Auckland TC 17 June 2016 – R 3 (heard on 24 June 2016 at Alexandra Park) – Chair, Mr A Godsalve

hearingid: d4b2792aaa1b56d4047815672cd6da05

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 17/06/2016

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Auckland TC 17 June 2016 - R 3 (heard on 24 June 2016 at Alexandra Park) - Chair, Mr A Godsalve

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

AUCKLAND TROTTING CLUB – 17 JUNE 2016 – RACE 3

Heard at Alexandra Park on 24 June 2016

Rules: 869(3)(f), 867

Name: Mr B Mangos – Open Horseman

Informant: Mr J Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward

Information Number: A7447

Judicial Committee: Mr A Godsalve, Chair – Mr A Dooley, Committee Member

Charge: Improper driving and/or foot out of foot rest

Breach: Denied

Also present: Mr B Jones - Stipendiary Steward

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 3 at the Auckland Harness Meeting on 17 June 2016, the Lincoln Farms Mobile Pace, Mr Muirhead laid an Information alleging that Open Horseman, Mr B Mangos had 'driven BEVANS CULLEN improperly, allowing his right foot to contact the off hind leg of his horse and or drove with his foot out of the foot rest of the sulky'.

This matter was bought before the raceday Committee following the final race of the evening. At the hearing that night, Mr Mangos elected to not admit either of the allegations, and the hearing was adjourned to be heard before the first race at the Auckland Harness meeting on 24 June 2016.

Rule 869(3)(f) states 'No horseman in any race shall drive improperly'

Rule 867 states 'Every horseman shall drive throughout the race with both feet in the rest of the sulky provided for that purpose'.

Submission For Decision:

Using the available video films, Mr Muirhead identified BEVANS CULLEN as the field approached the final turn into the home straight. At a point approximately 400 metres from the finish, Mr Muirhead pointed out that Mr Mangos' right foot was out of the sulky rest. The horse was trailing the leader at that stage of the race and it was evident from the films that it was 'hanging in'.

Referring to the head-on film of the race, Mr Muirhead alleged that the right hind leg of the horse had made contacted with Mr Mangos' foot on 2 occasions. Mr Muirhead further stated that in his opinion Mr Mangos was holding his leg forward at the time the contact was made with the horse and had not tucked his knee back. He said that using a leg in this manner was called a 'bar'. Mr Muirhead also stated that BEVANS CULLEN had struck marker pylons several times between the 400 metres and the 200 metres. He said that in his opinion the actions of Mr Mangos were 'very careless if not deliberate' and that in his opinion the stewards did not need to prove Mr Mangos intended to make contact with the horse as it was a matter of 'strict liability'.

Mr Muirhead referred to the side-on film to further establish Mr Mangos' culpability. However while that film showed the horse prior to and after the alleged incidents, the placing of a large floodlight pole obscured the actual vision of the horse at the crucial time.

Mr Mangos told the Committee that BEVANS CULLEN was trailing the leading horse and was 'full of running'. However the horse was 'laying in' and giving him a somewhat difficult drive. Mr Mangos pointed out that from about the 400 metres mark, his horse had contacted marker pylons at least twice, and then had run over a pylon. He said this unbalanced his sulky and caused his right foot to drop out of its rest. From that time until about the 200 metres mark he said he was all out trying to get his horse to run straight and was also concerned about either striking or running inside any more pylons. He said he was aware horses could be disqualified for running inside too many pylons. As it was, Mr Mangos said, he ended up winning the race easily by almost 3 lengths. Mr Mangos added that he was driving in a sulky provided by the trainer of BEVANS CULLEN, Mr Dunn, and said that when Mr Dunn gears up his horses he has the driver very close to the horse, much more so than most other trainers. Mr Mangos said he denied that his foot had made any contact with the horse and did not believe the films showed that. He also denied using his leg as a 'bar' stating that allegation by the stewards was 'rubbish'. He added that to attempt to kick or strike the horse when it was travelling so well would have been foolish and something he does not engage in.

In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Muirhead acknowledged that BEVANS CULLEN contacted pylons rounding the final bend. Mr Mangos requested for Mr Jones to read out the Stewards' report which had recorded this fact.

In summation Mr Muirhead re-iterated that it was his belief that Mr Mangos had made contact with BEVANS CULLEN with his foot twice and that as the Informant he did not need to prove any intent for the charge to be upheld.

Mr Mangos stated that he had covered everything he needed to say earlier and had nothing to add in summing up.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee, in considering a decision following hearing this matter, firstly considered it's options relative to the Information.

The Informant has alleged that the Respondent drove his horse improperly and/or drove with his foot out of the footrest. It follows that the Committee could uphold both charges; uphold either of the charges, or dismiss both of the charges. Clearly we have to be satisfied that the evidence produced before us enables us to do any of these. It should be stressed that the charges are not laid in the 'alternative'.

We took careful note of the evidence and submissions of the parties. We also carefully viewed all of the films ourselves, at speeds varying from very slow to normal speed.

Mr Muirhead states that it is not incumbent on the Informant to prove 'intent' when dealing with the charge of improper driving. This is clearly one of the most serious charges and carries a significant penalty.

The head-on film when viewed frame by frame shows Mr Mangos has his leg out of the sulky rest, and bent at the knee with his foot 'dangling' down. It is possible to see that his horse's leg makes very minor contact with his foot, once only. What it does not show is Mr Mangos making any intentional attempt to strike the horse with his foot.

There is no doubt that Mr Mangos continued to drive and attempt to correct his horse's racing manners with his foot out of the rest for some distance. The films show that his leg was not held out in a rigid position. The best viewing of what actually took place would have been from the side-on films, however as already stated, that film had an obstruction at a critical time.

Mr Mangos has told us, and the outcome of the race verifies this, that BEVANS CULLEN was travelling extremely well, although laying in, coming around the final bend. He confirmed the films which showed the horse accelerating away from the field to win easily. We note that Mr Mangos advised the Stewards that he did not activate the removable deafeners on his horse. The Committee tends to agree with Mr Mangos, who is an extremely successful driver, that for him to kick or strike the horse with his foot at this time would have been unnecessary and foolish.

The Committee has difficulty agreeing with Mr Muirhead that he does not have to prove Mr Mangos intended to strike the horse, or that this charge can be regarded as a matter of 'strict liability'. If that were the case there would be no defence to a charge under this Rule and we do not believe that to be the case.

Decision:

We therefore dismiss the charge under Rule 869(3)(f)-improper driving.

We uphold the charge under Rule 867. We believe Mr Mangos unintentionally dropped his foot out of the rest when his sulky became unbalanced after contacting the pylons rounding the final bend. However we consider he should have made more effort to replace his foot into the rest, even though the horse may have been giving him a difficult drive when hanging rounding the final bend. We do not believe he gained any advantage while driving with his foot out of the rest and his leg bent at the knee.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Muirhead referred to the JCA Penalty Guide which provides for a fine of $I 00 or a 2 drive suspension for a breach of this Rule. He added that Mr Mangos had no history of breaching this Rule.

Mr Mangos had no comment to make regarding his likely penalty.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Committee ascertained from it's own records that the vast majority of drivers who breach this Rule for the first time are fined $I 00 and we see no reason to vary from that course of action.

Penalty:

 The Committee therefore imposes a fine of $I00 on Mr Mangos.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869(3)(f), 867

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: