Ashburton TC – 24 October 2005 –

hearingid: 74f80237015adb30cf6b6cd54f5b8e4b

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 24/10/2005

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Ashburton TC - 24 October 2005 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of race seven the Stipendiary Stewards lodged an information against Mr WE Higgs [White Arrow] under Rule 864 [2] [d] alleging that Mr Higgs the drive of White Arrow was unable to activate the removable hood due to the hopple shorter cord becoming entangled with the cord for the removable hood.

Following the running of race seven the Stipendiary Stewards lodged an information against Mr WE Higgs [White Arrow] under Rule 864 [2] [d] alleging that Mr Higgs the drive of White Arrow was unable to activate the removable hood due to the hopple shorter cord becoming entangled with the cord for the removable hood.

At the outset of the hearing Mr Higgs confirmed that he understood the charge. The Committee had the Rule read to him and advised him that the Rule was one of strict liability.

Mr B. Williams on behalf of the Stipendiary Stewards, demonstrated the problem with the removal hood by use of the video evidence of the race over the concluding 300 metres. That evidence clearly showed Mr Higgs attempting to remove the hood by pulling the cord on at least two separate occasions.

Mr Escott advised the Committee that Mr Higgs reported the problem to the Stipendiary Stewards prior to returning to the bird cage and it was noted that the hopper shorter cord was entangled with the removal hood cord and the mud sheet strap.

Mr Higgs confirmed the position regarding the problem with the removal hood cord and said that he had put new pins on the hopper shortners that day and when he pulled the pins out the cord rapped around the removal hood cord and the dust sheet strap causing the malfunction of the removable hood.

At the conclusion of the hearing the Committee advised Mr Higgs that the charge had been found proved on the basis that he had not fitted the gear in such a way so as to ensure it would operate as intended.

With regard to penalty, the Stipendiary Stewards indicted that the horse had run second and could have possibly improved its placing had the gear not malfunctioned. The committee was also asked to take interest of status of the race and Mr Higgs not admitting the charge. The Stipendiary Stewards recommended a monitory penalty only. Mr Higgs for his part accepted that he was responsible or be it after the decision had been made, and accepted a monitory penalty should be imposed.

The Committee after taken into account the submission from both parties agrees that a monitory penalty only should be imposed but the penalty should reflect mitigating features referred to be Mr Escott. Accordingly a fin of $200.00 is imposed.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 864.2.d

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: