Cheviot HRC 1 March 2015 – R 5
ID: JCA17508
Meet Title:
Cheviot HRC - 1 March 2015
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
GClapp
Race Date:
2015/03/01
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
Penalty:
Mr O’Brien’s Open Horseman’s licence is therefore suspended from after the close of racing on 1 March 2015 up to and including 3 May 2015 – 2 months.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5, Heiniger “Capex Classic” Fillies & Mares Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr S A O’Brien, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (f) in that, as the driver of PERISSA in the race, he “drove improperly near the 250 metres when using his foot to contact the off hind leg of PERISSA”
Mr O’Brien was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he did not admit the charge.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(f) improperly.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Renault called Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N G McIntyre, to show video replays of the incident. Mr McIntyre pointed out Mr O’Brien, driving PERISSA, racing 3-wide in 4th or 5th position as the field turned into the home straight. GOODNESS GRACIOUS ME, driven by B N Orange, then crossed down in front of PERISSA. He then pointed out Mr O’Brien’s right leg “come down, in a rigid position, forward” and come into contact with the off hind leg of PERISSA. Prior to his foot coming down, Mr McIntyre alleged, Mr O’Brien’s foot had been positioned “right to the heel” in the footrest. There was only one instance of contact, Mr McIntyre said.
Mr O’Brien said that his foot had slipped because the seat was too far back. This was only the second or third occasion on which he had driven in the “American” style sulky and he was unfamiliar with it. He admitted that the horse had “touched” him before he was able to put it back up. He said that he regretted not adjusting the seat up closer.
Mr Renault said that a driver using his foot on the leg of the horse is sometimes known as “using the foot as a bar”. Its effect was to give the horse a “fright” causing it to quicken. It is used as a means of making a horse go quicker, he said. Mr O’Brien stated that he had not heard of such a thing in this country.
Mr Renault said that a foot often dropped from the footrest when a driver was activating gear. There was no such explanation on this occasion. Mr O’Brien’s foot had come down in a forward and rigid position as he was driving the horse out. He continued to drive the horse out for the remainder of the run home with his foot back in the rest.
Reasons for Decision:
Mr O’Brien had been charged with driving improperly in using his foot to contact the off hind leg of his horse, PERISSA, near the 250 metres in Race 5.
Mr Renault showed video replays of the incident from a number of angles. He pointed out Mr O’Brien, driving PERISSA, shortly after turning for home. He then pointed out Mr O’Brien’s right foot drop from the footrest for several strides and make firm contact on one occasion with the off hind leg of the horse with the sole of his shoe/boot. This was very evident from the video replays.
Mr O’Brien’s defence to charge was simply that his foot had slipped from the footrest and that there was no intention on his part to contact the leg of the horse.
To determine whether Mr O’Brien had driven improperly, we needed to look at all of the circumstances. We find that, prior to his foot dropping from the footrest, Mr O’Brien’s foot was securely placed in the footrest. There was no plausible explanation either advanced by Mr O’Brien or apparent from the video as to why his foot had come out of the footrest at that particular point in the race – such as activating gear. Furthermore, we accepted Mr Renault’s submission that Mr O’Brien’s leg was rigid and took this as evidence that his foot had not simply slipped. We also noted that his foot was at right angles to his leg which one would not expect had it suddenly slipped. The fact that contact was then made with the horse’s leg was consistent with the position of Mr O’Brien’s leg.
In other words, the Committee is satisfied on a balance of probabilities, based on the above findings, that it was a deliberate action on Mr O’Brien’s part and we do not accept his explanation that it was accidental. Mr O’Brien’s actions in using his foot to contact the leg of the horse amounted to improper driving and we, therefore, find the charge proved.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Renault informed the Committee that Mr O’Brien had a clear record. The drive today was his 3rd in the current season. In the 2013/2014 season, he had 4 drives and, in the 2012/2013 season, 3 drives. He does drive “very infrequently”, Mr Renault submitted.
Mr Renault referred to the case of another driver charged at Forbury Park in November 2014 with using his foot as a bar. The charge was admitted and the driver fined $300, he said.
Mr Renault submitted that a suspension was appropriate and, having regard to the number of drives he has, a suspension of approximately 2 months would be appropriate. PERISSA is the only horse he is driving currently, Mr O’Brien said.
Mr O’Brien said that it was his preference to receive a suspension rather than a fine and he had no submission to make as to the possible length of any such suspension.
Reasons for Penalty:
In determining penalty, the Committee received no assistance from the Penalty Guide, which suggested a starting point for improper driving of a fine of $1,000 or a 20-drives suspension. A penalty along those lines is not warranted for a breach such as the present one which, in the Committee’s view, is low range. The Committee noted the penalty in the earlier case referred to by Mr Renault in his penalty submissions. The Committee also had regard to the submissions of Mr O’Brien.
It was difficult to arrive at an appropriate period of suspension for Mr O’Brien because he drives very infrequently and is only driving one horse at the present time. The period of suspension that we have arrived at is based on our estimate (and it can only be an estimate) of his being likely to have 4 or 5 drives in the next 2 months’ period and our view that that number of drives is an appropriate penalty.
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: eaf7c63cdfa8c02bb687c11dc00e2b61
informantnumber: A4424
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Improper Driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 02/03/2015
hearing_title: Cheviot HRC 1 March 2015 - R 5
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 5, Heiniger “Capex Classic” Fillies & Mares Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr S A O’Brien, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (f) in that, as the driver of PERISSA in the race, he “drove improperly near the 250 metres when using his foot to contact the off hind leg of PERISSA”
Mr O’Brien was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he did not admit the charge.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(f) improperly.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Renault called Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N G McIntyre, to show video replays of the incident. Mr McIntyre pointed out Mr O’Brien, driving PERISSA, racing 3-wide in 4th or 5th position as the field turned into the home straight. GOODNESS GRACIOUS ME, driven by B N Orange, then crossed down in front of PERISSA. He then pointed out Mr O’Brien’s right leg “come down, in a rigid position, forward” and come into contact with the off hind leg of PERISSA. Prior to his foot coming down, Mr McIntyre alleged, Mr O’Brien’s foot had been positioned “right to the heel” in the footrest. There was only one instance of contact, Mr McIntyre said.
Mr O’Brien said that his foot had slipped because the seat was too far back. This was only the second or third occasion on which he had driven in the “American” style sulky and he was unfamiliar with it. He admitted that the horse had “touched” him before he was able to put it back up. He said that he regretted not adjusting the seat up closer.
Mr Renault said that a driver using his foot on the leg of the horse is sometimes known as “using the foot as a bar”. Its effect was to give the horse a “fright” causing it to quicken. It is used as a means of making a horse go quicker, he said. Mr O’Brien stated that he had not heard of such a thing in this country.
Mr Renault said that a foot often dropped from the footrest when a driver was activating gear. There was no such explanation on this occasion. Mr O’Brien’s foot had come down in a forward and rigid position as he was driving the horse out. He continued to drive the horse out for the remainder of the run home with his foot back in the rest.
reasonsfordecision:
Mr O’Brien had been charged with driving improperly in using his foot to contact the off hind leg of his horse, PERISSA, near the 250 metres in Race 5.
Mr Renault showed video replays of the incident from a number of angles. He pointed out Mr O’Brien, driving PERISSA, shortly after turning for home. He then pointed out Mr O’Brien’s right foot drop from the footrest for several strides and make firm contact on one occasion with the off hind leg of the horse with the sole of his shoe/boot. This was very evident from the video replays.
Mr O’Brien’s defence to charge was simply that his foot had slipped from the footrest and that there was no intention on his part to contact the leg of the horse.
To determine whether Mr O’Brien had driven improperly, we needed to look at all of the circumstances. We find that, prior to his foot dropping from the footrest, Mr O’Brien’s foot was securely placed in the footrest. There was no plausible explanation either advanced by Mr O’Brien or apparent from the video as to why his foot had come out of the footrest at that particular point in the race – such as activating gear. Furthermore, we accepted Mr Renault’s submission that Mr O’Brien’s leg was rigid and took this as evidence that his foot had not simply slipped. We also noted that his foot was at right angles to his leg which one would not expect had it suddenly slipped. The fact that contact was then made with the horse’s leg was consistent with the position of Mr O’Brien’s leg.
In other words, the Committee is satisfied on a balance of probabilities, based on the above findings, that it was a deliberate action on Mr O’Brien’s part and we do not accept his explanation that it was accidental. Mr O’Brien’s actions in using his foot to contact the leg of the horse amounted to improper driving and we, therefore, find the charge proved.
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Renault informed the Committee that Mr O’Brien had a clear record. The drive today was his 3rd in the current season. In the 2013/2014 season, he had 4 drives and, in the 2012/2013 season, 3 drives. He does drive “very infrequently”, Mr Renault submitted.
Mr Renault referred to the case of another driver charged at Forbury Park in November 2014 with using his foot as a bar. The charge was admitted and the driver fined $300, he said.
Mr Renault submitted that a suspension was appropriate and, having regard to the number of drives he has, a suspension of approximately 2 months would be appropriate. PERISSA is the only horse he is driving currently, Mr O’Brien said.
Mr O’Brien said that it was his preference to receive a suspension rather than a fine and he had no submission to make as to the possible length of any such suspension.
reasonsforpenalty:
In determining penalty, the Committee received no assistance from the Penalty Guide, which suggested a starting point for improper driving of a fine of $1,000 or a 20-drives suspension. A penalty along those lines is not warranted for a breach such as the present one which, in the Committee’s view, is low range. The Committee noted the penalty in the earlier case referred to by Mr Renault in his penalty submissions. The Committee also had regard to the submissions of Mr O’Brien.
It was difficult to arrive at an appropriate period of suspension for Mr O’Brien because he drives very infrequently and is only driving one horse at the present time. The period of suspension that we have arrived at is based on our estimate (and it can only be an estimate) of his being likely to have 4 or 5 drives in the next 2 months’ period and our view that that number of drives is an appropriate penalty.
penalty:
Mr O’Brien’s Open Horseman’s licence is therefore suspended from after the close of racing on 1 March 2015 up to and including 3 May 2015 – 2 months.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(f)
Informant: Mr S P Renault - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: S A O'Brien, Licensed Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr N G McIntyre - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 196a82eeec4e10a65042e50245b96b5e
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 83a035f7a9d92b0ce8bf4c247733507c
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/03/2015
meet_title: Cheviot HRC - 1 March 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: cheviot-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: GClapp
meet_pm2: none
name: Cheviot HRC