Archive Decision

This decision has been migrated from the JCA website. Information is accurate but formatting may differ from contemporary decisions. Please contact us for any further enquiries.

Geraldine TC 27 November 2010 – R 3

ID: JCA10609

Applicant:
Mr NG McIntyre

Respondent(s):
Mr MP Edmonds, Open Horseman

Other Person:
Mr RD Close

Information Number:
69317

Hearing Type:
Hearing

Rules:
869(4) abd (6)(b) and (c)

Plea:
denied

Meet Title:
Geraldine TC - 27 November 2010

Meet Chair:
JPhelan

Meet Committee Member 1:
PRosanowski

Race Date:
2010/11/27

Race Number:
R 3

Decision:

On resuming the hearing we advised the parties that a full written decision would be provided later, and we gave the following oral decision.

“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that at about the 1100 metre mark “Indian Affair” was required to race four wide. The Stipendiary Steward’s case was that Mr Edmonds had breached the “push out” Rule in that Mr Close was moving forward at the time. Mr Close said that his horse wasn’t going any good at this time. Mr Edmonds said that he believed Mr Close was not moving forward, as required by the Rule. We are satisfied that it was borderline that Mr Close was moving forward, and the charge is dismissed".

Charge:

Following the running of Race 3, the Geraldine Supervalue Fillies & Mares Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre against Open Horseman Mr M. P. Edmonds alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) and (6)(b) and (c), the “push out” Ru

Facts:

The charge reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(4), (6)(b) and (c) in that M. P. Edmonds shifted Indian Affair (R. D. Close) wider on the track with approx. 1100m to run, alleged breach of the push out rule.”

Rules 869(4), (6)(b) and (c) relating to the “push out” rule reads as follows.

“(4) No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.

(6) Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:-
(a)….
(b) a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track;
(c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.”

Facts:
Mr Edmonds had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted. Mr Edmonds agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre called the driver of “Indian Affair” (16), Mr R. D. Close, to give evidence. This witness said that at about the 1100 metre mark he was three wide, and not travelling that well. He also said that at this stage he was obliged to race four wide when Mr Edmonds moved his horse from the two wide line into the three wide line. In answer to a question from Mr Edmonds, Mr Close said that his horse was not travelling very well at the time, and after he got in behind Mr Edmonds his horse went much better.

Stipendiary Steward Mrs Williams used video coverage of side on and front on views to illustrate this incident.

Mr Edmonds gave evidence that Mr Close’s horse was making little if any progress forward (as required by the Rule) when he moved that horse wider on the track. Mr Edmonds used video coverage to illustrate his evidence. Mr Edmonds said that he believed that in the circumstances he was entitled to move out.

We adjourned to consider our decision.

Submissions for Decision:

None.

Reasons for Decision:

We carefully considered the evidence of all the parties and the video coverage of the incident. We were satisfied that “Indian Affair” was required to race four wide for a short distance before dropping in to trail Mr Edmond’s horse. The question we needed to consider was whether Mr Close was moving forward at that time. After reviewing the video coverage we decided that it was borderline whether Mr Close was “making a forward movement” at the time, and that the charge should be dismissed.

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: 03e683cfac5c128e648858c25b072fe5


informantnumber: 69317


horsename:


hearing_racingtype:


startdate: no date provided


newcharge:


plea: denied


penaltyrequired: 0


decisiondate: 22/11/2010


hearing_title: Geraldine TC 27 November 2010 - R 3


charge:

Following the running of Race 3, the Geraldine Supervalue Fillies & Mares Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre against Open Horseman Mr M. P. Edmonds alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) and (6)(b) and (c), the “push out” Ru


facts:

The charge reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(4), (6)(b) and (c) in that M. P. Edmonds shifted Indian Affair (R. D. Close) wider on the track with approx. 1100m to run, alleged breach of the push out rule.”

Rules 869(4), (6)(b) and (c) relating to the “push out” rule reads as follows.

“(4) No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.

(6) Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:-
(a)….
(b) a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track;
(c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.”

Facts:
Mr Edmonds had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted. Mr Edmonds agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre called the driver of “Indian Affair” (16), Mr R. D. Close, to give evidence. This witness said that at about the 1100 metre mark he was three wide, and not travelling that well. He also said that at this stage he was obliged to race four wide when Mr Edmonds moved his horse from the two wide line into the three wide line. In answer to a question from Mr Edmonds, Mr Close said that his horse was not travelling very well at the time, and after he got in behind Mr Edmonds his horse went much better.

Stipendiary Steward Mrs Williams used video coverage of side on and front on views to illustrate this incident.

Mr Edmonds gave evidence that Mr Close’s horse was making little if any progress forward (as required by the Rule) when he moved that horse wider on the track. Mr Edmonds used video coverage to illustrate his evidence. Mr Edmonds said that he believed that in the circumstances he was entitled to move out.

We adjourned to consider our decision.


appealdecision:


isappeal:


submissionsfordecision:

None.


reasonsfordecision:

We carefully considered the evidence of all the parties and the video coverage of the incident. We were satisfied that “Indian Affair” was required to race four wide for a short distance before dropping in to trail Mr Edmond’s horse. The question we needed to consider was whether Mr Close was moving forward at that time. After reviewing the video coverage we decided that it was borderline whether Mr Close was “making a forward movement” at the time, and that the charge should be dismissed.


Decision:

On resuming the hearing we advised the parties that a full written decision would be provided later, and we gave the following oral decision.

“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that at about the 1100 metre mark “Indian Affair” was required to race four wide. The Stipendiary Steward’s case was that Mr Edmonds had breached the “push out” Rule in that Mr Close was moving forward at the time. Mr Close said that his horse wasn’t going any good at this time. Mr Edmonds said that he believed Mr Close was not moving forward, as required by the Rule. We are satisfied that it was borderline that Mr Close was moving forward, and the charge is dismissed".


sumissionsforpenalty:


reasonsforpenalty:


penalty:


hearing_type: Hearing


Rules: 869(4) abd (6)(b) and (c)


Informant: Mr NG McIntyre


JockeysandTrainer: Mr MP Edmonds, Open Horseman


Otherperson: Mr RD Close


PersonPresent:


Respondent:


StipendSteward:


raceid: 9bc7a6488de2ea3cee6bd9ccb41d86d5


race_expapproval:


racecancelled: 0


race_noreport: 0


race_emailed1: 0


race_emailed2: 0


race_title: R 3


submittochair:


race_expappcomment:


race_km:


race_otherexp:


race_chair:


race_pm1:


race_pm2:


meetid: f35dfe2bd7d0739421e39e37d859b977


meet_expapproval:


meet_noreport: 0


waitingforpublication: 0


meet_emailed1: 0


meet_emailed2: 0


meetdate: 27/11/2010


meet_title: Geraldine TC - 27 November 2010


meet_expappcomment:


meet_km:


meet_otherexp:


tracklocation: geraldine-tc


meet_racingtype: harness-racing


meet_chair: JPhelan


meet_pm1: PRosanowski


meet_pm2: none


name: Geraldine TC