The submissions for penalty were only received just prior to the last race at Cambridge on 1 December 2016. Therefore, the Committee advised Mr Mulcay and Mr Martin that we would need some time to consider the submissions and we reserved our penalty decision until 2 December 2016 at Alexandra Park.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the submissions presented. The JCA Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of 15 drives or a fine of $750 for a breach of this Rule.
The mitigating fact was Mr Martin’s admission of the breach for which he was given some credit. We note that Mr Martin was co- operative during the hearing.
Although Mr Martin had a clear record under this Rule it was extraordinary that within 2 weeks he was facing 2 charges under Rule 868(1) and 868(2).
The aggravating facts were Mr Martin’s culpability and gravity which we assess as being in the mid to high range. We concur with Mr Martin in that he exercised very poor judgement in the manner with which he drove DANKE. Mr Martin failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure DANKE had every opportunity to finish in the best possible position. Mr Martin only used minimal urgings to encourage his horse over the final 200m. Those urgings have fallen well short of what a reasonable minded person would expect, especially when taking into account that it was entirely permissible to implement more vigour.
With respect to the offending Mr Martin has through his actions had a significant impact on the betting public. The confidence of the punter is something that cannot be meddled with through actions or lack of actions like those of Mr Martin.
The Committee had regard for the number of drives Mr Martin has had in the last 4 seasons and are aware of the infrequency with which he drives. Mr Martin confirmed that he has only driven horses that he trains this season.
It is imperative for the integrity of the Harness Racing Industry, that the betting fraternity and public confidence is maintained at the highest possible level.
The ongoing confidence in Harness Racing needs constant reinforcement, including the display of competent driving using reasonable and permissible measures, to show that participants are genuinely giving their horses every possible opportunity to win races or to do their best.
After taking into account all of the above the Committee considered that a suspension of Mr Martin’s Drivers License for a period of 3 months was an appropriate penalty.
This penalty is to follow on from a separate Information No A7012. (Footnote below)
Penalty:
Information No A3743
Mr Martin’s Horseman’s driving license is suspended for a period to commence after racing on 2 December 2017 and conclude after racing on 2 March 2018 (3 months).
When the penalty was announced Mr Martin sought clarification as to whether he was permitted to drive at trials and workouts while being suspended.
Rule 1311 (1) provides: Any person who is suspended from holding or obtaining a licence shall, during the period of suspension, be prohibited from doing any act or thing which he would otherwise be authorised to do regardless of whether he is the holder of any other licence, permit or authority under these Rules which authorises or permits the driving of such act or thing.
Rule 1311(3) provides: Notwithstanding sub-rule (1) hereof a person who has been suspended from holding or obtaining a horseman’s licence shall not during the period of suspension drive any horse at a race meeting, but shall be permitted to drive at trials and work outs.
Footnote: Information No A7012
The Committee note that on 3 November 2016 at a race meeting conducted by the Manawatu Harness Racing Club at Palmerston North in Race 4 Mr G Martin caused or permitted DANKE to be run other than on its merits as a result of his actions and/or lack of actions over the final 200m. This is a breach of Rule 868(1). Mr Martin’s Horseman’s driving license is suspended for a period to commence after racing on 2 December 2016 and conclude after racing on 2 December 2017 (12 months).
Costs:
The RIU made no application for costs.
As this charge was heard on a raceday, there will be no order for JCA costs.
Adrian Dooley Alan Godsalve
Chairman Committee Member
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 868(2) and 868(1)
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: