Auckland TC 26 May 2017 – R 9 – Chair, Mr A Godsalve
ID: JCA13706
Meet Title:
Auckland TC - 26 May 2017
Meet Chair:
AGodsalve
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2017/05/26
Race Number:
R 1
Decision:
We find that the charge is proved.
Penalty:
We imposed a fine of $100 on Mr Phelan.
Facts:
Following the running of ace 9, the AUCKLAND C0-OP TAXIS 300-3000 MOBILE PACE 2200m, Mr Muirhead submitted an Information alleging that Mr S Phelan, representing trainer Mr B Purdon 'failed to ensure that the proper numbered saddlecloth was attached to MAHEER MISTER prior to that horse parading in the assembly area'.
Note: This type of breach is normally dealt with by way of a Minor Incident Report and incurs an automatic fine. Mr Phelan, who was present at the hearing, denied the charge and thus the matter was dealt with by the Judicial Committee by way of an Information. The relevant Rule was read out for the information of the parties.
Rule 849(2) provides ' The trainer, horseman or person in control of each horse in the race shall ensure that the proper numbered saddlecloth is attached prior to the horse parading in the assembly area'.
Submissions for Decision:
Opening the case for the Informant, Mr Muirhead called Mr Van Kan to give his evidence.
Mr Van Kan said that he was a Stipendiary Steward on duty that evening. His role was to check that approved gear, brands, saddlecloths etc were correctly afixed to each horse in every race prior to those horses being allowed to enter onto the racetrack. Mr Van Kan said that he normally positions himself in the asembly area and checks each horse as it enters that area. On this night, due to heavy rain, he said he was stationed just inside the stabling area where he could still check each horse as it went past him into the assembly area. He said that as driver, Mr Z Butcher brought the horse MAHEER MISTER past him he noticed that it was carrying saddlecloth 8 instead of 6. He drew Mr Butcher's attention to this and Mr Butcher turned the horse around and returned to the stable area to have this corrected. Mr Van Kan said he then informed Mr Muirhead of what had taken place.
In answer to a query from the Committee Mr Van Kan confirmed that his juridiction that evening extended to all parts of the racecourse.
Mr Phelan had no questions to put to Mr Van Kan.
Mr Phelan stated that he did not believe he or the stable should be charged as the horse had not proceeded to the assembly area. He added that he was unclear as to when a horse was officially in the assembly area and that was why he had denied the breach. He said he did not know who had placed the saddlecloth on the horse when it was being geared up for the race.
In summing up Mr Muirhead stated that he believed Mr Van Kan was doing his job properly in bringing to his attention the fact that the horse in question had been prepared for the race with an incorrect saddlecloth, irrespective of where he had discovered this.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee was guided by the Rule in reaching a decision on this matter.
The Rule states that the proper numbered saddlecloth must be attached to the horse prior to the horses parading in the assembly area.
The Committee accepts the evidence of Mr Van Kan that the horse was bearing the incorrect saddlecloth when he inspected it. We considered that it was irrelevant where Mr Van Kan was positioned at the time he made that discovery. It was clear that the wrong saddlecloth was on the horse and the stable staff member who had placed it on the horse had erred. Mr Phelan was in charge of the horse and that staff member at the time.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Muirhead submitted that this type of breach, when dealt with as a MIN, attracted a fine of $100. He added that the Stewards considered that to be an appropriate fine.
Mr Phelan had no comment to make.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee took note of the fact that fines of $100 were the norm when a breach like this was dealt with and saw no reason to differ from that. We did not believe Mr Phelan should be further penalised for wishing to dispute the charge.
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: 5b36d035ce510f6f74950ed2df96b27c
informantnumber: A9116
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Incorrect saddlecloth on horse
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 30/05/2017
hearing_title: Auckland TC 26 May 2017 - R 9 - Chair, Mr A Godsalve
charge:
facts:
Following the running of ace 9, the AUCKLAND C0-OP TAXIS 300-3000 MOBILE PACE 2200m, Mr Muirhead submitted an Information alleging that Mr S Phelan, representing trainer Mr B Purdon 'failed to ensure that the proper numbered saddlecloth was attached to MAHEER MISTER prior to that horse parading in the assembly area'.
Note: This type of breach is normally dealt with by way of a Minor Incident Report and incurs an automatic fine. Mr Phelan, who was present at the hearing, denied the charge and thus the matter was dealt with by the Judicial Committee by way of an Information. The relevant Rule was read out for the information of the parties.
Rule 849(2) provides ' The trainer, horseman or person in control of each horse in the race shall ensure that the proper numbered saddlecloth is attached prior to the horse parading in the assembly area'.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Opening the case for the Informant, Mr Muirhead called Mr Van Kan to give his evidence.
Mr Van Kan said that he was a Stipendiary Steward on duty that evening. His role was to check that approved gear, brands, saddlecloths etc were correctly afixed to each horse in every race prior to those horses being allowed to enter onto the racetrack. Mr Van Kan said that he normally positions himself in the asembly area and checks each horse as it enters that area. On this night, due to heavy rain, he said he was stationed just inside the stabling area where he could still check each horse as it went past him into the assembly area. He said that as driver, Mr Z Butcher brought the horse MAHEER MISTER past him he noticed that it was carrying saddlecloth 8 instead of 6. He drew Mr Butcher's attention to this and Mr Butcher turned the horse around and returned to the stable area to have this corrected. Mr Van Kan said he then informed Mr Muirhead of what had taken place.
In answer to a query from the Committee Mr Van Kan confirmed that his juridiction that evening extended to all parts of the racecourse.
Mr Phelan had no questions to put to Mr Van Kan.
Mr Phelan stated that he did not believe he or the stable should be charged as the horse had not proceeded to the assembly area. He added that he was unclear as to when a horse was officially in the assembly area and that was why he had denied the breach. He said he did not know who had placed the saddlecloth on the horse when it was being geared up for the race.
In summing up Mr Muirhead stated that he believed Mr Van Kan was doing his job properly in bringing to his attention the fact that the horse in question had been prepared for the race with an incorrect saddlecloth, irrespective of where he had discovered this.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee was guided by the Rule in reaching a decision on this matter.
The Rule states that the proper numbered saddlecloth must be attached to the horse prior to the horses parading in the assembly area.
The Committee accepts the evidence of Mr Van Kan that the horse was bearing the incorrect saddlecloth when he inspected it. We considered that it was irrelevant where Mr Van Kan was positioned at the time he made that discovery. It was clear that the wrong saddlecloth was on the horse and the stable staff member who had placed it on the horse had erred. Mr Phelan was in charge of the horse and that staff member at the time.
Decision:
We find that the charge is proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Muirhead submitted that this type of breach, when dealt with as a MIN, attracted a fine of $100. He added that the Stewards considered that to be an appropriate fine.
Mr Phelan had no comment to make.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee took note of the fact that fines of $100 were the norm when a breach like this was dealt with and saw no reason to differ from that. We did not believe Mr Phelan should be further penalised for wishing to dispute the charge.
penalty:
We imposed a fine of $100 on Mr Phelan.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 849(2)
Informant: Mr J Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr S Phelan - representing Trainer Mr B Purdon
Otherperson: Mr B Van Kan - Stipendiary Stewart
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: ed65b099ca59e046aac2e7cf39364415
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 033bfca668fe27cbb76ab2b8964b2834
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/05/2017
meet_title: Auckland TC - 26 May 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: AGodsalve
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland TC