Forbury Park TC – 16 June 2011 R3
ID: JCA17648
Meet Title:
Forbury Park TC - 16 June 2011
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
DSteel
Race Date:
2011/06/16
Race Number:
R3
Decision:
In finding the charge proved, we reiterate that in our view there was a run for PENNYANA on the inside of MACAULEY MAGUIRE for some 100 metres in the home straight. The defendant chose not to put PENNYANA into the gap and simply followed MACAULEY MAGUIRE up the straight. That horse was stopping and finished 6th, 6.8 lengths from the winner. We are further of the view that the defendant had sufficient strength to control PENNYANA all the way up the straight and can be seen to be restraining her at the winning post. He therefore could and should have taken the run in the passing lane and, in so doing, he would then be seen to be taking all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best possible placing for PENNYANA.
Penalty:
We impose a fine of $400 and remind the defendant of his professional obligations.
Charge:
Mr Allison alleged that Mr C Ramage the driver of PENNYANA failed to improve into the passing lane in the home straight and in so doing failed to give PENNYANA the opportunity to obtain the best possible finishing place.
Facts:
Mr Allison demonstrated on the video that shortly before turning for home PENNYANA was racing 3 back on the inside, about a length and a half behind the trailing horse MACAULEY MAGUIRE. When the leading horse and MACAULEY MAGUIRE both moved out early in the home straight a run presented itself in the passing lane for PENNYANA. He said the defendant at no stage attempted to improve into the passing lane and to take this run. He said the defendant merely sat on his horse all the way up the straight. He accepted that after going rough just after the start PENNYANA had over-raced for most of the race but for 100 metres at least there was a clear gap for PENNYANA and the defendant just sat there and never took it.
Mr Ramage said PENNYANA had gone rough out of the gate and had started to pull hard. He said his arms and hands were gone because he was so tired through having to hold on to PENNYANA. They were like jelly. He could not even lift the whip. He showed on the video how he was laying back to control the horse. He agreed there looked as if there was a run in the passing lane but he was not prepared to take it. He said the gap was closing all the time. He would have had to pull PENNYANA down on the track hard and then kick her up to take it. He did not believe he had the strength left to do this. In addition, PENNYANA would have to have had plenty of speed to take the run and he did not believe she did as she was not a horse that could “kick”. She was “a go forward horse” that needed to be able to run out of the gate.
Submissions for Decision:
As above.
Reasons for Decision:
Shortly before turning for home the horse trailing 3 back moved out allowing the defendant to progress to behind the trailing horse, MACAULEY MAGUIRE. At the 200 metre mark the leading horse moved out and the trailing horse took a run on its inside, and, in so doing was at best, marginally in the passing lane. A run in the passing lane presented itself to the defendant for what we believe is some 100 metres. The defendant failed to take that run. Mr Ramage explained that this was because he was “spent” and that his hands “were jelly” because of the difficult drive that we, and the informant, accept PENNYANA gave the defendant for the duration of the race. We note the defendant still had control of his horse the whole way up the straight and in the last 60 metres or so when there was no run on the inside for him, and when MACAULEY MAGUIRE was tiring, he can be seen to be clearly restraining PENNYANA. The defendant also stated that there was never a run in the passing lane. He originally said there was no run for any horse and that as a consequence he had a horse “to take home tonight”. He later said there was no run for a horse of PENNYANA’s ability and racing style, in that she would not have been able to pick herself up quickly enough to take the gap.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Allison produced the defendant’s record, which was clear this season. He said in the 6 1/2 years he had been a stipendiary steward he had never had to talk to the defendant about breaching this rule. He emphasised the public perception of the defendant’s actions, which he said were not a good look for harness racing. That said, he acknowledged that PENNYANA was giving the defendant a very difficult drive. He said the breach was not at the high end and emphasised he was not alleging that the defendant tried to pull the horse up. He asked for a penalty of a fine of $500.
The defendant acknowledged that his drive looked bad and said he “could see where the stipendiary steward was coming from”. He said he still believed there was no run and that he was doing the best for the horse.
Reasons for Penalty:
We observe the starting point in the penalty Guide for a breach of rule 868(2) is a fine of $750. We adopt that starting point. We note, however, as Mr Allison has acknowledged, that this breach of the rule is not at the higher end. PENNYANA was giving the defendant a very hard drive and had to be restrained for most of the race. The defendant can clearly seen to be leaning back in the cart on a number of occasions. Nonetheless, the defendant’s obligations under the rule are clear, he has to give PENNYANA every opportunity of finishing in the best placing. This he failed to do, and we agree the public perception of his actions is a matter of concern. There is no apparent vigour by the defendant the whole way down the straight.
We note that the defendant is contrite and is forthright in his statement that he accepts his drive does not look good. We also accept his statement that in his view he did what he believed was best for the horse. Unfortunately, as we have found, in so doing he was in breach of the rules. We take into account also his excellent record.
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: fe6b294427b8d88c10ebd9c9169e0dd6
informantnumber: 68876
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 25/05/2011
hearing_title: Forbury Park TC - 16 June 2011 R3
charge:
Mr Allison alleged that Mr C Ramage the driver of PENNYANA failed to improve into the passing lane in the home straight and in so doing failed to give PENNYANA the opportunity to obtain the best possible finishing place.
facts:
Mr Allison demonstrated on the video that shortly before turning for home PENNYANA was racing 3 back on the inside, about a length and a half behind the trailing horse MACAULEY MAGUIRE. When the leading horse and MACAULEY MAGUIRE both moved out early in the home straight a run presented itself in the passing lane for PENNYANA. He said the defendant at no stage attempted to improve into the passing lane and to take this run. He said the defendant merely sat on his horse all the way up the straight. He accepted that after going rough just after the start PENNYANA had over-raced for most of the race but for 100 metres at least there was a clear gap for PENNYANA and the defendant just sat there and never took it.
Mr Ramage said PENNYANA had gone rough out of the gate and had started to pull hard. He said his arms and hands were gone because he was so tired through having to hold on to PENNYANA. They were like jelly. He could not even lift the whip. He showed on the video how he was laying back to control the horse. He agreed there looked as if there was a run in the passing lane but he was not prepared to take it. He said the gap was closing all the time. He would have had to pull PENNYANA down on the track hard and then kick her up to take it. He did not believe he had the strength left to do this. In addition, PENNYANA would have to have had plenty of speed to take the run and he did not believe she did as she was not a horse that could “kick”. She was “a go forward horse” that needed to be able to run out of the gate.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
As above.
reasonsfordecision:
Shortly before turning for home the horse trailing 3 back moved out allowing the defendant to progress to behind the trailing horse, MACAULEY MAGUIRE. At the 200 metre mark the leading horse moved out and the trailing horse took a run on its inside, and, in so doing was at best, marginally in the passing lane. A run in the passing lane presented itself to the defendant for what we believe is some 100 metres. The defendant failed to take that run. Mr Ramage explained that this was because he was “spent” and that his hands “were jelly” because of the difficult drive that we, and the informant, accept PENNYANA gave the defendant for the duration of the race. We note the defendant still had control of his horse the whole way up the straight and in the last 60 metres or so when there was no run on the inside for him, and when MACAULEY MAGUIRE was tiring, he can be seen to be clearly restraining PENNYANA. The defendant also stated that there was never a run in the passing lane. He originally said there was no run for any horse and that as a consequence he had a horse “to take home tonight”. He later said there was no run for a horse of PENNYANA’s ability and racing style, in that she would not have been able to pick herself up quickly enough to take the gap.
Decision:
In finding the charge proved, we reiterate that in our view there was a run for PENNYANA on the inside of MACAULEY MAGUIRE for some 100 metres in the home straight. The defendant chose not to put PENNYANA into the gap and simply followed MACAULEY MAGUIRE up the straight. That horse was stopping and finished 6th, 6.8 lengths from the winner. We are further of the view that the defendant had sufficient strength to control PENNYANA all the way up the straight and can be seen to be restraining her at the winning post. He therefore could and should have taken the run in the passing lane and, in so doing, he would then be seen to be taking all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best possible placing for PENNYANA.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Allison produced the defendant’s record, which was clear this season. He said in the 6 1/2 years he had been a stipendiary steward he had never had to talk to the defendant about breaching this rule. He emphasised the public perception of the defendant’s actions, which he said were not a good look for harness racing. That said, he acknowledged that PENNYANA was giving the defendant a very difficult drive. He said the breach was not at the high end and emphasised he was not alleging that the defendant tried to pull the horse up. He asked for a penalty of a fine of $500.
The defendant acknowledged that his drive looked bad and said he “could see where the stipendiary steward was coming from”. He said he still believed there was no run and that he was doing the best for the horse.
reasonsforpenalty:
We observe the starting point in the penalty Guide for a breach of rule 868(2) is a fine of $750. We adopt that starting point. We note, however, as Mr Allison has acknowledged, that this breach of the rule is not at the higher end. PENNYANA was giving the defendant a very hard drive and had to be restrained for most of the race. The defendant can clearly seen to be leaning back in the cart on a number of occasions. Nonetheless, the defendant’s obligations under the rule are clear, he has to give PENNYANA every opportunity of finishing in the best placing. This he failed to do, and we agree the public perception of his actions is a matter of concern. There is no apparent vigour by the defendant the whole way down the straight.
We note that the defendant is contrite and is forthright in his statement that he accepts his drive does not look good. We also accept his statement that in his view he did what he believed was best for the horse. Unfortunately, as we have found, in so doing he was in breach of the rules. We take into account also his excellent record.
penalty:
We impose a fine of $400 and remind the defendant of his professional obligations.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 868(2)
Informant: Mr C Allison
JockeysandTrainer: Mr C Ramage
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 35e80dd84b9e20034fcc963fd7d1bddb
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: df211c9bbd190cb5fe1a99f8bab98805
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 16/06/2011
meet_title: Forbury Park TC - 16 June 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: forbury-park-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: DSteel
meet_pm2: none
name: Forbury Park TC