Auckland TC 20 April 2018 – R 3 – Chair, Mr B J Scott
ID: JCA17204
Meet Title:
Auckland TC - 20 April 2018
Meet Chair:
BScott
Meet Committee Member 1:
AGodsalve
Race Date:
2018/04/20
Race Number:
R3
Decision:
The charge is accordingly dismissed.
Facts:
Following the running of the JOHN DEVLIN MEMORIAL HANDICAP TROT an Information was lodged by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N Ydgren against open Horseman Mr AG Herlihy alleging that Mr Herlihy as the Driver of GALLEONS VICTORY drove carelessly approaching the 650 metres mark by not conceding his position to MASSIVE METRO (Driver T Mitchell) which resulted in GALLEONS VICTORY breaking and losing its chance.
Rule 869(3)(b) states: No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly.
Mr Herlihy was present at the Hearing and advised the Committee that he understood the Rule and that he did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Ydgren demonstrated the incident by use of the race films and showed where at about the 650 metres mark Mr Mitchell was 4 back on the inside of Mr Herlihy . He said that Mr Mitchell held an advantage over Mr Herlihy and that he shifted out in a slow and gradual manner. He said that Mr Herlihy was following HABIBI INTA (Driver B Orange) and that he stayed on Mr Orange's back. He said that Mr Herlihy's horse struck the sulky of Mr Orange and went offstride.
Mr Ydgren said that Mr Herlihy should have moved out and not maintained his position behind Mr Orange. He said that Mr Mitchell had an advantage over Mr Herlihy and that Mr Herlihy (under the Rules) was required to forfeit his position but he has not done so and has struck a wheel and his horse went off stride.
Mr Herlihy was invited to cross-examine Mr Ydgren on his evidence but he declined to do so preferring to give his own evidence.
He then said that the films showed that he never moved off Mr Orange's back. He said that Mr Mitchell went into no man's land . He said he was never moved out and he said that the onus was on Mr Mitchell to move out without causing interference. He again said that he stayed on Mr Orange's back all the way and that if Mr Mitchell had enough advantage on him to move him 3 wide then fair enough but that wasn't the case. He said he was holding his position and he is not obliged to move 3 wide. He said that it is blatantly clear that I have never been moved 3 wide.
Mr Ydgren by way of cross-examination asked Mr Herlihy "what is the reason why you feel you are not required to relinquish your position?"
Mr Herlihy responded by saying "that is not my obligation" he further said "that he moved off the fence but he did not move me out".
He then went on to say that if he had not moved off the fence this would not have happened. If I was moved 3 wide and came back then that is different. He then went on to say that Mr Mitchell broke my horse up by coming out under me. It is not my obligation to move out.
Mr Ydgren said that there was an obligation on Mr Herlihy to move out although he did acknowledge that Mr Mitchell had not moved him out.
The Committee asked Mr Herlihy if the inside horse MASSIVE METRO when moving out had an advantage over his horse. His response was "no he didn't".
Mr Ydgren advised the Committee that he had Mr Mitchell as a witness but that he did not intend to call him. The Committee asked Mr Ydgren if he was sure about that and he confirmed his position.
The calling of witnesses is always the choice of the Informant or the Respondent as the case may be. It is not the Committee's job to do so.
Mr Ydgren submitted that Mr Mitchell had an advantage on Mr Herlihy and he was entitled to move him out. He said that there was an obligation on Mr Herlihy to relinquish his position. He said that by not doing so he had caused his own horse to break and lose its chance.
Mr Herlihy submitted that Mr Mitchell did not have sufficient advantage over him and that Mr Mitchell had come out under him and had caused GALLEONS VICTORY to break.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee listened to the parties and we have viewed the films several times. It is interesting to note that even though Mr Mitchell was attempting to push Mr Herlihy out Mr Herlihy's horse had stayed on the back of Mr Orange's horse all the time (the films showed that).
There was an interesting scenario here because Mr Herlihy was trying to maintain his position and trail the eventual winner of the race and in doing so was doing his best for his owners. Mr Mitchell on the other hand was trying to improve his position at an important part of the race and he also was doing his best for his owners. The question is who has to give way?
Mr Ydgren said that Mr Mitchell held an advantage over Mr Herlihy but Mr Herlihy said that he did not. The films are inconclusive in that regard. Mr Ydgren tells us that Mr Herlihy struck the wheel of Mr Orange's sulky but we do not accept that, bearing in mind that although Mr Orange was in front of Mr Herlihy any movement between Mr Herlihy and Mr Mitchell was virtually a sideways movement.
We were concerned that Mr Ydgren did not call Mr Mitchell to give evidence even though he told us that he had Mr Mitchell available. This was very surprising.
Mr Ydgren did not challenge Mr Herlihy's statement that he stayed on Mr Orange's back all the time and further he acknowledged that Mr Mitchell did not move Mr Herlihy out.
It was of major importance to us that Mr Ydgren did not at any stage challenge Mr Herlihy's statements "Mitchell broke me up by coming out under me" and "Mitchell caused the interference". We would have thought that it was vital for the Informant to challenge those statements.
In our view it is possible that Mr Mitchell did cause the interference.
The evidence presented to us is inconclusive and any benefit of the doubt must go in favour of Mr Herlihy.
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: e91a42d4a74b757b713e3b56a9c337a8
informantnumber: A10705
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 22/04/2018
hearing_title: Auckland TC 20 April 2018 - R 3 - Chair, Mr B J Scott
charge:
facts:
Following the running of the JOHN DEVLIN MEMORIAL HANDICAP TROT an Information was lodged by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N Ydgren against open Horseman Mr AG Herlihy alleging that Mr Herlihy as the Driver of GALLEONS VICTORY drove carelessly approaching the 650 metres mark by not conceding his position to MASSIVE METRO (Driver T Mitchell) which resulted in GALLEONS VICTORY breaking and losing its chance.
Rule 869(3)(b) states: No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly.
Mr Herlihy was present at the Hearing and advised the Committee that he understood the Rule and that he did not admit the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Ydgren demonstrated the incident by use of the race films and showed where at about the 650 metres mark Mr Mitchell was 4 back on the inside of Mr Herlihy . He said that Mr Mitchell held an advantage over Mr Herlihy and that he shifted out in a slow and gradual manner. He said that Mr Herlihy was following HABIBI INTA (Driver B Orange) and that he stayed on Mr Orange's back. He said that Mr Herlihy's horse struck the sulky of Mr Orange and went offstride.
Mr Ydgren said that Mr Herlihy should have moved out and not maintained his position behind Mr Orange. He said that Mr Mitchell had an advantage over Mr Herlihy and that Mr Herlihy (under the Rules) was required to forfeit his position but he has not done so and has struck a wheel and his horse went off stride.
Mr Herlihy was invited to cross-examine Mr Ydgren on his evidence but he declined to do so preferring to give his own evidence.
He then said that the films showed that he never moved off Mr Orange's back. He said that Mr Mitchell went into no man's land . He said he was never moved out and he said that the onus was on Mr Mitchell to move out without causing interference. He again said that he stayed on Mr Orange's back all the way and that if Mr Mitchell had enough advantage on him to move him 3 wide then fair enough but that wasn't the case. He said he was holding his position and he is not obliged to move 3 wide. He said that it is blatantly clear that I have never been moved 3 wide.
Mr Ydgren by way of cross-examination asked Mr Herlihy "what is the reason why you feel you are not required to relinquish your position?"
Mr Herlihy responded by saying "that is not my obligation" he further said "that he moved off the fence but he did not move me out".
He then went on to say that if he had not moved off the fence this would not have happened. If I was moved 3 wide and came back then that is different. He then went on to say that Mr Mitchell broke my horse up by coming out under me. It is not my obligation to move out.
Mr Ydgren said that there was an obligation on Mr Herlihy to move out although he did acknowledge that Mr Mitchell had not moved him out.
The Committee asked Mr Herlihy if the inside horse MASSIVE METRO when moving out had an advantage over his horse. His response was "no he didn't".
Mr Ydgren advised the Committee that he had Mr Mitchell as a witness but that he did not intend to call him. The Committee asked Mr Ydgren if he was sure about that and he confirmed his position.
The calling of witnesses is always the choice of the Informant or the Respondent as the case may be. It is not the Committee's job to do so.
Mr Ydgren submitted that Mr Mitchell had an advantage on Mr Herlihy and he was entitled to move him out. He said that there was an obligation on Mr Herlihy to relinquish his position. He said that by not doing so he had caused his own horse to break and lose its chance.
Mr Herlihy submitted that Mr Mitchell did not have sufficient advantage over him and that Mr Mitchell had come out under him and had caused GALLEONS VICTORY to break.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee listened to the parties and we have viewed the films several times. It is interesting to note that even though Mr Mitchell was attempting to push Mr Herlihy out Mr Herlihy's horse had stayed on the back of Mr Orange's horse all the time (the films showed that).
There was an interesting scenario here because Mr Herlihy was trying to maintain his position and trail the eventual winner of the race and in doing so was doing his best for his owners. Mr Mitchell on the other hand was trying to improve his position at an important part of the race and he also was doing his best for his owners. The question is who has to give way?
Mr Ydgren said that Mr Mitchell held an advantage over Mr Herlihy but Mr Herlihy said that he did not. The films are inconclusive in that regard. Mr Ydgren tells us that Mr Herlihy struck the wheel of Mr Orange's sulky but we do not accept that, bearing in mind that although Mr Orange was in front of Mr Herlihy any movement between Mr Herlihy and Mr Mitchell was virtually a sideways movement.
We were concerned that Mr Ydgren did not call Mr Mitchell to give evidence even though he told us that he had Mr Mitchell available. This was very surprising.
Mr Ydgren did not challenge Mr Herlihy's statement that he stayed on Mr Orange's back all the time and further he acknowledged that Mr Mitchell did not move Mr Herlihy out.
It was of major importance to us that Mr Ydgren did not at any stage challenge Mr Herlihy's statements "Mitchell broke me up by coming out under me" and "Mitchell caused the interference". We would have thought that it was vital for the Informant to challenge those statements.
In our view it is possible that Mr Mitchell did cause the interference.
The evidence presented to us is inconclusive and any benefit of the doubt must go in favour of Mr Herlihy.
Decision:
The charge is accordingly dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr N Ydgren - Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: AG Herlihy - Open Horseman
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 018c8de9dc5ccc15192a0fa68de0fe3b
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 23a351abfa843d4e1828c9292c389c03
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 20/04/2018
meet_title: Auckland TC - 20 April 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: BScott
meet_pm1: AGodsalve
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland TC