Cambridge – Te Awamutu HRC – 1 April 2010 – R 6
ID: JCA21295
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Decision: --
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Informant: Mr T W Taumanu
--Defendant: Mr G C Small
--Information No: 11804 (lodging a protest)
--Meeting: Cambridge-Te Awamutu Harness Racing Club
--Date: 1 April 2010
--Venue: Cambridge Raceway
--Race: 6
--Rule No: 869
--Judicial Committee: B J Scott, Chairman – B J Rowe, Committee Member
----
An Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr TW Taumanu against the fourth placing of Zenola Seelster (Driver GC Small) on the grounds of causing interference to Millwood Manhattan (Driver AG Herlihy) shortly after the start.
----
The protest was contested.
----
Present at the Hearing were Mr GC Small and Mr AG Herlihy. Mr Herlihy acknowledged that he represented the connections of Millwood Manhattan. Mr Small advised this Committee that the owners of Zenola Seelster were not present on the course and as the Trainer/Driver this Committee took the view that he was representing the connections of the horse.
----
Mr Taumanu gave evidence from both his personal observation and by use of the video films of the incident. He showed that Zenola Seelster drew five and Millwood Manhattan drew seven and shortly after the start Mr Herlihy’s horse crossed over behind Mr Small’s horse and Mr Herlihy endeavoured to follow Intrepid Traveller (Driver SD Phelan) which had drawn four. Mr Small remained five wide for some time after the start and there was a gap of several cart widths between Zenola Seelster and Millwood Manhattan and that there was also plenty of room on the inside of Millwood Manhattan. Mr Taumanu showed where Mr Small had moved across and tightened Mr Herlihy’s horse and shortly thereafter Mr Herlihy’s horse broke and lost approximately forty metres. Mr Taumanu said that there is no pressure on Mr Small’s horse from the outside and in his view Mr Small’s horse had tightened up Mr Herlihy’s horse for racing room and contact was made and Mr Herlihy’s horse broke.
----
Mr Small did not have any questions for Mr Taumanu.
----
Mr Herlihy gave evidence and he said that the evidence given by Mr Taumanu was more or less what had happened. He did say that Mr Small had come over tightly on him and Mr Small’s sulky wheel was inside Mr Herlihy’s sulky wheel and that the rear leg of Millwood Manhattan struck the sulky disk of Mr Small’s sulky and this caused his horse to break and lose ground.
----
Mr Small in questioning Mr Herlihy tried to suggest by use of the film that the inside sulky wheel of Zenola Seelster was not inside the sulky wheel of Millwood Manhattan and that contact was only made after Millwood Manhattan had broken. Mr Small was suggesting that Millwood Manhattan had broken free of interference.
----
Mr Herlihy totally disagreed with that and he said as far as he was concerned the situation was very clear cut and that Mr Small had tightened his horse up, that contact had been made and his horse had broken.
----
Mr Small gave evidence and he made use of the video films. He particularly pointed to the head on film and he tried to show the Committee that when Millwood Manhattan first went into a break that his (Mr Small’s) inside sulky wheel was not inside the wheel of Mr Herlihy’s horse and he tried to show that the sulkys were along side and that shortly thereafter his horse ran in and that contact was made. He did not dispute that contact was made but said that it had happened after Mr Herlihy’s horse had broken and as far as he was concerned he did not tighten up Mr Herlihy’s horse nor did he cause it to break and that it had broken free of interference. Mr Small was aware that he had moved across several cart widths towards Mr Herlihy’s horse but he did not believe that he had caused interference to it and he was at great lengths to show the Committee by use of the video films that the Mr Herlihy’s horse had broken before Mr Small came in contact with it. Mr Small was clearly of the view that Mr Herlihy’s horse had broken free of interference not withstanding the evidence given by both Mr Taumanu (which Mr Small did not challenge) and Mr Herlihy.
----
Decision
----
The Committee viewed the films several times and in particular looked at the films in terms of the evidence given by Messrs Taumanu and Herlihy and also in terms of the issues that Mr Small raised in his evidence.
----
The Committee has had the benefit of viewing the films from several different angles.
----
The Committee is firmly of the view that Zenola Seelster has come across too close to Millwood Manhattan and has tightened that horse up and has caused it to break and lose approximately forty metres. The Committee noted that the margin between the two horses at the end of the race was approximately point eight of a length. In the Committee’s view Zenola Seelster has clearly gained an advantage over Millwood Manhattan as a result of the interference caused to that horse and accordingly the protest is upheld.
----
The Committee therefore relegates Zenola Seelster from fourth to fifth and promotes Millwood Manhattan from fifth to fourth.
