Hororata TC 24 February 2012 – R 11
ID: JCA17148
Meet Title:
Hororata TC - 24 February 2012
Meet Chair:
JPhelan
Meet Committee Member 1:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2012/02/24
Race Number:
R 11
Decision:
On resuming the hearing we advised the parties of our reasons (see above) and that the charge was found to be proved.
Penalty:
On resuming the hearing we advised the parties of our reasons (see above) and that Mr Archer was fined the sum of $250-00.
Charge:
Alleged breach of Rule 869(3)(b).
Facts:
Following the running of Race 11, the Bayer Cropscience New Zealand Handicap Trot, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren alleging careless driving by Mr G. D. Archer, the driver of “Quality Invasion” (12).
The charge reads as follows.
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Respondent committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) (in that) you drove carelessly when attempting to push “With Intent” back down the track after being shifted wider when driving “Quality Invasion” resulting in the gelding breaking near the 800m.”
Rules 869(3)(b) reads as follows,
“(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly..”
Mr Archer had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted’ and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Archer also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Ydgren gave evidence and used video coverage to show that after entering the back straight for the final time Mr Nyhan had pushed “Quality Invasion” wider on the track. It was then that Mr Archer attempted to regain his three wide position by pushing Mr Nyhan back down the track. As a result of this attempt, it was alleged, Mr Archer caused “Quality Invasion” to break and lose it chance.
Mr Nyhan gave evidence that he was well established in the three wide line when Mr Archer tried to push him down the track. He said it was not possible for Mr Archer to do this because at that time he had a horse inside him. Later, in answer to a question, Mr Nyhan said that he was unaware that the crupper on “Quality Invasion” had broken until after the race.
Mr Archer gave evidence that he had tried to push Mr Nyhan back for a short time, but that his horse had broken because the crupper broke.
As the matter of the broken crupper was important it was dealt with at some length. Mr Ydgren disputed that it had been the cause of “Quality Invasion” breaking and said that the video coverage clearly showed it had broken after the horse had broken. Mr Archer disputed this, but did agree that it was much more likely that a crupper would break when a horse was in a break than the other way round.
We adjourned to consider our decision.
Reasons for Decision:
We carefully considered the evidence and the video coverage, and were satisfied that “Quality Invasion” broke at about the 800 metre mark.
Mr Nyhan gave evidence that he moved “Quality Invasion” wider on the track and was well established in a three wide position. He also said that Mr Archer tried, for a time, to move him back down, and then broke.
Mr Archer’s evidence was that his horse only broke because the crupper broke.
We were satisfied that the crupper broke because “Quality Invasion” broke, and not the other way round. We were also satisfied that Mr Archer caused his horse to break by trying to push “With Intent” down when he was not in a position to do so. We were therefore satisfied that Mr Archer had driven carelessly.
Submissions for Penalty:
In relation to penalty Mr Ydgren advised that Mr Archer had not previously breached this Rule, but that, on the other hand he did cause his own horse to break and lose its chance in the race. Mr Ydgren referred to the Penalty Guide and made submission that a fine in the vicinity of $300-00 should be imposed in this case.
We adjourned to consider the matter of penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
In relation to penalty we took into account that Mr Archer had a good record, and also that he had caused his own horse to break.
We looked at the Penalty Guide and previous penalties imposed under this Rule. Taking all matters into account we decided that Mr Archer would be fined the sum of $250-00.
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: d29153823619d8eae147c820c31ba6d5
informantnumber: A5083
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 28/02/2012
hearing_title: Hororata TC 24 February 2012 - R 11
charge:
Alleged breach of Rule 869(3)(b).
facts:
Following the running of Race 11, the Bayer Cropscience New Zealand Handicap Trot, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren alleging careless driving by Mr G. D. Archer, the driver of “Quality Invasion” (12).
The charge reads as follows.
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Respondent committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) (in that) you drove carelessly when attempting to push “With Intent” back down the track after being shifted wider when driving “Quality Invasion” resulting in the gelding breaking near the 800m.”
Rules 869(3)(b) reads as follows,
“(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly..”
Mr Archer had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted’ and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Archer also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Ydgren gave evidence and used video coverage to show that after entering the back straight for the final time Mr Nyhan had pushed “Quality Invasion” wider on the track. It was then that Mr Archer attempted to regain his three wide position by pushing Mr Nyhan back down the track. As a result of this attempt, it was alleged, Mr Archer caused “Quality Invasion” to break and lose it chance.
Mr Nyhan gave evidence that he was well established in the three wide line when Mr Archer tried to push him down the track. He said it was not possible for Mr Archer to do this because at that time he had a horse inside him. Later, in answer to a question, Mr Nyhan said that he was unaware that the crupper on “Quality Invasion” had broken until after the race.
Mr Archer gave evidence that he had tried to push Mr Nyhan back for a short time, but that his horse had broken because the crupper broke.
As the matter of the broken crupper was important it was dealt with at some length. Mr Ydgren disputed that it had been the cause of “Quality Invasion” breaking and said that the video coverage clearly showed it had broken after the horse had broken. Mr Archer disputed this, but did agree that it was much more likely that a crupper would break when a horse was in a break than the other way round.
We adjourned to consider our decision.
reasonsfordecision:
We carefully considered the evidence and the video coverage, and were satisfied that “Quality Invasion” broke at about the 800 metre mark.
Mr Nyhan gave evidence that he moved “Quality Invasion” wider on the track and was well established in a three wide position. He also said that Mr Archer tried, for a time, to move him back down, and then broke.
Mr Archer’s evidence was that his horse only broke because the crupper broke.
We were satisfied that the crupper broke because “Quality Invasion” broke, and not the other way round. We were also satisfied that Mr Archer caused his horse to break by trying to push “With Intent” down when he was not in a position to do so. We were therefore satisfied that Mr Archer had driven carelessly.
Decision:
On resuming the hearing we advised the parties of our reasons (see above) and that the charge was found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
In relation to penalty Mr Ydgren advised that Mr Archer had not previously breached this Rule, but that, on the other hand he did cause his own horse to break and lose its chance in the race. Mr Ydgren referred to the Penalty Guide and made submission that a fine in the vicinity of $300-00 should be imposed in this case.
We adjourned to consider the matter of penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
In relation to penalty we took into account that Mr Archer had a good record, and also that he had caused his own horse to break.
We looked at the Penalty Guide and previous penalties imposed under this Rule. Taking all matters into account we decided that Mr Archer would be fined the sum of $250-00.
penalty:
On resuming the hearing we advised the parties of our reasons (see above) and that Mr Archer was fined the sum of $250-00.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr NM Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr GD Arthur - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr DD Nyhan - Driver of WITH INTENT
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 5a7f5eb65420a0ff5072838e981ee85a
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 11
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: f8f01090de39903fc68e07fa7efa1ec2
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 24/02/2012
meet_title: Hororata TC - 24 February 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: hororata-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: JPhelan
meet_pm1: RMcKenzie
meet_pm2: none
name: Hororata TC