Cheviot HRC – 8 March 2009 –

hearingid: 1dfcb95f817850518a64ef7c4e7f7dc4

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 08/03/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Cheviot HRC - 8 March 2009 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

DECISION AND REASONS:

Following the running of Race 5, NZ Community Trust Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr S R McNally, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (b) in that Mr McNally “drove carelessly when attempting to hold a position that he was not entitled to despite having a slight advantage earlier on in this movement.” Mr McNally was the driver of JAYZ MACHINE in the Race.

Mr McNally was present at the hearing of the information and did not admit the breach.

Rule 869 provides as follows:

(3)     No horseman in any race shall drive:

         (b)    carelessly.

Mr N M Ydgren, Stipendiary Steward, showed video replays of the first 400-500 metres of the Race, a 2600 metres standing start event. He pointed out JAYZ MACHINE which had drawn 1 on the front line and ANVIL DOBSON, driven by G D Smith, which had drawn 9 on the front line.

Mr Ydgren said that, after approximately 200 metres, Mr Smith had attempted to get into the trail behind the then leader, LIVING PROOF (D J Dunn). JAYZ MACHINE, driven by Mr McNally, was on the markers following LIVING PROOF and, Mr Ydgren alleged, had an advantage over Mr Smith and was entitled to hold Mr Smith out. Mr Ydgren said that, shortly after, Mr McNally lost his advantage and Mr Smith pushed across.  Mr McNally attempted to maintain his position when Mr Smith had gone past, striking several pylons one of which flicked up into the path of BLOWHARD (A L T Lowe) which broke.

Me Escott said that, in the initial stages, Mr McNally had a slight advantage, with Mr Smith on his outside endeavouring to get the trail.  The manoeuvre went on for approximately 200 metres and resulted in Mr McNally striking several pylons and dislodging two.  Mr Escott submitted that Mr McNally, an experienced driver, knowing that there was insufficient room for horse and sulky, had persisted in attempting to hold his position resulting in his sulky striking pylons.  At no stage did he attempt to ease his horse when he held only a “slight advantage”.  As a professional horseman, Mr McNally should have eased rather than cause more trouble if he did not.  Mr McNally drove without due regard for other competitors in the Race, Mr Escott, submitted.

Mr McNally denied that he had driven carelessly.  He believed that he had the advantage and had plenty of room and did not have to pull back to let Mr Smith into the trail.  Mr Smith was not entitled to put pressure on him.  He acknowledged that the incident did “go on for a while” but, as a professional driver, he was doing his best for both his owner and the horse.  He hit the pylons only as the result of pressure from his outside.  Mr McNally referred to the video replays.  He was trying to take advantage of the spot he was originally entitled to, he said.

Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:

“The Committee believes that, in the initial stages, of this incident Mr McNally had an advantage over Mr Smith and, therefore, was entitled to hold his position as against Mr Smith.  However, we find that there came a point when Mr McNally lost that advantage and, at that point, he should have eased and conceded to Mr Smith.  We believe that, from that point, Mr McNally was not able to hold his position with safety and that a reasonable and prudent driver would not have persisted in attempting to hold his position as Mr McNally did.  We find that, in attempting to hold his position in those circumstances, Mr McNally drove carelessly.

Mr McNally told us that he believed he was driving competitively.  We believe that he crossed over the line of competitiveness and drove carelessly in this instance.  So, we find the charge to be proved”.

Mr Escott informed the Committee that Mr McNally had no recent breaches of the careless driving Rule. He recommended a fine of between $250 and $300.

Mr McNally asked the Committee to take his good record into account.

In determining penalty, the Committee took into account Mr McNally’s record. It also took into account the particular circumstances of the case in that, essentially, Mr McNally was put into the position he was by the actions of another driver. He believed that he was driving competitively but the Committee believed it was more than that. Prudence should have dictated his actions. Having said that, the Committee believed that Mr McNally had an arguable defence to the charge, even though the Committee rejected that defence.

Taking those matters into account, the Committee fined Mr McNally the sum of $200.  

R G McKenzie

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: