Invercargill HRC – 30 January 2009 – Race 5
ID: JCA23097
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Invercargill HRC - 30 January 2009
Race Date:
2009/01/30
Race Number:
Race 5
Decision:
Meeting adjourned 30 January 2009 and heard at Invercargill on 8 February 09.
----
Rule 868(2): An information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr P Knowles alleging that A M Armour driving HEMISPHERE breached this rule when not taking all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to give HEMISPHERE full opportunity to win the race or finish in the best possible position.
Meeting adjourned 30 January 2009 and heard at Invercargill on 8 February 09.
----
Rule 868(2): An information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr P Knowles alleging that A M Armour driving HEMISPHERE breached this rule when not taking all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to give HEMISPHERE full opportunity to win the race or finish in the best possible position.
----
The Chairman, Mr A Dennis, began the proceedings by:
--a) Reading the information.
--b) Introducing the panel.
--c) Asking if any person present had any objections to the information being heard by the panel.
--NB: When asked, the defendant stated that he understood the rule.
----
There being no objections, Mr Knowles then used video film to demonstrate to the Committee where the alleged breaches had occurred.
----
Mr Armour's horse HEMISPHERE had drawn 10 i.e. No.1 on the second line. The race was a 2200m mobile event. Mr Knowles showed where Mr Armour had allowed his horse to drift back prior to release and had eventually ended up well back, in the second line. Mr Knowles explained that since Mr Armour had chosen to ease back and to secure a second line position, then at some time he would be expected to make his run out wide to improve his racing position. Mr Knowles stated that with the slowly run race, he would have expected this to occur at approximately the 1200m mark. This did not happen, in fact, as Mr Knowles pointed out, Mr Armour did not attempt to put his horse into the race until approximately the 350m mark. Mr Knowles argued that this was far too late and that HEMISPHERE which was at least 5-6 lengths from the lead at the 400, had a mission impossible task to perform, especially since the last quarter was run in 27.7 seconds. Mr Knowles then presented the committee with the following pieces of written information.
--a) P20-21 of the Official Race Book, highlighting the starting position of HEMISPHERE.
--b) The official TAB betting sheet, which highlighted HEMISPHERE as a dominating win/place favourite.
--c) The judged official photo finish highlighting HEMISPHERE finishing 9th place, some 4.8 lengths from the official winner CHIP McCOOL.
--d) The times of all the 2200m mobile events run on that day, highlighting race 5 time being 2.50.23, mile rate of 2.04.4 which was the slowest paced race of the day. Mr Knowles asked the Committee to particularly note the time for the last half and last quarter, being 56.8 and 27.7 respectively.
--e) HEMISPHERE'S last 5 mobile starts over the distance (3). Mr Knowles stated that it was his belief that HEMISPERE was well able to run the time.
----
All parties were given copies of the written material.
----
Mr Knowles was of the opinion that he could see that with 1400m to run, that the race was only going to be a 'sprint home'. He also made the point that at the 1200m mark, the race had slackened right off. He said that Mr Armour had made no move to improve, and that at the 800m mark the pace started to pick up and at the 600m mark it was a sprint home - in his opinion. Using video film Mr Knowles highlighted that at the 400m mark, Mr Armour, driving HEMISPHERE was at least 5-6 lengths from the leader and only at the 350m mark did he attempt to improve his position in the three-wide lane.
----
Mr Armour then presented his case. He began by agreeing with Mr Knowles's description of events around the race start, saying that he was driving under the instructions of the owner Mr Higgins and the trainer, Mr Brown. Mr Armour then produced a veterinary report and explained that the horse received treatment on Wednesday 28 January 2009. The letter was dated 3 January 2009. One presumes this was meant to be 3 February 2009. Mr Armour also presented the Committee with a letter written by Mr Higgins stating his driving instructions. Mr Armour then asked Mr Knowles to read the Stipendiary Stewards report in The Harness Weekly regarding Mr Shirley's drive on GREYSTEEL who finished fourth.
----
Mr Knowles read the full report which said that Mr Shirley had been spoken to by the Stewards regarding the possible half carting of his horse. No action was taken.
----
Mr Armour was adamant that Mr Shirley was half carting for a considerable distance thereby affecting the following horses opportunity to progress without having to race four wide. Mr Armour stated that Mr Knowles was correct in his report that the horse failed to finish out the race. Mr Armour asked driver, Mr N Williamson, to give a summary of his drive of HEMISPHERE in its previous race at Invercargill on 20th January 2009. The horse finished 3rd, some 5.5 lengths from the winner.
----
Mr Williamson stated that the horse was beaten out of the mobile gate, settled 3 back on the running line and made little ground on the run in to the winning post. Both Mr Brown and Mr Williamson were disappointed with the run. Mr Williamson suggested that the horse had been 'hanging' and a change of gear might be needed.
----
Mr Beck, driver, in his evidence also highlighted his concerns regarding Mr Shirley (GREYSTEEL) half carting, impeding progress of the following horses.
----
Mr Brown, trainer, confirmed that his driving instructions were as Mr Armour reported. He mentioned that he had some concern regarding the horses health. As a result he came to the conclusion to have the horse scoped. The results indicated to Mr Brown that following treatment the next day that the horse was fit to race. Mr Brown was questioned directly if he notified the Stipendiary Stewards of either his concerns or the veterinary diagnosis. He stated that he had not.
----
Mr Knowles at this point said that this was the first time that he was aware of HEMISPHERE'S treatment. Mr Knowles said that if he had been made aware, he may have decided to investigate further in the interest of the racing public and under the rule requiring trainers to present healthy horses for racing.
----
DECISION/REASONS:
--The Committee was satisfied that the charge was proven and that Mr Armour had breached rule 868(2).
----
In our opinion Mr Armour has not at all times during the race given the horse HEMISPHERE full opportunity to win the race or finish in the best possible position. As a result, Mr Armour has been suspended for a period of 4 weeks, effectively 7 race meetings, commencing on 09 February 2009 and concluding on 07 March 2009.
----
In fixing penalty, submissions were heard from Mr Knowles who stated that Mr Armour was a Senior Horseman who averaged 5-6 drives per race day. He also confirmed that Mr Armour had not been charged in the last 12 months and had fashioned a very impressive driving record. Mr Knowles stated that in his opinion, Mr Armour had made an error of judgement by not putting his horse in the race. He said that it would have been preferable to attempt a wide run rather than simply doing nothing. Mr Knowles suggested a range of penalties between 4 and 6 weeks highlighting similar decisions ranging from 3 weeks to 4 months suspension.
----
Mr Armour stated that 6 weeks was excessive, when questioned regarding his income streams, he stated that it was from driving and assisting Mr Brown's team.
----
The Committee noted the following points in making the decision on penalty:
--a) Previous driving record
--b) Owner/Trainer driving instructions.
--c) Circumstances regarding the way the race was run, in particular, the sectional times.
----
--
--
--
A Dennis
--Chairman
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: ed043d05e3582cf1ebc4834b231f244b
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 30/01/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Invercargill HRC - 30 January 2009 - Race 5
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Meeting adjourned 30 January 2009 and heard at Invercargill on 8 February 09.
----
Rule 868(2): An information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr P Knowles alleging that A M Armour driving HEMISPHERE breached this rule when not taking all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to give HEMISPHERE full opportunity to win the race or finish in the best possible position.
Meeting adjourned 30 January 2009 and heard at Invercargill on 8 February 09.
----
Rule 868(2): An information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr P Knowles alleging that A M Armour driving HEMISPHERE breached this rule when not taking all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to give HEMISPHERE full opportunity to win the race or finish in the best possible position.
----
The Chairman, Mr A Dennis, began the proceedings by:
--a) Reading the information.
--b) Introducing the panel.
--c) Asking if any person present had any objections to the information being heard by the panel.
--NB: When asked, the defendant stated that he understood the rule.
----
There being no objections, Mr Knowles then used video film to demonstrate to the Committee where the alleged breaches had occurred.
----
Mr Armour's horse HEMISPHERE had drawn 10 i.e. No.1 on the second line. The race was a 2200m mobile event. Mr Knowles showed where Mr Armour had allowed his horse to drift back prior to release and had eventually ended up well back, in the second line. Mr Knowles explained that since Mr Armour had chosen to ease back and to secure a second line position, then at some time he would be expected to make his run out wide to improve his racing position. Mr Knowles stated that with the slowly run race, he would have expected this to occur at approximately the 1200m mark. This did not happen, in fact, as Mr Knowles pointed out, Mr Armour did not attempt to put his horse into the race until approximately the 350m mark. Mr Knowles argued that this was far too late and that HEMISPHERE which was at least 5-6 lengths from the lead at the 400, had a mission impossible task to perform, especially since the last quarter was run in 27.7 seconds. Mr Knowles then presented the committee with the following pieces of written information.
--a) P20-21 of the Official Race Book, highlighting the starting position of HEMISPHERE.
--b) The official TAB betting sheet, which highlighted HEMISPHERE as a dominating win/place favourite.
--c) The judged official photo finish highlighting HEMISPHERE finishing 9th place, some 4.8 lengths from the official winner CHIP McCOOL.
--d) The times of all the 2200m mobile events run on that day, highlighting race 5 time being 2.50.23, mile rate of 2.04.4 which was the slowest paced race of the day. Mr Knowles asked the Committee to particularly note the time for the last half and last quarter, being 56.8 and 27.7 respectively.
