Appeal – D Cameron

hearingid: 097da74b853ba48f49fe4b07bbeef362

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Appeal - D Cameron

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Mr Cameron appealed from a decision of the Judicial Committee given at Thames on 21 January 2007. Mr Cameron was found guilty of a breach of Rule 868(3) and suspended for a period of 16 weeks

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing

BETWEEN           DALE CAMERON

                             Appellant

AND                    HARNESS RACING NZ

                           Respondent

_______________________________________________________________

DECISION OF APPEAL TRIBUNAL

_______________________________________________________________

1. Background

--

--

--

1. Mr Cameron appealed from a decision of the Judicial Committee given at Thames on 21 January 2007. Mr Cameron was found guilty of a breach of Rule 868(3) and suspended for a period of 16 weeks from the close of racing on 21 January 2007 to the close of racing on 13 May 2007. The appeal was against both the conviction and the penalty imposed.
--
--
--

--

2. The charge was preferred following a meeting of the Morrinsville Trotting Club held at Te Aroha on 14 January 2007. It follows that the hearing took place a week after the race in question.
--
--
--

--

3. Mr Cameron was alleged to have failed to drive out the horse Landora's Special at the end of the race when he had a reasonable chance of finishing first.
--
--
--

--

4. Rule 868(3) states:
--
--

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

.--
--

--

5. The hearing at Thames on 21 January 2007 extended over some time as it was necessary to adjourn in order to allow Mr Cameron to take part in a race on that day. The transcript of the evidence given satisfies the Tribunal that Mr Cameron had every opportunity to present his explanation in relation to the events in question. The transcript extends to some 16 pages.
--

2.1 Mr Cameron was granted a stay of proceedings.

--

--

--

2. Mr Cameron sought to be assisted at the hearing by Mr Trevor Burton. The Tribunal agreed to this course. Thus, Mr Cameron and Mr Burton appeared for the Appellant and for the Respondent, Mr John Muirhead and Mr Tom Taumanu. Mr Taumanu was the Stipendiary Steward on duty on 13 January at Morrinsville.
--
--
--

--

3. At the commencement of the hearing a number of preliminary issues arose. These were:
--

--

--

--

1. Mr Burton sought leave to produce a letter from Mr Brent Mangos. The Tribunal examined the letter. Mr Mangos spoke of occasions when he had driven Landora's Special and expressed his views as to how the horse might best be driven. Mr Muirhead objected to the receipt of this letter. The hearing at Thames on 21 January 2007 was a week after the charge had been preferred. Mr Cameron had the opportunity at the hearing on 21 January to call Mr Mangos. That was not done. Had Mr Mangos been called then it follows that he could have been questioned by representatives of Harness Racing New Zealand and by the members of the JCA Committee. In these circumstances the Tribunal was not prepared to receive the letter from Mr Mangos.
--
--
--

--

2. Mr Burton sought to put before the Tribunal a letter from the owner of the horse Landora's Special. The Tribunal looked at this letter. In the letter the owner expressed satisfaction with Mr Cameron's drive in the subject race. This advice could also have been made available to the JCA Committee on 21 January. It was not. More importantly the owner's view of the drive by Mr Cameron in the subject race is of no relevance to the matters which the Tribunal is required to consider. The letter was not received.
--
--
--

--

3. At the hearing on 21 January there were tapes played of the race at Te Aroha on 14 January. These show the race from a number of different angles. The Judicial Committee was also shown a tape of the previous occasion when Mr Cameron had driven Landora's Special. This was at Cambridge on 23 November 2006 when the horse finished third. Between 23 November 2006 and 14 January 2007 the horse had four starts and on each occasion was driven by Mr Mangos. Mr Burton, on behalf of Mr Cameron, sought to have these tapes played, in order, he said, to illustrate the best manner in which the horse should be driven. As noted earlier those tapes were not played to the Judicial Committee. Nor was any request made of the Judicial Committee in that regard. In those circumstances the Tribunal declined to view the tapes of the four races in which Landora's Special participated between 23 November 2006 and 14 January 2007.
--

--

--

--

2. This appeal is by way of rehearing. This Tribunal is free to come to its own decision. Regard must be had to the findings of the Judicial Committee.
--

3.1 Tapes were played of the race at Morrinsville on 14 January 2007 and at Cambridge on 23 November 2006. Both parties commented on these tapes in detail. Further, Mr Muirhead put before the Tribunal statistical information in relation to the record of Landora's Special and Mr Cameron's record as a driver.

3.2 Following consideration of the tapes all parties made submissions as to the driving of Mr Cameron. This was followed by submissions on the correct legal approach to be taken at the appeal and the reasoning adopted by the Judicial Committee. Finally both parties addressed the Tribunal on the issue of penalty.

4.1 For Mr Cameron it was said that the horse had only once previously started on a grass track. This at the same meeting a year earlier. It was said that on 14 January 2007 the track was wet. The evidence establishes that there had been overnight rain. There were inspections of the track, both before the first race and the race in which Landora's Special took part. Mr Taumanu considered the track to be in good condition. The official description on the day was dead.

