Amberley TC 6 February 2018 – R 9 – Chair, Mr S Ching
ID: JCA11724
Meet Title:
Amberley TC - 6 February 2018
Meet Chair:
SChing
Meet Committee Member 1:
HWeston
Race Date:
2018/02/06
Race Number:
R 9
Decision:
The Committee determined that Mr Ford has erred in his judgement on this occasion and therefore finds the charge proved.
Penalty:
Accordingly, Mr Ford is suspended from the conclusion of racing 6 February up to and including 6 June 2018. In addition, Mr Ford is fined the sum of $400.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 9, the Davis Ogilvie Ltd Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S Renault against Graduation Horseman, Mr J Ford, alleging a breach of Rule 868(2) in that “he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that TIME FOR DIAMONDS was given full opportunity to win the race by shifting outwards rounding the bend instead of waiting to utilise the passing lane which was going to be available”.
Rule 868(2) reads as follows:
“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 Ford had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted, and he confirmed this at the hearing. He also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under. Mr Ford was given the opportunity to have the matter adjourned and to be held at a later date, but this was declined.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Renault gave evidence and showed the relevant replays of the alleged incident. He stated that on the bend into the straight, near the 400m, Mr Ford was driving TIME FOR DIAMONDS which was racing 3 back on the pylons with BK DAWN, driven by Ms P Wakelin, in the trailing position in front of Mr Ford and MOTU GREAT SENSATION, driven by Mr B Borcoskie, in the lead on the pylons, 2 ahead of Mr Ford.
He said that BK DAWN in the trail, improved outwards to the outside of MOTU GREAT SENSATION, the leading horse. This, he said, gave Mr Ford an option to take up the trail behind the leader, MOTU GREAT SENSATION, and obtain the passing lane shortly afterwards. Mr Ford, he said, elected instead to shift outwards into the 1-1 position to follow BK DAWN, with horses all around him and as a result was blocked for a run. Mr Renault stated that Mr Ford was then held up with SUNSET PEAK, driven by Mr J Morrison, on his outer and in the 3-wide line outside and holding its position. Mr Ford, he stated, was held up until inside the 150m where he asked his horse for an effort, eventually running on to finish in 2nd place beaten by a margin of ¾ of a length. Mr Renault submitted that Mr Ford was completely relying on luck to obtain a run by taking the option to follow BK DAWN and had he elected to stay where he was in the trail on the pylons he would have known that the passing lane was coming up and available to him as the trailing horse. He stated that the lead horse, MOTU GREAT SENSATION, was being slapped with the reins, was not giving ground and maintained its position in the lead until the home straight. Mr Renault stated that Mr Ford’s option to shift outwards and follow BK DAWN was unreasonable and he should have taken up the trailing position behind the leader knowing that the passing lane was coming up at the 250m thereby giving him the best possible opportunity to obtain the best possible placing for TIME FOR DIAMONDS. Of relevance, Mr Renault said, was that the position Mr Ford relinquished when improving out to follow Ms Wakelin, was taken up by WE’LL MEET AGAIN, driven by Mr J Smith, who then obtained the passing lane and went on to win the event.
Mr Ford, in defence, gave evidence and stated that he was following BK DAWN and noticed that the leader, MOTU GREAT SENSATION was being ‘tapped up’ and was going to stop and he believed Ms Wakelin on BK DAWN also thought the same. He said he opted to come out and follow Ms Wakelin. Mr Ford said he thought the lead horse was going to stop and “bugger me up’ in the run home. He said that was the reason he came out and not stay on pylons in the trail. He said Ms Wakelin opted to come off the trail of the leader and also not take up the option of the passing lane. Mr Ford also stated that he felt that MOTU GREAT SENSATION was not going that quick around the final bend and that it was still a fair way to the passing lane.
Mr Ford in answer to a question from Mr Renault, stated that he knew that when he moved out to follow Ms Wakelin, there was nowhere to go at that stage but that there was a ½ gap on the inside of SUNSET PEAK, which he intended to push his way out of. He said he did this and because SUNSET PEAK was travelling on equal terms for a while it took 50m to complete the move. He also conceded that it was not a good look that Mr Smith had taken up his position behind MOTU GREAT SENSATION and had then got the run in the passing lane to eventually win the race.
In summary Mr Renault submitted that Ms Wakelin came out from the trail to obtain a clear run around the final bend. Mr Ford, he said, had an option to stay in the trail behind the lead horse who held its position well. Mr Ford did not do that but instead opted to shift off and follow Ms Wakelin where he attempted to find clear running but was held up badly and had to force his way out to obtain that clear running. He also said that when he moved out the passing lane was available for Mr Ford within 100m and was a guaranteed run for TIME FOR DIAMONDS, but he elected to shift outwards and rely on luck for a run which he submitted was a bad judgement call.
Mr Ford summarised that his whole defence was that the lead horse was starting to struggle around the bend and that he was going to be held up. That was the reason he moved off the running line to follow Ms Wakelin who obviously thought the lead horse was struggling as well.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all the oral and video evidence presented at the hearing. We are satisfied that Mr Ford was racing 3 back on the pylons near the 400m when BK DAWN who was immediately ahead shifted off the running line to take up a position on the outside of the leader. We are also satisfied that the position behind the leader was available to Mr Ford and that within 100m would have given him first rights to the passing lane, a guaranteed run. We found that Mr Ford opted to shift off the running line and follow BK DAWN into a 1-1 position surrounded by other runners. The Committee determined that Mr Ford’s impression that the lead horse was giving ground, due to the fact that it was being slapped with the reins, was misconceived, as it held the lead into the straight and past the entrance to the passing lane. We find that had Mr Ford stayed in the trail of the lead horse he would have received the passing lane run, as the eventual winner, WELL MEET AGAIN did, after taking up the vacancy left by Mr Ford. We are in no doubt that had Mr Ford opted to take up the trail position, and had not moved off to follow Ms Wakelin, TIME FOR DIAMONDS, would have received the passing lane run and, in our opinion, and on the balance of probabilities, gone on to win the event.
The Committee is satisfied that it was reasonable and permissible for Mr Ford to take up the position of the trail and obtain the passing lane, as was his right, at the 250m, therefore giving his horse every opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible placing. Mr Ford’s action to shift out and follow Ms Wakelin out into the 1-1 position amongst heavier traffic was not what we considered a prudent driver would have done and not in the best interests of the horse, it’s connections and betting public.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Renault informed the Committee that Mr Ford had a clear record regarding this Rule. He said that Mr Ford had 33 lifetime drives with 13 so far this season and 20 last season. Mr Renault stated that the Stewards were not questioning Mr Ford's integrity, only that he has erred in his actions. He said the JCA Penalty Guide provides a starting point for a mid-range breach of this rule to be a $1000 fine or a 20-drive suspension. Mr Renault stated that an uplift in the starting point was warranted considering that the placings were 1st and 2nd. He stated that in a previous case - RIU v McCallum in 2015 - the Committee determined that an appropriate uplift for a breach which affected the winning chance of a runner was 10 drives. He said that an aggravating factor was the effect on the betting public whose investments were not given a reasonable chance of a return on a bet on the horse due to Mr Ford's actions.
Mr Renault stated that it was difficult to assess a meaningful penalty due to the number of drives Mr Ford normally has during a season. He stated that it could be looked upon as similar to Amateur Driver penalties where the standard practice is to assess their upcoming drives as being 2 drives per month. Mr Renault stated that in similar cases there have been combination penalties imposed. He stated that several recent penalties for similar breaches and similar driver statistics resulted in combined penalties of a 3 to 4 months suspension and a fine of between $300 and $400. Mr Renault submitted that a period of suspension and fine similar to the penalty in RIU v Murtha, where a 4-month suspension and a $300 fine were imposed, be considered as a penalty in this case.
Mr Ford stated that he could afford a fine but submitted that a suspension of 4 months with a fine was excessive.
Deferment was discussed with Mr Ford with him opting to take any suspension immediately.
Reasons for Penalty:
The JCA Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of a 20-drive suspension or a $1000 fine for a mid-range breach of this rule. The Committee determined that this breach was in the mid to high range due to the placings involved but agreed with Mr Renault that a combination penalty with a period of suspension and a fine was appropriate due to Mr Ford's driving statistics. Previous similar breaches have assisted the committee in determining an appropriate penalty in this case, especially RIU v Murtha where a 4-month suspension and a $300 fine was imposed. Taking all factors into consideration, including Mr Ford’s relative inexperience and his good record, the Committee determined that a meaningful and appropriate penalty was a suspension of 4 months and a fine of $400.
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: 2ff8e77ac27877a0e1df02ad6ebe38f2
informantnumber: A09897
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Breach of Rule 868(2)
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 08/02/2018
hearing_title: Amberley TC 6 February 2018 - R 9 - Chair, Mr S Ching
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 9, the Davis Ogilvie Ltd Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S Renault against Graduation Horseman, Mr J Ford, alleging a breach of Rule 868(2) in that “he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that TIME FOR DIAMONDS was given full opportunity to win the race by shifting outwards rounding the bend instead of waiting to utilise the passing lane which was going to be available”.
Rule 868(2) reads as follows:
“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 Ford had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted, and he confirmed this at the hearing. He also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under. Mr Ford was given the opportunity to have the matter adjourned and to be held at a later date, but this was declined.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Renault gave evidence and showed the relevant replays of the alleged incident. He stated that on the bend into the straight, near the 400m, Mr Ford was driving TIME FOR DIAMONDS which was racing 3 back on the pylons with BK DAWN, driven by Ms P Wakelin, in the trailing position in front of Mr Ford and MOTU GREAT SENSATION, driven by Mr B Borcoskie, in the lead on the pylons, 2 ahead of Mr Ford.
He said that BK DAWN in the trail, improved outwards to the outside of MOTU GREAT SENSATION, the leading horse. This, he said, gave Mr Ford an option to take up the trail behind the leader, MOTU GREAT SENSATION, and obtain the passing lane shortly afterwards. Mr Ford, he said, elected instead to shift outwards into the 1-1 position to follow BK DAWN, with horses all around him and as a result was blocked for a run. Mr Renault stated that Mr Ford was then held up with SUNSET PEAK, driven by Mr J Morrison, on his outer and in the 3-wide line outside and holding its position. Mr Ford, he stated, was held up until inside the 150m where he asked his horse for an effort, eventually running on to finish in 2nd place beaten by a margin of ¾ of a length. Mr Renault submitted that Mr Ford was completely relying on luck to obtain a run by taking the option to follow BK DAWN and had he elected to stay where he was in the trail on the pylons he would have known that the passing lane was coming up and available to him as the trailing horse. He stated that the lead horse, MOTU GREAT SENSATION, was being slapped with the reins, was not giving ground and maintained its position in the lead until the home straight. Mr Renault stated that Mr Ford’s option to shift outwards and follow BK DAWN was unreasonable and he should have taken up the trailing position behind the leader knowing that the passing lane was coming up at the 250m thereby giving him the best possible opportunity to obtain the best possible placing for TIME FOR DIAMONDS. Of relevance, Mr Renault said, was that the position Mr Ford relinquished when improving out to follow Ms Wakelin, was taken up by WE’LL MEET AGAIN, driven by Mr J Smith, who then obtained the passing lane and went on to win the event.
Mr Ford, in defence, gave evidence and stated that he was following BK DAWN and noticed that the leader, MOTU GREAT SENSATION was being ‘tapped up’ and was going to stop and he believed Ms Wakelin on BK DAWN also thought the same. He said he opted to come out and follow Ms Wakelin. Mr Ford said he thought the lead horse was going to stop and “bugger me up’ in the run home. He said that was the reason he came out and not stay on pylons in the trail. He said Ms Wakelin opted to come off the trail of the leader and also not take up the option of the passing lane. Mr Ford also stated that he felt that MOTU GREAT SENSATION was not going that quick around the final bend and that it was still a fair way to the passing lane.
Mr Ford in answer to a question from Mr Renault, stated that he knew that when he moved out to follow Ms Wakelin, there was nowhere to go at that stage but that there was a ½ gap on the inside of SUNSET PEAK, which he intended to push his way out of. He said he did this and because SUNSET PEAK was travelling on equal terms for a while it took 50m to complete the move. He also conceded that it was not a good look that Mr Smith had taken up his position behind MOTU GREAT SENSATION and had then got the run in the passing lane to eventually win the race.
In summary Mr Renault submitted that Ms Wakelin came out from the trail to obtain a clear run around the final bend. Mr Ford, he said, had an option to stay in the trail behind the lead horse who held its position well. Mr Ford did not do that but instead opted to shift off and follow Ms Wakelin where he attempted to find clear running but was held up badly and had to force his way out to obtain that clear running. He also said that when he moved out the passing lane was available for Mr Ford within 100m and was a guaranteed run for TIME FOR DIAMONDS, but he elected to shift outwards and rely on luck for a run which he submitted was a bad judgement call.
Mr Ford summarised that his whole defence was that the lead horse was starting to struggle around the bend and that he was going to be held up. That was the reason he moved off the running line to follow Ms Wakelin who obviously thought the lead horse was struggling as well.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all the oral and video evidence presented at the hearing. We are satisfied that Mr Ford was racing 3 back on the pylons near the 400m when BK DAWN who was immediately ahead shifted off the running line to take up a position on the outside of the leader. We are also satisfied that the position behind the leader was available to Mr Ford and that within 100m would have given him first rights to the passing lane, a guaranteed run. We found that Mr Ford opted to shift off the running line and follow BK DAWN into a 1-1 position surrounded by other runners. The Committee determined that Mr Ford’s impression that the lead horse was giving ground, due to the fact that it was being slapped with the reins, was misconceived, as it held the lead into the straight and past the entrance to the passing lane. We find that had Mr Ford stayed in the trail of the lead horse he would have received the passing lane run, as the eventual winner, WELL MEET AGAIN did, after taking up the vacancy left by Mr Ford. We are in no doubt that had Mr Ford opted to take up the trail position, and had not moved off to follow Ms Wakelin, TIME FOR DIAMONDS, would have received the passing lane run and, in our opinion, and on the balance of probabilities, gone on to win the event.
The Committee is satisfied that it was reasonable and permissible for Mr Ford to take up the position of the trail and obtain the passing lane, as was his right, at the 250m, therefore giving his horse every opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible placing. Mr Ford’s action to shift out and follow Ms Wakelin out into the 1-1 position amongst heavier traffic was not what we considered a prudent driver would have done and not in the best interests of the horse, it’s connections and betting public.
Decision:
The Committee determined that Mr Ford has erred in his judgement on this occasion and therefore finds the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Renault informed the Committee that Mr Ford had a clear record regarding this Rule. He said that Mr Ford had 33 lifetime drives with 13 so far this season and 20 last season. Mr Renault stated that the Stewards were not questioning Mr Ford's integrity, only that he has erred in his actions. He said the JCA Penalty Guide provides a starting point for a mid-range breach of this rule to be a $1000 fine or a 20-drive suspension. Mr Renault stated that an uplift in the starting point was warranted considering that the placings were 1st and 2nd. He stated that in a previous case - RIU v McCallum in 2015 - the Committee determined that an appropriate uplift for a breach which affected the winning chance of a runner was 10 drives. He said that an aggravating factor was the effect on the betting public whose investments were not given a reasonable chance of a return on a bet on the horse due to Mr Ford's actions.
Mr Renault stated that it was difficult to assess a meaningful penalty due to the number of drives Mr Ford normally has during a season. He stated that it could be looked upon as similar to Amateur Driver penalties where the standard practice is to assess their upcoming drives as being 2 drives per month. Mr Renault stated that in similar cases there have been combination penalties imposed. He stated that several recent penalties for similar breaches and similar driver statistics resulted in combined penalties of a 3 to 4 months suspension and a fine of between $300 and $400. Mr Renault submitted that a period of suspension and fine similar to the penalty in RIU v Murtha, where a 4-month suspension and a $300 fine were imposed, be considered as a penalty in this case.
Mr Ford stated that he could afford a fine but submitted that a suspension of 4 months with a fine was excessive.
Deferment was discussed with Mr Ford with him opting to take any suspension immediately.
reasonsforpenalty:
The JCA Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of a 20-drive suspension or a $1000 fine for a mid-range breach of this rule. The Committee determined that this breach was in the mid to high range due to the placings involved but agreed with Mr Renault that a combination penalty with a period of suspension and a fine was appropriate due to Mr Ford's driving statistics. Previous similar breaches have assisted the committee in determining an appropriate penalty in this case, especially RIU v Murtha where a 4-month suspension and a $300 fine was imposed. Taking all factors into consideration, including Mr Ford’s relative inexperience and his good record, the Committee determined that a meaningful and appropriate penalty was a suspension of 4 months and a fine of $400.
penalty:
Accordingly, Mr Ford is suspended from the conclusion of racing 6 February up to and including 6 June 2018. In addition, Mr Ford is fined the sum of $400.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 868(2)
Informant: Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr J Ford - Graduation Horseman
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 2f043af6aeee8520b052af2767110eb4
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 1dc719d946a1712b986594579c35488c
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 06/02/2018
meet_title: Amberley TC - 6 February 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: amberley-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: SChing
meet_pm1: HWeston
meet_pm2: none
name: Amberley TC