--e) HEMISPHERE'S last 5 mobile starts over the distance (3). Mr Knowles stated that it was his belief that HEMISPERE was well able to run the time.
----
All parties were given copies of the written material.
----
Mr Knowles was of the opinion that he could see that with 1400m to run, that the race was only going to be a 'sprint home'. He also made the point that at the 1200m mark, the race had slackened right off. He said that Mr Armour had made no move to improve, and that at the 800m mark the pace started to pick up and at the 600m mark it was a sprint home - in his opinion. Using video film Mr Knowles highlighted that at the 400m mark, Mr Armour, driving HEMISPHERE was at least 5-6 lengths from the leader and only at the 350m mark did he attempt to improve his position in the three-wide lane.
----
Mr Armour then presented his case. He began by agreeing with Mr Knowles's description of events around the race start, saying that he was driving under the instructions of the owner Mr Higgins and the trainer, Mr Brown. Mr Armour then produced a veterinary report and explained that the horse received treatment on Wednesday 28 January 2009. The letter was dated 3 January 2009. One presumes this was meant to be 3 February 2009. Mr Armour also presented the Committee with a letter written by Mr Higgins stating his driving instructions. Mr Armour then asked Mr Knowles to read the Stipendiary Stewards report in The Harness Weekly regarding Mr Shirley's drive on GREYSTEEL who finished fourth.
----
Mr Knowles read the full report which said that Mr Shirley had been spoken to by the Stewards regarding the possible half carting of his horse. No action was taken.
----
Mr Armour was adamant that Mr Shirley was half carting for a considerable distance thereby affecting the following horses opportunity to progress without having to race four wide. Mr Armour stated that Mr Knowles was correct in his report that the horse failed to finish out the race. Mr Armour asked driver, Mr N Williamson, to give a summary of his drive of HEMISPHERE in its previous race at Invercargill on 20th January 2009. The horse finished 3rd, some 5.5 lengths from the winner.
----
Mr Williamson stated that the horse was beaten out of the mobile gate, settled 3 back on the running line and made little ground on the run in to the winning post. Both Mr Brown and Mr Williamson were disappointed with the run. Mr Williamson suggested that the horse had been 'hanging' and a change of gear might be needed.
----
Mr Beck, driver, in his evidence also highlighted his concerns regarding Mr Shirley (GREYSTEEL) half carting, impeding progress of the following horses.
----
Mr Brown, trainer, confirmed that his driving instructions were as Mr Armour reported. He mentioned that he had some concern regarding the horses health. As a result he came to the conclusion to have the horse scoped. The results indicated to Mr Brown that following treatment the next day that the horse was fit to race. Mr Brown was questioned directly if he notified the Stipendiary Stewards of either his concerns or the veterinary diagnosis. He stated that he had not.
----
Mr Knowles at this point said that this was the first time that he was aware of HEMISPHERE'S treatment. Mr Knowles said that if he had been made aware, he may have decided to investigate further in the interest of the racing public and under the rule requiring trainers to present healthy horses for racing.
----
DECISION/REASONS:
--The Committee was satisfied that the charge was proven and that Mr Armour had breached rule 868(2).
----
In our opinion Mr Armour has not at all times during the race given the horse HEMISPHERE full opportunity to win the race or finish in the best possible position. As a result, Mr Armour has been suspended for a period of 4 weeks, effectively 7 race meetings, commencing on 09 February 2009 and concluding on 07 March 2009.
----
In fixing penalty, submissions were heard from Mr Knowles who stated that Mr Armour was a Senior Horseman who averaged 5-6 drives per race day. He also confirmed that Mr Armour had not been charged in the last 12 months and had fashioned a very impressive driving record. Mr Knowles stated that in his opinion, Mr Armour had made an error of judgement by not putting his horse in the race. He said that it would have been preferable to attempt a wide run rather than simply doing nothing. Mr Knowles suggested a range of penalties between 4 and 6 weeks highlighting similar decisions ranging from 3 weeks to 4 months suspension.
----
Mr Armour stated that 6 weeks was excessive, when questioned regarding his income streams, he stated that it was from driving and assisting Mr Brown's team.
----
The Committee noted the following points in making the decision on penalty:
--a) Previous driving record
--b) Owner/Trainer driving instructions.
--c) Circumstances regarding the way the race was run, in particular, the sectional times.
----
--
--
--
A Dennis
--Chairman
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 868.2
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: c7ce4d5c1aa39f11a22513d32a046f2c
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 7efffbf608c72c139c1400f32bd37895
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 30/01/2009
meet_title: Invercargill HRC - 30 January 2009
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: invercargill-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Invercargill HRC