--

--

--

2. Mr Cameron emphasised the state of the track. He said (as he had told the Judicial Committee) that it was like sitting on glass. The material put before the Tribunal does not demonstrate that the track was in as bad a condition as Mr Cameron asserted.
--
--
--

--

3. Mr Burton emphasised that Mr Cameron was exercising his best judgment in the circumstances. He contended that use of the whip would or might have caused the horse to break. When asked about using the reins to encourage the horse Mr Burton and Mr Cameron contended that it was necessary to hold the horse on the bit and that movement of the reins could have caused the horse to drop the bit.
--
--
--

--

4. It was said for Mr Cameron that he had clicked the horse up. By this it was said that Mr Cameron was verbally encouraging the horse to perform better. It was noted that nothing of this was said to the Judicial Committee. Mr Cameron told the Tribunal that the horse did not have ear plugs.
--
--
--

--

5. Mr Cameron was asked why he had not used the whip in the concluding stages when, as he contended, there was a risk that the horse would break. It was pointed out that the first two horses were some distance clear of the third horse and that if Landora's Special had broken in the last 50 metres it would still have held second. Mr Cameron contended, in response, that had the horse broken in the last 50 metres it would have been disqualified. In the judgment of the Tribunal that is not correct. Moreover, there was no realistic prospect that the horse would have been lapped on by a following horse.
--
--
--

--

6. Reference was made to the state of the crossing on the track and that horses had got into difficulty at that point. Questioning established that the crossing was 1400 metres from the winning post ? that is to say the horses travelled 1400 metres after passing over the crossing before reaching the end of the race. The Tribunal does not consider that the state of the crossing is in any way relevant.
--

5.1 Mr Muirhead pointed out that all the way down the straight Mr Cameron had hardly moved in the sulky. The Judicial Committee found that Mr Cameron did flick Landora's Special twice in the run home. Those movements are not easy to ascertain on the tape. Mr Muirhead contended further that in the last 150 metres Mr Cameron did nothing at all to urge the horse forward.

5.2 Mr Muirhead pointed to the fact that Mr Cameron was plainly aware of the presence of the other horse. The Tribunal is satisfied that this was so as Mr Cameron can be seen looking across from about the 200 metre mark. It was pointed out that the second horse Mr Maharg was trotting roughly in comparison with Landora's Special. The tape certainly demonstrates that this was so. Mr Muirhead drew attention to the vigour employed by Ms Donnelly, the driver of Mr Maharg and contrasted that with Mr Cameron remaining motionless in the sulky of Landora's Special.

6.1 The evidence establishes that Mr Cameron did little or nothing to urge his horse forward in the concluding stages of the race.

--

--

--

2. While Mr Cameron may have believed that the approach which he was taking was appropriate it is not the driver's subjective belief which is determinative of the issue. The Judicial Committee, in examining the charge, was required to use its objective judgment, informed by the evidence presented and the experience of the Committee members, to establish whether, on this occasion, the driver's actions were appropriate.
--
--
--

--

3. The evidence establishes beyond doubt that little or nothing was done to urge the horse forward. In those circumstances the Committee was entirely justified in concluding that Mr Cameron did not "drive his horse out to the end of the race ?.". The obligation on a driver under Rule 868(3) is mandatory. The best evidence of whether or not a horse has been driven out at the end of the race is the observation of witnesses and the video recordings. The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence of Mr Taumanu, who was present, and the recordings show that the horse was not driven out.
--
--
--

--

4. The Tribunal also notes that Mr Cameron told the Judicial Committee that he thought he had won the race. The recordings make it clear that Mr Cameron was aware of the presence of Mr Maharg from at least the 200 metre mark. In those circumstances it is curious that he should assert that he believed he had won the race.
--
--
--

--

5. The Tribunal considers that the Judicial Committee was amply justified in the conclusion which it arrived at and no grounds have been established for disturbing that finding.
--
--
--

--

6. Submissions were heard on the question of penalty. Mr Burton again emphasised that Mr Cameron was exercising his own best judgment and that if a mistake was made this was as a result of a genuine belief that the right course was being followed.
--
--
--

--

7. Material was put before the Tribunal to establish the appropriate range of penalties imposed in recent years for breaches of Rule 868(3). These show that in most cases a period of disqualification of between six weeks and three months has been appropriate, together with a monetary penalty. At the hearing before the Judicial Committee Mr Cameron emphasised his financial position and inability to meet a monetary penalty. It is clear from the decision of the Judicial Committee that regard was had to Mr Cameron's financial position and, in consequence, the period of suspension was somewhat longer than would otherwise have been imposed. The penalty arrived at by the Judicial Committee is in line with previous penalties for the same offence and no grounds exist to disturb the period of suspension of four months.
--

7.1 The appeal against conviction under Rule 868(3)is dismissed.

--

--

--

2. The period of suspension for sixteen weeks is upheld. Given that a stay has been in effect the suspension will now operate from the conclusion of racing on Friday 16 February 2007 and the suspension will expire at the conclusion of racing on Friday 8 June 2007.
--
--
--

--

3. The Appellant's deposit shall be forfeited. There shall be no other order as to costs.
--

Dated this 20th day of February 2007

----------------

Murray McKechnie

----------------

John Phelan

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 868.3

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: