Asburton TC 13 June 2014 – R 9 (heard 4 July 2014 at Addington)
ID: JCA20499
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: N G McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: G D Smith, Licensed Open Horseman
Information No: A1589
Meeting: Ashburton Trotting Club
Date: 13 June 2014 (heard 4 July 2014)
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Race: 9
Rule No: 869 (3) (b)
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - S C Ching, Committee Member
Plea: Denied
FACTS:
Following the running of Race 9, Hotel Ashburton Fillies & Mares Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N G McIntyre, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr G D Smith, alleging that Mr Smith, as the driver of ZENA MAC in the race, “racing towards the 800 metres shifted outwards carelessly inconveniencing SICILIAN SECRET (T S Chmiel) and causing its driver T S Chmiel to become unbalanced”.
The information was filed on racenight and was adjourned by agreement of the parties.
The information was heard at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club at Addington Raceway on 4 July 2014.
Mr Smith was present at the hearing of the information, and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
SUBMISSIONS:
Mr McIntyre said the Stewards were alleging that, near the 800 metres, Mr Smith driving ZENA MAC had shifted his horse out abruptly. As a result, Mr Chmiel has had no time to react to the shift and had locked wheels. Mr Chmiel became unbalanced in the sulky and his horse lost several lengths and some momentum, Mr McIntyre said.
Mr McIntyre submitted that a driver is able to make a move, at any part of the race, with safety. Stewards believed that, on this occasion, Mr Smith’s outward movement was not done in a safe, slow and gradual manner.
Mr Chmiel, driver of SICILIAN SECRET, said that Mr Smith had pushed him out and it was unfortunate that they had locked wheels. He said that this happened with the “American carts” and both horses had been “carted back”. Mr Smith had got him out “fair and square”, Mr Chmiel said, but he had come out “pretty hard”. He had been attempting to stay on the back of GRACIOUS STAR (B M Thomas) when the 3-wide line “sprinted”, Mr Chmiel said.
Mr McIntyre proceeded to show video replays of the incident. The two runners were racing towards the rear of the field with Mr Smith on the inside and in front of Mr Chmiel who was progressing forward in the 3-wide line. Mr McIntyre showed Mr Smith shift out and Mr Chmiel could be seen to go on to one sulky wheel and become unbalanced. Mr Chmiel’s horse lost some 3-4 lengths. Mr Chmiel confirmed that locking wheels had affected his position in the race. Mr Chmiel had to restrain and his horse had run on to finish 6th in the race, approximately 2 lengths from the winner.
Mr Smith submitted that it was “a legitimate push out”. He suggested that the wheels had locked because of the design of the sulkies. Mr Smith said that his original intention had not been to push out but, as he got up to him, Mr Chmiel’s horse had “drifted about a neck off”. He had about a head advantage over Mr Chmiel when he did come out, Mr Smith submitted, enough to get him out. He denied that it was an abrupt movement and, he said, he had not hit Mr Chmiel’s sulky hard.
Mr McIntyre submitted that it was a “high risk manoeuvre” on the apex of the bend. The horse in front of Mr Smith was stopping and Mr Smith’s horse was travelling well, Mr McIntyre said.
Mr Chmiel told the Committee that the contact from Mr Smith had been made “with a bit of force” and the locking of wheels took place and he went backwards. It happened very quickly, he said. He had not wanted to be pushed out and was attempting to keep up.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
Mr Smith has defended a charge of careless driving in that he shifted outwards inconveniencing SICILIAN SECRET, driven by Mr Chmiel.
In this case, there was only really one video replay that was of any assistance to the Committee. From that replay, it was apparent that Mr Smith had an ever-diminishing advantage over Mr Chmiel entering the back straight, near the 800 metres. At that point, he clearly attempted to shift Mr Chmiel out and the issue for the Committee to determine was did he do so with safety and in a slow and gradual movement.
Mr Chmiel’s evidence was, initially, somewhat equivocal but, in the final analysis, he did say that the outward movement involved a significant bump, indicating that it was a sudden movement. Mr Smith, for his part, submitted that he had legally pushed Mr Chmiel out and, but for the sulkies locking wheels, there would have been no inconvenience to Mr Chmiel. We do not accept Mr Smith’s submission that the locking of wheels was due to the types of sulkies and not to his pushing Mr Chmiel out. Mr Smith submitted that it was just a racing incident but we do not accept that either.
As Mr McIntyre submitted, it was a high-risk manoeuvre by Mr Smith to attempt to do what he did.
The Committee finds that Mr Smith did not complete his outward movement in a safe, slow and gradual manner but, rather, in an abrupt manner which left Mr Chmiel with no time to react resulting in the locking of wheels and the interference to Mr Chmiel in which his horse lost some 3-4 lengths and, clearly, had its chance affected. In shifting outwards as he did, we find, Mr Smith drove carelessly.
DECISION:
We find the charge of careless driving against Mr Smith to be proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:
Mr McIntyre told the Committee that Mr Smith had admitted a charge of careless driving on 29 November 2013 at Addington and was fined $300. Mr Smith has had 301 drives to date in the current season and he is, therefore, a very busy driver. Stewards deemed this breach to be in the low to mid range, Mr McIntyre said.
Mr McIntyre submitted that the Committee should have regard to the fact that Mr Smith has not breached the Rule for 8 months and that he is a busy driver. He submitted that a fine between $250-300 was an appropriate penalty.
Mr Smith was given the opportunity to make submissions in relation to penalty but declined that opportunity.
PENALTY REASONS:
The Committee took, as a starting point in determining penalty, the starting point as suggested in the Penalty Guide – 8 drives or a $400 fine. We took Mr Smith’s driving record to be a mitigating factor. Taking into account the number of drives that he has on a regular basis, to have had only one charge in the past 12 months – and that 8 months ago – constitutes a good record. We have allowed Mr Smith a discount of $100 from the starting point for that factor.
There are no other mitigating or aggravating factors. We have taken the degree of seriousness of the breach to be in the mid-range and, therefore, neither an aggravating nor a mitigating factor.
PENALTY:
Mr Smith was fined the sum of $300.00.
R G McKenzie S C Ching
CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE MEMBER
Decision Date: 13/06/2014
Publish Date: 13/06/2014
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: 92211c0cf4e77935718591a0c200397b
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 13/06/2014
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Asburton TC 13 June 2014 - R 9 (heard 4 July 2014 at Addington)
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: N G McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: G D Smith, Licensed Open Horseman
Information No: A1589
Meeting: Ashburton Trotting Club
Date: 13 June 2014 (heard 4 July 2014)
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Race: 9
Rule No: 869 (3) (b)
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - S C Ching, Committee Member
Plea: Denied
FACTS:
Following the running of Race 9, Hotel Ashburton Fillies & Mares Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N G McIntyre, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr G D Smith, alleging that Mr Smith, as the driver of ZENA MAC in the race, “racing towards the 800 metres shifted outwards carelessly inconveniencing SICILIAN SECRET (T S Chmiel) and causing its driver T S Chmiel to become unbalanced”.
The information was filed on racenight and was adjourned by agreement of the parties.
The information was heard at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club at Addington Raceway on 4 July 2014.
Mr Smith was present at the hearing of the information, and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
SUBMISSIONS:
Mr McIntyre said the Stewards were alleging that, near the 800 metres, Mr Smith driving ZENA MAC had shifted his horse out abruptly. As a result, Mr Chmiel has had no time to react to the shift and had locked wheels. Mr Chmiel became unbalanced in the sulky and his horse lost several lengths and some momentum, Mr McIntyre said.
Mr McIntyre submitted that a driver is able to make a move, at any part of the race, with safety. Stewards believed that, on this occasion, Mr Smith’s outward movement was not done in a safe, slow and gradual manner.
Mr Chmiel, driver of SICILIAN SECRET, said that Mr Smith had pushed him out and it was unfortunate that they had locked wheels. He said that this happened with the “American carts” and both horses had been “carted back”. Mr Smith had got him out “fair and square”, Mr Chmiel said, but he had come out “pretty hard”. He had been attempting to stay on the back of GRACIOUS STAR (B M Thomas) when the 3-wide line “sprinted”, Mr Chmiel said.
Mr McIntyre proceeded to show video replays of the incident. The two runners were racing towards the rear of the field with Mr Smith on the inside and in front of Mr Chmiel who was progressing forward in the 3-wide line. Mr McIntyre showed Mr Smith shift out and Mr Chmiel could be seen to go on to one sulky wheel and become unbalanced. Mr Chmiel’s horse lost some 3-4 lengths. Mr Chmiel confirmed that locking wheels had affected his position in the race. Mr Chmiel had to restrain and his horse had run on to finish 6th in the race, approximately 2 lengths from the winner.
Mr Smith submitted that it was “a legitimate push out”. He suggested that the wheels had locked because of the design of the sulkies. Mr Smith said that his original intention had not been to push out but, as he got up to him, Mr Chmiel’s horse had “drifted about a neck off”. He had about a head advantage over Mr Chmiel when he did come out, Mr Smith submitted, enough to get him out. He denied that it was an abrupt movement and, he said, he had not hit Mr Chmiel’s sulky hard.
Mr McIntyre submitted that it was a “high risk manoeuvre” on the apex of the bend. The horse in front of Mr Smith was stopping and Mr Smith’s horse was travelling well, Mr McIntyre said.
Mr Chmiel told the Committee that the contact from Mr Smith had been made “with a bit of force” and the locking of wheels took place and he went backwards. It happened very quickly, he said. He had not wanted to be pushed out and was attempting to keep up.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
Mr Smith has defended a charge of careless driving in that he shifted outwards inconveniencing SICILIAN SECRET, driven by Mr Chmiel.
In this case, there was only really one video replay that was of any assistance to the Committee. From that replay, it was apparent that Mr Smith had an ever-diminishing advantage over Mr Chmiel entering the back straight, near the 800 metres. At that point, he clearly attempted to shift Mr Chmiel out and the issue for the Committee to determine was did he do so with safety and in a slow and gradual movement.
Mr Chmiel’s evidence was, initially, somewhat equivocal but, in the final analysis, he did say that the outward movement involved a significant bump, indicating that it was a sudden movement. Mr Smith, for his part, submitted that he had legally pushed Mr Chmiel out and, but for the sulkies locking wheels, there would have been no inconvenience to Mr Chmiel. We do not accept Mr Smith’s submission that the locking of wheels was due to the types of sulkies and not to his pushing Mr Chmiel out. Mr Smith submitted that it was just a racing incident but we do not accept that either.
As Mr McIntyre submitted, it was a high-risk manoeuvre by Mr Smith to attempt to do what he did.
The Committee finds that Mr Smith did not complete his outward movement in a safe, slow and gradual manner but, rather, in an abrupt manner which left Mr Chmiel with no time to react resulting in the locking of wheels and the interference to Mr Chmiel in which his horse lost some 3-4 lengths and, clearly, had its chance affected. In shifting outwards as he did, we find, Mr Smith drove carelessly.
DECISION:
We find the charge of careless driving against Mr Smith to be proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:
Mr McIntyre told the Committee that Mr Smith had admitted a charge of careless driving on 29 November 2013 at Addington and was fined $300. Mr Smith has had 301 drives to date in the current season and he is, therefore, a very busy driver. Stewards deemed this breach to be in the low to mid range, Mr McIntyre said.
Mr McIntyre submitted that the Committee should have regard to the fact that Mr Smith has not breached the Rule for 8 months and that he is a busy driver. He submitted that a fine between $250-300 was an appropriate penalty.
Mr Smith was given the opportunity to make submissions in relation to penalty but declined that opportunity.
PENALTY REASONS:
The Committee took, as a starting point in determining penalty, the starting point as suggested in the Penalty Guide – 8 drives or a $400 fine. We took Mr Smith’s driving record to be a mitigating factor. Taking into account the number of drives that he has on a regular basis, to have had only one charge in the past 12 months – and that 8 months ago – constitutes a good record. We have allowed Mr Smith a discount of $100 from the starting point for that factor.
There are no other mitigating or aggravating factors. We have taken the degree of seriousness of the breach to be in the mid-range and, therefore, neither an aggravating nor a mitigating factor.
PENALTY:
Mr Smith was fined the sum of $300.00.
R G McKenzie S C Ching
CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE MEMBER
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
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: