Banks Peninsula TC – 3 December 2006 – Race 5

hearingid: 26f5efd7ed6acdf1546da4ee945e931c

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 03/12/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Banks Peninsula TC - 3 December 2006 - Race 5

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 5, Ravenscar Farm Mobile Pace an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against licensed Open Horseman Mr C. J. De Filippi, the driver of KAIATA KING under Rule 868(2) or in alternative 868(3).

Following the running of Race 5, Ravenscar Farm Mobile Pace an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against licensed Open Horseman Mr C. J. De Filippi, the driver of KAIATA KING under Rule 868(2) or in alternative 868(3). These rules state:

The information alleged that:

Mr De Filippi indicated on the information that he did not admit the breach.

The committee informed Mr De Filippi that as the penalties for a breach of this Rule can be substantial he was entitled to have the hearing adjourned to a later date. However Mr De Filippi informed the committee that he wanted the charge heard on the day.

Mr Escott showed a video of the last 400 metres of the race and asked the committee to note the lack of urgency shown by Mr De Filippi having given the horse one strike with the whip about 200 metres from the finish and another couple just short of the winning post at the stage that ECHOVALE LAD was levelling with him and passing him, eventually winning the race by a half length. Mr Escott stated that KAIATA KING appeared to have an unassailable lead until the late stages of the race.

Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. Williams gave evidence that she watched the race from the top of the straight. She stated that from her vantage point she saw Mr De Filippi sitting upright in the cart and did not see Mr De Filippi show any urgency in the run to the judge. She stated that this urgency did not necessarily mean the hitting of the horse but in her opinion Mr De Filippi did not show the urgency as required under the rules. Mr De Filippi in questioning Mrs Williams commented that in some cases the dropping of the reins is the worst thing to do and can cause the horse to stop.

Stipendiary Steward Mr N. McIntyre told the committee that he watched the race from the end of the back straight and expressed concern at the conclusion of the race that Mr De Filippi had appeared to have shown no vigour from his vantage point from across the track.

Mr De Filippi explained that this was the first time since he had driven the horse that he had made a reasonable beginning and was in front. He had been taken on from the 800 metre mark by another horse who had levelled on the home turn. Another horse challenged 200 metres out at which stage Mr De Filippi gave KAIATA KING one hit with the whip. In his opinion the horse did not respond with any acceleration at this point but kept going at the same speed. He didn?t want to keep hitting the horse as he wanted him to keep his confidence and thought the horse would start to stop if he further hit the horse. In reply to a question from Mr McIntyre, Mr De Filippi could not explain why he had hit the horse as soon as he saw ECHOVALE AVE challenge him in the middle of the track. Mr De Filippi did contend however that even after he had hit his horse he did not take any more ground off the horse that was on his immediate outside. Mr De Filippi maintained that his horse was doing the best he could and would never have beaten the eventual winner given the circumstances of the race.

The committee then adjourned to consider its decision. On returning it gave the following oral decision:

"Mr De Filippi you have been charged under Rule 868(2) or the alternative 868(3) in that you failed to drive your horse out or urge your horse on over the concluding stages of the race. The allegations by the Stipendiary Stewards are that your efforts in driving KAIATA KING over the concluding stages of the race were not of sufficient vigour to comply with the rules. The evidence of the Stipendiary Stewards were that you struck the horse twice in the last 200 metres, once 150 metres out and the other just short of the line when you appeared to notice the other horse wide on the track. You maintain that you got the best out of your horse and when struck with the whip the horse showed no acceleration. You acknowledged yourself that the lack of vigour did not look good but maintain that the other horse that had beaten you regardless of the vigour shown.

A driver is required to show demonstrable and discernible actions viewed objectively and the committee is not satisfied that your actions constitute driving your horse out in a manner required by Rule 868(3).

We find the charge under Rule 868(3) to be proven and dismiss the charge under Rule 868(2).

The committee notes that the charge was brought in the alternative and feel that this Rule is appropriate in this case".

In determining penalty the Committee had regard to the following matters:

--
1. The consequential effects upon the public who financially supported KAIATA KING which started second favourite and presumably was strongly supported in trifecta and treble bets.
--
2. The need to maintain integrity and public confidence in harness racing. This must be a principal concern of all judicial committees in imposing penalty.
--
3. The Committee regards the failure by Mr De Filippi to drive the horse out to the end of the race as serious and any penalty must reflect that. Whether the horse would have won had Mr De Filippi shown more vigour can only be speculation. The committee does not need to determine that. What is relevant is that he complied with the Rule that states he must drive the horse out to the finish of the race if he has a chance of running in the first six placings. The committee is of the view that he did not do so.

Mr Escott stated that Mr De Filippi had not been charged under this Rule in the past. He said that for a breach of this Rule the Stipendiary Stewards would be recommending a suspension of approximately 4 weeks and a fine in the $500 - $750 range. Mr De Filippi had no submission to make on penalty.

The committee has looked at other penalties for a breach of Rule 868(3). The three that appear relevant are Butcher, Woodward and James. Of these the Butcher case appears to have more similarities than the others. Mr Butcher was suspended for three weeks which included a Premier Meeting and the Miracle Mile. The committee is of the opinion that this charge is similar but not as serious as the Butcher case. Mr De Filippi's clean driving record in respect to this Rule has also been taken into account.

The committee has therefore decided that Mr De Filippi's horseman's licence is to be suspended up to and including 23 December 2006. No monetary fine is imposed as the committee feels that the period of suspension will in itself impose a financial effect on Mr De Filippi.

R. A. Quirk

CHAIRMAN

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 868.2, 868.3

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: d4feb81ad51ce648fd07499bf440d776

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 5

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 3e7a07ab2560e887a19d8a6d7a8eaabd

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 03/12/2006

meet_title: Banks Peninsula TC - 3 December 2006

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: banks-peninsula-tc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Banks Peninsula TC