----
The amended placings are now:
----
1st (4) Intrepid Traveller
--2nd (3) Abide With Me
--3rd (1) Susie Darlin
--4th (7) Millwood Manhattan
--5th (5) Zenola Seelster
--6th (2) Minnie Moose
----
--
--
BJ Scott BJ Rowe
--CHAIR Committee Member
--11804
----
--
--
--
--
Decision Date: 01/04/2010
Publish Date: 01/04/2010
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: 8d8e25b7cf18bc9abfc3ab0da68e54b0
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 01/04/2010
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Cambridge - Te Awamutu HRC - 1 April 2010 - R 6
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Informant: Mr T W Taumanu
--Defendant: Mr G C Small
--Information No: 11804 (lodging a protest)
--Meeting: Cambridge-Te Awamutu Harness Racing Club
--Date: 1 April 2010
--Venue: Cambridge Raceway
--Race: 6
--Rule No: 869
--Judicial Committee: B J Scott, Chairman – B J Rowe, Committee Member
----
An Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr TW Taumanu against the fourth placing of Zenola Seelster (Driver GC Small) on the grounds of causing interference to Millwood Manhattan (Driver AG Herlihy) shortly after the start.
----
The protest was contested.
----
Present at the Hearing were Mr GC Small and Mr AG Herlihy. Mr Herlihy acknowledged that he represented the connections of Millwood Manhattan. Mr Small advised this Committee that the owners of Zenola Seelster were not present on the course and as the Trainer/Driver this Committee took the view that he was representing the connections of the horse.
----
Mr Taumanu gave evidence from both his personal observation and by use of the video films of the incident. He showed that Zenola Seelster drew five and Millwood Manhattan drew seven and shortly after the start Mr Herlihy’s horse crossed over behind Mr Small’s horse and Mr Herlihy endeavoured to follow Intrepid Traveller (Driver SD Phelan) which had drawn four. Mr Small remained five wide for some time after the start and there was a gap of several cart widths between Zenola Seelster and Millwood Manhattan and that there was also plenty of room on the inside of Millwood Manhattan. Mr Taumanu showed where Mr Small had moved across and tightened Mr Herlihy’s horse and shortly thereafter Mr Herlihy’s horse broke and lost approximately forty metres. Mr Taumanu said that there is no pressure on Mr Small’s horse from the outside and in his view Mr Small’s horse had tightened up Mr Herlihy’s horse for racing room and contact was made and Mr Herlihy’s horse broke.
----
Mr Small did not have any questions for Mr Taumanu.
----
Mr Herlihy gave evidence and he said that the evidence given by Mr Taumanu was more or less what had happened. He did say that Mr Small had come over tightly on him and Mr Small’s sulky wheel was inside Mr Herlihy’s sulky wheel and that the rear leg of Millwood Manhattan struck the sulky disk of Mr Small’s sulky and this caused his horse to break and lose ground.
----
Mr Small in questioning Mr Herlihy tried to suggest by use of the film that the inside sulky wheel of Zenola Seelster was not inside the sulky wheel of Millwood Manhattan and that contact was only made after Millwood Manhattan had broken. Mr Small was suggesting that Millwood Manhattan had broken free of interference.
----
Mr Herlihy totally disagreed with that and he said as far as he was concerned the situation was very clear cut and that Mr Small had tightened his horse up, that contact had been made and his horse had broken.
----
Mr Small gave evidence and he made use of the video films. He particularly pointed to the head on film and he tried to show the Committee that when Millwood Manhattan first went into a break that his (Mr Small’s) inside sulky wheel was not inside the wheel of Mr Herlihy’s horse and he tried to show that the sulkys were along side and that shortly thereafter his horse ran in and that contact was made. He did not dispute that contact was made but said that it had happened after Mr Herlihy’s horse had broken and as far as he was concerned he did not tighten up Mr Herlihy’s horse nor did he cause it to break and that it had broken free of interference. Mr Small was aware that he had moved across several cart widths towards Mr Herlihy’s horse but he did not believe that he had caused interference to it and he was at great lengths to show the Committee by use of the video films that the Mr Herlihy’s horse had broken before Mr Small came in contact with it. Mr Small was clearly of the view that Mr Herlihy’s horse had broken free of interference not withstanding the evidence given by both Mr Taumanu (which Mr Small did not challenge) and Mr Herlihy.
----
Decision
----
The Committee viewed the films several times and in particular looked at the films in terms of the evidence given by Messrs Taumanu and Herlihy and also in terms of the issues that Mr Small raised in his evidence.
----
The Committee has had the benefit of viewing the films from several different angles.
----
The Committee is firmly of the view that Zenola Seelster has come across too close to Millwood Manhattan and has tightened that horse up and has caused it to break and lose approximately forty metres. The Committee noted that the margin between the two horses at the end of the race was approximately point eight of a length. In the Committee’s view Zenola Seelster has clearly gained an advantage over Millwood Manhattan as a result of the interference caused to that horse and accordingly the protest is upheld.
----
The Committee therefore relegates Zenola Seelster from fourth to fifth and promotes Millwood Manhattan from fifth to fourth.
----
The amended placings are now:
----
1st (4) Intrepid Traveller
--2nd (3) Abide With Me
--3rd (1) Susie Darlin
--4th (7) Millwood Manhattan
--5th (5) Zenola Seelster
--6th (2) Minnie Moose
----
--
--
BJ Scott BJ Rowe
--CHAIR Committee Member
--11804
----
--
--
--
--
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869
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: