Franklin TC 15 April 2011 – R 4
ID: JCA15322
Meet Title:
Franklin TC - 15 April 2011
Meet Chair:
BScott
Meet Committee Member 1:
JHolloway
Race Date:
2011/04/15
Race Number:
R 4
Decision:
The charge is accordingly dismissed.
Charge:
An Information was lodged by Stipendiary Stewart Mr JM Muirhead alleging that Horseman Mr G Gillies, the Driver of BUSY BEING FABULOUS drove in a manner likely to cause interference by slackening the pace abruptly with about 1500 metres to run resulting in GOTTA GO LUCKY (Driver Z Butcher) breaking and other runners being inconvenienced.
Mr Gillies was present at the Hearing and advised this Committee that he did not admit the breach. Also present (by leave of the Committee) was Mr KJ Madgwick, a part owner of BUSY BEING FABULOUS.
Rule 869(4) provides:
“No Horseman shall during any race do anything that interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.”
The Rule was read to Mr Gillies and he understood it.
Facts:
Stipendiary Steward Mr TW Taumanu on behalf of Mr Muirhead told the Committee that Mr Gillies had raced up outside the leader in an attempt to get the lead at about the 1500 metre mark and when he was unable to do so he restrained his horse abruptly and he said that the Drivers of horses numbered 5, 6 and 7 all had to take hold of their horses and as a result of this movement reverberating back through the field, horse 13 GOTTA GO LUCKY was interfered with and broke.
Mr Taumanu demonstrated the incident by use of the video films which showed Mr Gillies driving his horse up to try to take the lead off CHELSEA GIRL. Mr Gillies was at that stage on the outside of CHELSEA GIRL and these horses were two or three lengths clear of the following horses and in particular Mr Gillies’ horse was at least three lengths clear of the horse following it. The films showed Mr Gillies restraining his horse and then looking to get into the trail behind the leader but that gap was closed and Mr Gillies was left parked. Mr Taumanu said that Mr Gillies movement in restraining his horse backwards after not being able to get to the lead was an abrupt movement and as a result of that the Drivers of the horses in the one out line all had to restrain their horses and Mr Taumanu said that the resulting effect caused interference to GOTTA GO LUCKY which broke. Mr Taumanu likened the movement of Mr Gillies to a driver on the motorway slowing down abruptly in a line of traffic.
Mr Taumanu also said that he was on duty out on the track and he had a clear view of this incident and he said that the movement by Mr Gillies was abrupt. He said that the films of the incident did not really show how abrupt the movement was but in his opinion Mr Gillies suddenly took hold and it was a sudden restraining of his horse and as far as Mr Taumanu was concerned Mr Gillies was responsible for not only the inconvenience to the trailing horses but also the interference to GOTTA GO LUCKY.
Mr Gillies then had the opportunity to cross examine Mr Taumanu. He firstly asked Mr Taumanu about the motorway example and asked that in that situation was it not correct that the drivers of the following cars would be found to be at fault. Mr Taumanu acknowledged that that was probably the case and said that perhaps using the motorway example was not ideal and he was really using that to show that the result of Mr Gillies’ actions meant that there was a reverberating effect back through the field. He was simply trying to demonstrate the effect of Mr Gillies’ actions.
Mr Gillies also asked Mr Taumanu why he was being charged because he felt that the following Drivers had some responsibility. Mr Taumanu said that it was because Mr Gillies came back to the field as quick as he did and he said that if he had not have come back so quickly the incident would not have happened.
Mr Gillies also asked Mr Taumanu if after he moved forward and was unable to get the lead, should the other Drivers not anticipate the pace slackening. Mr Taumanu said no that they would have anticipated Mr Gillies going to the front.
Mr Gillies for his part said that his horse likes to roll along and he had tried to get to the lead but was unable to do so. He said that his restraining of his horse lasted over 100 metres and he denied that it was an abrupt movement. Mr Gillies said that this type of movement happens a lot and he had queried why he was being charged. Mr Gillies said that Mr McKendry was the Driver trailing him albeit back a distance and that Mr McKendry was not affected by the movement at all.
In answer to a question from Mr Taumanu, Mr Gillies said that he did not consider it was an abrupt movement.
Submissions for Decision:
See facts above.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee has listened to the evidence from both Mr Taumanu and Mr Gillies and has spent a considerable amount of time viewing the films of the incident. The Committee has seen this type of manoeuvre numerous times in races when the outside horse has been unable to get to the lead. Mr Gillies cannot be criticized for attempting to get to the lead and when he was unable to do so then he restrained his horse with a view to dropping into the trail. There was nothing untoward about that. He was unable to get the trail and was forced to stay in the one out line and he restrained his horse back into third or fourth position.
Mr Taumanu tells us that Mr Gillies’ action in restraining his horse was an abrupt movement but unfortunately for him he is not helped by the films. The other matter that the Committee has taken into account is the fact that when Mr Gillies started to restrain his horse he was at least three lengths clear of Mr McKendry’s horse. In the Committee’s view the following Drivers would have been able to see that Mr Gillies did not reach the lead and would then have expected the pace to have slacken. The Committee is also of the view that the following Drivers have some responsibility in this matter and that when there is a slackening of the pace (as there is in many races) then the following Drivers need to be alert enough to take the appropriate action.
The Committee is of the view that the act of abruptly restraining a horse in a race could support a charge under Rule 869(4) and the Stipendiary Stewards have quite properly brought this charge. Mr Gillies however does have the benefit of firstly the fact that the films did not show an abrupt movement and secondly the gap between Mr Gillies and Mr McKendry’s horse at the time he commenced restraining his horse.
There is considerable doubt in the Committee’s mind as to whether the charge has been proven and any doubt must go in favour of Mr Gillies.
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: 84132ee6be19d45bd9b6c939226be246
informantnumber: 69037
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 14/04/2011
hearing_title: Franklin TC 15 April 2011 - R 4
charge:
An Information was lodged by Stipendiary Stewart Mr JM Muirhead alleging that Horseman Mr G Gillies, the Driver of BUSY BEING FABULOUS drove in a manner likely to cause interference by slackening the pace abruptly with about 1500 metres to run resulting in GOTTA GO LUCKY (Driver Z Butcher) breaking and other runners being inconvenienced.
Mr Gillies was present at the Hearing and advised this Committee that he did not admit the breach. Also present (by leave of the Committee) was Mr KJ Madgwick, a part owner of BUSY BEING FABULOUS.
Rule 869(4) provides:
“No Horseman shall during any race do anything that interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.”
The Rule was read to Mr Gillies and he understood it.
facts:
Stipendiary Steward Mr TW Taumanu on behalf of Mr Muirhead told the Committee that Mr Gillies had raced up outside the leader in an attempt to get the lead at about the 1500 metre mark and when he was unable to do so he restrained his horse abruptly and he said that the Drivers of horses numbered 5, 6 and 7 all had to take hold of their horses and as a result of this movement reverberating back through the field, horse 13 GOTTA GO LUCKY was interfered with and broke.
Mr Taumanu demonstrated the incident by use of the video films which showed Mr Gillies driving his horse up to try to take the lead off CHELSEA GIRL. Mr Gillies was at that stage on the outside of CHELSEA GIRL and these horses were two or three lengths clear of the following horses and in particular Mr Gillies’ horse was at least three lengths clear of the horse following it. The films showed Mr Gillies restraining his horse and then looking to get into the trail behind the leader but that gap was closed and Mr Gillies was left parked. Mr Taumanu said that Mr Gillies movement in restraining his horse backwards after not being able to get to the lead was an abrupt movement and as a result of that the Drivers of the horses in the one out line all had to restrain their horses and Mr Taumanu said that the resulting effect caused interference to GOTTA GO LUCKY which broke. Mr Taumanu likened the movement of Mr Gillies to a driver on the motorway slowing down abruptly in a line of traffic.
Mr Taumanu also said that he was on duty out on the track and he had a clear view of this incident and he said that the movement by Mr Gillies was abrupt. He said that the films of the incident did not really show how abrupt the movement was but in his opinion Mr Gillies suddenly took hold and it was a sudden restraining of his horse and as far as Mr Taumanu was concerned Mr Gillies was responsible for not only the inconvenience to the trailing horses but also the interference to GOTTA GO LUCKY.
Mr Gillies then had the opportunity to cross examine Mr Taumanu. He firstly asked Mr Taumanu about the motorway example and asked that in that situation was it not correct that the drivers of the following cars would be found to be at fault. Mr Taumanu acknowledged that that was probably the case and said that perhaps using the motorway example was not ideal and he was really using that to show that the result of Mr Gillies’ actions meant that there was a reverberating effect back through the field. He was simply trying to demonstrate the effect of Mr Gillies’ actions.
Mr Gillies also asked Mr Taumanu why he was being charged because he felt that the following Drivers had some responsibility. Mr Taumanu said that it was because Mr Gillies came back to the field as quick as he did and he said that if he had not have come back so quickly the incident would not have happened.
Mr Gillies also asked Mr Taumanu if after he moved forward and was unable to get the lead, should the other Drivers not anticipate the pace slackening. Mr Taumanu said no that they would have anticipated Mr Gillies going to the front.
Mr Gillies for his part said that his horse likes to roll along and he had tried to get to the lead but was unable to do so. He said that his restraining of his horse lasted over 100 metres and he denied that it was an abrupt movement. Mr Gillies said that this type of movement happens a lot and he had queried why he was being charged. Mr Gillies said that Mr McKendry was the Driver trailing him albeit back a distance and that Mr McKendry was not affected by the movement at all.
In answer to a question from Mr Taumanu, Mr Gillies said that he did not consider it was an abrupt movement.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
See facts above.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee has listened to the evidence from both Mr Taumanu and Mr Gillies and has spent a considerable amount of time viewing the films of the incident. The Committee has seen this type of manoeuvre numerous times in races when the outside horse has been unable to get to the lead. Mr Gillies cannot be criticized for attempting to get to the lead and when he was unable to do so then he restrained his horse with a view to dropping into the trail. There was nothing untoward about that. He was unable to get the trail and was forced to stay in the one out line and he restrained his horse back into third or fourth position.
Mr Taumanu tells us that Mr Gillies’ action in restraining his horse was an abrupt movement but unfortunately for him he is not helped by the films. The other matter that the Committee has taken into account is the fact that when Mr Gillies started to restrain his horse he was at least three lengths clear of Mr McKendry’s horse. In the Committee’s view the following Drivers would have been able to see that Mr Gillies did not reach the lead and would then have expected the pace to have slacken. The Committee is also of the view that the following Drivers have some responsibility in this matter and that when there is a slackening of the pace (as there is in many races) then the following Drivers need to be alert enough to take the appropriate action.
The Committee is of the view that the act of abruptly restraining a horse in a race could support a charge under Rule 869(4) and the Stipendiary Stewards have quite properly brought this charge. Mr Gillies however does have the benefit of firstly the fact that the films did not show an abrupt movement and secondly the gap between Mr Gillies and Mr McKendry’s horse at the time he commenced restraining his horse.
There is considerable doubt in the Committee’s mind as to whether the charge has been proven and any doubt must go in favour of Mr Gillies.
Decision:
The charge is accordingly dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(4)
Informant: Mr JM Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr G Gillies - Licensed Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr KJ Madgwick - Part owner BUSY BEING FABULOUS
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: a425a36d3192c9a2360ffce1e1f68977
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 7afed69cbed984a1385ec54c5f217041
meet_expapproval: approved
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 15/04/2011
meet_title: Franklin TC - 15 April 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "MemberRole": "Chair ", "MemberID": "BScott", "Member": "", "OtherExpenses": "0", "KMs": "106", "Total": "65.72", "kmprice": 65.719999999999999, "Approved": "on"}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: franklin-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: BScott
meet_pm1: JHolloway
meet_pm2: none
name: Franklin TC