Cambridge – Te Awamutu HRC – 9 November 2006 –

hearingid: 3e6bf11586cc88a1eaaeed9409977f92

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 09/11/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Cambridge - Te Awamutu HRC - 9 November 2006 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Information 66277 alleged a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) by Mr. Mangos for driving RHYTHMIC ROSE carelessly in Race 5 causing interference to FLIGHT OF FANTASY (J. Abernethy) and DAINTY CHRISTIAN (D. Butcher) with approximately 75 metres to run.

Information 66277 alleged a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) by Mr. Mangos for driving RHYTHMIC ROSE carelessly in Race 5 causing interference to FLIGHT OF FANTASY (J. Abernethy) and DAINTY CHRISTIAN (D. Butcher) with approximately 75 metres to run. The breach was not admitted.

With the consent of Mr. Mangos, Mr. Taumanu relied on the evidence heard earlier in dealing with the Protest relating to this incident. That evidence, he submitted, established the breach in that as Mr. Mangos elected to improve using the passing lane in the run home he moved out while still under a drive and with use of the whip to the finish causing contact to FLIGHT OF FANTASY which broke at that stage and lost all chance and in turn causing DAINTY CHRISTIAN to break. The head on video clearly showed the incident, which was supported by evidence from Mr. Abernethy, driver of FLIGHT OF FANTASY.

Mr. Mangos stated that he accepted his horse had ducked out fractionally towards FLIGHT OF FANTASY but prior to this that horse had been tightened by pressure on its outside and this was the major factor in causing it to break rather than the pressure coming from his horse. He also insisted that he straightened RHYTHMIC ROSE immediately when it ducked out and the resulting break looked worse than it would otherwise have been without the pressure from the outside horse.

Mr. Taumanu agreed there had been movement from the outside but did not agree that it caused or contributed to the interference. It was all caused by movement out by RHYTHMIC ROSE, as the video showed, and Mr. Mangos should have eased back to prevent it happening.

The Committee, after taking these matters into consideration, is satisfied the evidence establishes a breach by Mr Mangos. It has considered his belief that the tightening commenced with the movement in by the outside horse and had that not occurred then when his horse moved out it would not have caused the other horse to break.

The Committee noted the tightening from the outside did not cause any horse to break and, in the Committee's view, had ended before the movement out by Mr. Mangos . It appeared it was after that initial tightening there was a sudden outward movement by Mr. Mangos as his horse tired under pressure. At the same time it was being urged on because it was contending for a place and to some extent this created a difficulty for Mr. Mangos in being able to ease at such a critical stage of the race. Nevertheless quite a serious check has occurred and the onus remains with the driver in these circumstances although it may be a mitigating factor in looking at the penalty. Therefore the breach is established to the satisfaction of the Committee.

In determining the penalty Mr. Taumanu confirmed that Mr Mangos had incurred a fine of $350.0 for a breach of this rule at Auckland on 3 November last. In this case the same breach had occurred in a heat of the NZ Sires Stakes 3YO Fillies Series a race of importance for the participants for a stake of $17,000.00 so the effects of Rule 1114 need to be considered. Given that two horses were eliminated as a result of the incident and the other factors mentioned above he suggested it called for a fine of $750.00 or a three-day suspension.

The Committee, to assist Mr. Mangos in dealing with the matter, stated that, having been involved with him in the incident at Auckland, and taking into consideration the circumstances of this matter by way of comparison, indicated that while the prior breach was at a lower scale not needing to be dealt with by way of a suspension in this case it was more serious and a suspension of two days would be what was likely to be imposed. On the other hand, if a fine were to be imposed the amount would be $500.00. In providing this information the Committee also took into account his otherwise good record, that he was a driver of considerable experience and that there were contributing factors that needed to be weighed as mentioned above.

Mr Mangos indicated that he preferred a fine of $500.00 and on that basis the Committee ordered a fine of that amount be imposed.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.3.b

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: