Kumeu TC – 5 February 2010 –

hearingid: e571f641e6508e9aa2fd5c73c6d00019

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 05/02/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Kumeu TC - 5 February 2010 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

KUMEU TROTTING CLUB

RACE DAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISIONS

ALEXANDRA PARK RACEWAY

FRIDAY 5TH FEBRUARY 2010

JCA PANEL    Jeff Holloway,  Bryan Scott

RACE 9    INFORMATION NO.68499    RULE NO. 869 (3)(g)

Following Race 9 an Information was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mr J MUIRHEAD  alleging a breach of Rule 869(3)(g) by Horsewoman  N CHILCOTT in that she drove ANVIL JUSTICE in a manner which diminished its chance of winning when race duelling for the lead from the mile marker to approximately 700 metres to run

KUMEU TROTTING CLUB

RACE DAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISIONS

ALEXANDRA PARK RACEWAY

FRIDAY 5TH FEBRUARY 2010

JCA PANEL    Jeff Holloway,  Bryan Scott

RACE 9    INFORMATION NO.68499    RULE NO. 869 (3)(g)

Following Race 9 an Information was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mr J MUIRHEAD  alleging a breach of Rule 869(3)(g) by Horsewoman  N CHILCOTT in that she drove ANVIL JUSTICE in a manner which diminished its chance of winning when race duelling for the lead from the mile marker to approximately 700 metres to run

Rule 869 (3)(g) reads as follows:

(3) “No horseman in any race shall drive:-

(g) in any manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning

Miss Chilcott appeared before the hearing and denied the charge.

Mr Muirhead gave evidence of his observations of the race from his position above the finish line and referred to video footage of the race from the start.  He identified the runners including Miss Chilcott (ANVIL JUSTICE) and driver Mr M MCKENDRY driving CURLYS COUSIN.  Miss Chilcott drew five at the gate and went directly to the lead crossing Woodlea BB driven by Mr Mangos.  Out parked and behind was CURLYS COUSIN.  From the Mile point Mr McKendry had come up and challenged Miss Chilcott.  The two horses had then taken off from the rest of the field by a margin of 60 to 70 metres with Mr McKendry hunting up for the lead and Miss Chilcott resisting.  He also noticed the two were racing fairly tightly and as they travelled along the straight he heard a pylon being struck my Miss Chilcott’s horse.  Miss Chilcott was determined to hold the lead and Mr McKendry continued pressing for the lead.  Miss Chilcott had a choice and with such an extreme lead on the following field she could have elected to let Mr McKendry go drop in behind and then come off his back again.

In Mr Muirhead’s opinion one of them or both of them should have discontinued the challenge however the challenge for the lead continued unabated until near the 700 metre mark where both were obviously tiring and were caught up by the following field.  Near the 500 metre mark Miss Chilcott pulled the plugs and urging her horse to go.  In his view the horse was a spent force as it had expended its energy during the duelling period and was no longer competitive because of the manner in which it had been driven.  Miss Chilcott had done a disservice to herself, the horse’s owners and the punters by the manner of her driving.  She showed extremely poor judgment in electing to duel with Mr McKendry and in doing so extinguished her horse’s chances of winning

Following the race an investigation was conducted by the Stipendiary Stewards in which both drivers were spoken to.  Miss Chilcott explained that she had told Mr McKendry on 2 or 3 occasions she was going to hold the lead.  Mr McKendry then finally replied okay then I will run you.  Neither horseman would desist in the duel or relent to the other.

Miss Chilcott had no questions of Mr Muirhead

Mr Taumanu was called to give expert evidence of his interpretation of the events.  He qualified his opinion by recounting his 33 years of experience in the industry.

He could not think of a worse display of horsemanship by both parties.  The betting public the owners and connections had lost what ever chance they may have had by two horsemen who through their unacceptable driving tactics provided a very poor exhibition of harness racing on a Metropolitan track.  The duel went on far too long and was totally excessive and was disappointing given the level of experience of the two participants.  There was no excuse whatsoever for the excessive duelling displayed despite what racing instructions were given or tactics decided upon.  Either horse could have dropped into the trail, the pace would have eased up and both horses would have had a chance of finishing higher in the field with Miss Chilcott finishing 7th and Mr McKendry last.

Miss Chilcott had no questions of Mr Taumanu.

In her defence Miss Chilcott referred to the video footage and explained that she had made her intentions very clear from the outset that she intended to take the lead and not relinquish it.  Mr Mangos had relented and she had taken the lead.  She was in front with the stick up and running along at good speed. Near the mile mark, Mr McKendry had come at her which is normal racing.  He has had a go and she told him several times that she was staying in the lead. 
She made it perfectly clear that she intended holding the lead.  She had worked for it and she didn’t believe she should have to relinquish it.  She was under a hold and travelling quite comfortably in front whilst he was whipping his horse trying to get past her but his horse was flat.  Near the winning post with a lap to run he said to her “Righto then I will just run you”.  His horse has extremely poor form with three or four noughts in a row.  Her horse has quite good form.  In a normal situation the lead can be handed up with a driver saying ‘I will take the front and you can come back round me”  She never got that option  Mr McKendry just sat outside her and it was obvious he was just going to run her.  In her opinion it was very poor judgement on Mr McKendry’s part.  She was leading easily and he was struggling to maintain the speed. He had challenged for the lead and failed to get it and therefore should have relinquished.  She contended that it was not her place to have to hand up the lead.

In response to questions from Mr Muirhead Miss Chilcott conceded her horse had to be driven vigorously with 500 metres to run because he was getting tired but denied he was ‘gone’.  She denied that she had any responsibility to hand up the lead to Mr McKendry.

When asked if her horse would have performed better if it hadn’t worked so hard in the earlier stages of the race she agreed but submitted that Mr McKendry should have discontinued his challenge for the lead.  She would not be intimidated by other drivers and maintained that her options were restricted by Mr McKendry’s actions and the poor form of his horse. Her chances would have diminished anyway either by maintaining the lead or handing up to a poor horse. 

She also conceded that she had an option to relinquish the lead but she reinforced that she had worked for the lead and had no obligation to give it up.  ANVIL JUSTICE finished 7th out of a 10 horse field.

In summing up Mr Muirhead contended that Miss CHILCOTT, driving ANVIL JUSTICE had showed bad judgement in getting involved with a race duel with Mr McKendry.  She had an obligation to drive to provide the best chance for her owners and punters and not to make a statement or to prove a point to Mr McKendry.  She was prepared to sacrifice her horse’s chances in order to make a statement.  The standard of driving exhibited was way below what she was capable of and was directly responsible for diminishing her horse’s chances in the race.

Miss Chilcott summarised by restating she made it perfectly clear to Mr McKendry that she was not going to hand over the lead.  She made a positive decision to do this.  If she had handed up the lead her chances would still then have been affected with the poor performance of CURLYS COUSIN.

ORAL DECISION

The Committee reviewed the evidence given and the submissions made were satisfied that the breach by Miss CHILCOTT had been proven

The Committee in brief agreed that if footage of a harness racing duel was being sought then tonight has delivered a fine example.

Despite the fact that Miss Chilcott had decided where she wanted to be in the field, the tactics throughout the race are constantly being reviewed and in our opinion her conduct gave ANVIL JUSTICE an ever lessening chance as the race progressed.

Full reasons are provided with the final decision but in summary the committee did not accept Miss Chilcott’s version of events or find any justification for her actions in any way shape or form.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

Mr Muirhead referred the Hearing to an Appeals Tribunal Hearing

J & N AND HARNESS RACING NZ

Where two participants were found guilty of speed duelling in a $20,000 stakes race.  On Appeal suspension penalties of 3 and 5 weeks were imposed.

He submitted that ‘J’ was a very experienced driver and similar in many ways to Miss CHILCOTT who was an active horsewoman. 

Stewards sought a four week suspension and reminded the Committee to take into account the effect on the public regarding the quality of the driving

Miss Chilcott in submission said she would prefer a fine asked the Committee to take into account the number of meetings at this time of year.

She confirmed she had 10 drives at Manawatu on Tuesday and again on Thursday, and Friday in Auckland and Stratford on Sunday.  She would normally have full books at Manawatu and Stratford which would equate to possibly 35 drives for the week.

DECISION AND PENALTY

Race 9 at the Kumeu Trotting Club Meeting at Alexandra Park on the 5th February 2010 was a 2200 metre Mobile Pace for maidens with a field of ten runners.

From the barrier and drawn at 5, Miss CHILCOTT driving ANVIL JUSTICE took an early lead followed by Woodlea BB (B Mangos) with CURLYS Cousin (M McKendry) out parked.

Near the mile point Mr McKendry had come up and challenged Miss Chilcott for the lead which she resisted.  The two horses had increased their pace and shortly after had put 60 to 70 metres on the following field with both drivers challenging for the lead.

Neither driver was prepared to hand the lead up and the result was clearly what is described as a speed duel.

Both drivers had exhibited determination and bloody mindedness and continued in a style of driving that undoubtedly diminished their chances and clearly breached the provisions of Rule 869 (3)(g). Both drivers evidenced by their actions showed a wilful disregard of this breach.

Their horses having been driven in such a manner for the majority of the race began to wilt in the later stages and were overtaken by the field near the 600 metre mark with Miss Chilcott’s Horse finishing in 7th place under a hard drive.

Miss Chilcott’s strategy for the race was to retain the lead from Mr McKendry at all costs and the result clearly had a disastrous effect on her horse and the expectations of its connections and the backing punters.

In deciding on an appropriate penalty the Committee took account of all of the circumstances of the breach and into the following in particular.

This was a flagrant breach of the rules by an experienced driver.

Miss Chilcott has an enviable driving record and is highly respected within the industry.

She works in an industry which is constantly under the spotlight where participants’ performance is constantly reviewed and discussed.

The reputation and integrity of the Industry can so easily be eroded by displays which cause the public to question the merits of continued support for participants, such support being essential for the continued viability of the Industry.

The Committee having viewed the JCA Penalty Guidelines was satisfied that range suggested did not recognise the severity or the flagrant manner in which this rule was breached.

The Committee accepted that the Appeal Case involving M & N indicated a starting point for major races at or about 4 weeks suspension as did a recent suspension of three weeks for similar offending in a Group 1 race.  This race was for a winner’s stake of $4655.00.

From this point mitigating and aggravating factors could be taken into account in arriving at an appropriate penalty.

We also took into account the impact any suspension would have on the connections of horses tentatively committed for racing at Manawatu on Tuesday and Thursday 9th and 11th February 2010.

Although Thursday’s field have not been confirmed there is a general expectation by the connections of horses participating on Tuesday that they will be started again on the Thursday.

Accordingly Miss CHILCOTT’S driving licence is suspended from the conclusion of Racing at Palmerston North on the 11th February 2010.  This suspension has effect until the conclusion of racing at Auckland on the 26th February 2010 which is in effect 2 calendar weeks or six racing days.

Jeff Holloway              Bryan Scott
CHAIR                         Committee Member
68499

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.3.g

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: