Invercargill HRC 4 June 2018 – R 7 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA13705
Meet Title:
Invercargill HRC - 4 June 2018
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
MConway
Race Date:
2018/06/04
Race Number:
R 7
Decision:
We thus find the charge of careless driving to be proved.
Penalty:
Mr Williamson is fined the sum of $350.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 7, the TERRY DIXON MEMORIAL MOBILE PACE, an information was lodged alleging Mr Williamson drove carelessly by allowing his runner, CAST A SHADOW, to strike the sulky wheel of TRIPLE VC (Mr Ferguson) when attempting to improve to its inside.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Wallis, with the aid of the video replays, stated that the respondent attempted to improve inwards as he exited the home bend and, in so doing, he struck the inside wheel of TRIPLE VC. He demonstrated that Mr Williamson was in the trail behind TRIPLE VC when that horse drifted out a little from the running line at the top of the straight. As Mr Williamson attempted to improve inside TRIPLE VC he struck the inside wheel of the cart of that horse, and CAST A SHADOW broke and galloped to the winning post.
Mr Wallis continued by stating that the respondent was looking for a run inside Mr Ferguson on the point of the turn. When questioned by this Committee, he said he believed contact with TRIPLE VC was some 10 metres before the start of the passing lane. He believed there was insufficient room for Mr Williamson to shift inwards when he did. He said when the Stewards questioned Mr Ferguson, he had confirmed that the respondent had struck his sulky wheel.
Mr Williamson commenced his defence by stating he too thought he had hit Mr Ferguson’s wheel. He said CAST A SHADOW was racing very keenly and he had never turned the stick at the time of the incident. He was simply holding on to the horse. He demonstrated this on back straight video which showed a side on view of the point of contact.
Mr Williamson agreed he was starting to look for a run at the time because he was concerned that the horse behind him would take the run in the passing lane. He said his horse was so keen that if he had waited for the passing lane he did not believe he could have kept CAST A SHADOW off the back of the cart of Mr Ferguson. He said at the time there was a lot of yelling and Mr Ferguson was coming back on to him. CAST A SHADOW was stirred up. TRIPLE VC had drifted out at the point of the bend and had been flat before that.
Mr Williamson said he had done nothing to invigorate CAST A SHADOW. The pull down blinds were still up. When questioned by this Committee, he said he had driven the horse 3 or 4 times before and it had been “okay”. He reiterated, “It was not me that was at fault, it was the keenness of the horse.” He agreed he had had control of CAST A SHADOW up to the time it hit the cart but his horse was getting keener and keener and TRIPLE VC was going slower and slower.
Mr Wallis in reply said the horse was racing keenly when Mr Williamson had attempted to shift downwards on the track when there was insufficient room. Mr Williamson was attempting to get down in order to ensure the horse 3 back could not get the passing lane run and had struck Mr Ferguson’s sulky wheel in so doing.
Mr Williamson replied he was only following the marker line and that the side on showed that he was hanging on to his horse.
Reasons for Decision:
The videos evidence that the leading horse, TRIPLE VC, had drifted out exiting the home turn and was weakening. We accept the respondent’s statement that he did not let the horse’s head go but there was no evidence that Mr Williamson, who is a senior driver, did not have control of the horse at the time he made contact with Mr Ferguson’s wheel. As Mr Williamson said himself, the horse was racing keenly but it was not uncontrollable.
Our summation of the evidence, is that Mr Williamson had ‘a lap full of horse’ and misjudged his shift to the inside of Mr Ferguson. He was holding on to the horse and was starting to look for a run to the inside of Mr Ferguson, who had drifted out a little, as he did not want the horse behind him (which was racing three back on the pylons) to take the passing lane run which Mr Williamson rightly believed was his.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Wallis produced the respondent's record, which he described as excellent. Mr Williamson had 736 drives last season and has had 792 this season. He had one breach of the careless driving rule in this time, which was in different circumstances in that the leading horse had not allowed room for Mr Williamson in the passing lane and Mr Williamson had driven over the markers in an attempt to create a run.
Mr Wallis submitted the $300 or 6 drive starting point for careless driving contacting a wheel should be adopted. He believed an uplift to $400 was appropriate as the respondent’s actions had cost his horse, which was favoured in the betting, a chance of finishing in a dividend bearing position.
Mr Williamson stated that he would accept the fine but emphasised again that CAST A SHADOW had been racing keenly when it hit the cart and that he had had a hold of the horse at the time. He did not believe he could have done any more than he had, and it was not a bad example of a breach of this rule.
Reasons for Penalty:
We view the breach as mid-range. Mr Williamson has simply misjudged his inwards move when driving a horse that was racing very keenly and which he had under a hold. His actions have cost CAST A SHADOW any chance of being involved in the finish of the race. Prior to the breach, CAST A SHADOW looked to be full of running. We agree an uplift to $400 is appropriate.
There can be no discount for admission of the breach but equally we apply no uplift for the fact the charge was defended, as that is Mr Williamson’s right. Mr Williamson’s record is very good, especially when the large number of drives he has had in the past two seasons is taken into account. We afford a $50 discount for this 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: 5b221a5e1e3771ea9f8bf2060efafd8e
informantnumber: A10512
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 06/06/2018
hearing_title: Invercargill HRC 4 June 2018 - R 7 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 7, the TERRY DIXON MEMORIAL MOBILE PACE, an information was lodged alleging Mr Williamson drove carelessly by allowing his runner, CAST A SHADOW, to strike the sulky wheel of TRIPLE VC (Mr Ferguson) when attempting to improve to its inside.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Wallis, with the aid of the video replays, stated that the respondent attempted to improve inwards as he exited the home bend and, in so doing, he struck the inside wheel of TRIPLE VC. He demonstrated that Mr Williamson was in the trail behind TRIPLE VC when that horse drifted out a little from the running line at the top of the straight. As Mr Williamson attempted to improve inside TRIPLE VC he struck the inside wheel of the cart of that horse, and CAST A SHADOW broke and galloped to the winning post.
Mr Wallis continued by stating that the respondent was looking for a run inside Mr Ferguson on the point of the turn. When questioned by this Committee, he said he believed contact with TRIPLE VC was some 10 metres before the start of the passing lane. He believed there was insufficient room for Mr Williamson to shift inwards when he did. He said when the Stewards questioned Mr Ferguson, he had confirmed that the respondent had struck his sulky wheel.
Mr Williamson commenced his defence by stating he too thought he had hit Mr Ferguson’s wheel. He said CAST A SHADOW was racing very keenly and he had never turned the stick at the time of the incident. He was simply holding on to the horse. He demonstrated this on back straight video which showed a side on view of the point of contact.
Mr Williamson agreed he was starting to look for a run at the time because he was concerned that the horse behind him would take the run in the passing lane. He said his horse was so keen that if he had waited for the passing lane he did not believe he could have kept CAST A SHADOW off the back of the cart of Mr Ferguson. He said at the time there was a lot of yelling and Mr Ferguson was coming back on to him. CAST A SHADOW was stirred up. TRIPLE VC had drifted out at the point of the bend and had been flat before that.
Mr Williamson said he had done nothing to invigorate CAST A SHADOW. The pull down blinds were still up. When questioned by this Committee, he said he had driven the horse 3 or 4 times before and it had been “okay”. He reiterated, “It was not me that was at fault, it was the keenness of the horse.” He agreed he had had control of CAST A SHADOW up to the time it hit the cart but his horse was getting keener and keener and TRIPLE VC was going slower and slower.
Mr Wallis in reply said the horse was racing keenly when Mr Williamson had attempted to shift downwards on the track when there was insufficient room. Mr Williamson was attempting to get down in order to ensure the horse 3 back could not get the passing lane run and had struck Mr Ferguson’s sulky wheel in so doing.
Mr Williamson replied he was only following the marker line and that the side on showed that he was hanging on to his horse.
reasonsfordecision:
The videos evidence that the leading horse, TRIPLE VC, had drifted out exiting the home turn and was weakening. We accept the respondent’s statement that he did not let the horse’s head go but there was no evidence that Mr Williamson, who is a senior driver, did not have control of the horse at the time he made contact with Mr Ferguson’s wheel. As Mr Williamson said himself, the horse was racing keenly but it was not uncontrollable.
Our summation of the evidence, is that Mr Williamson had ‘a lap full of horse’ and misjudged his shift to the inside of Mr Ferguson. He was holding on to the horse and was starting to look for a run to the inside of Mr Ferguson, who had drifted out a little, as he did not want the horse behind him (which was racing three back on the pylons) to take the passing lane run which Mr Williamson rightly believed was his.
Decision:
We thus find the charge of careless driving to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Wallis produced the respondent's record, which he described as excellent. Mr Williamson had 736 drives last season and has had 792 this season. He had one breach of the careless driving rule in this time, which was in different circumstances in that the leading horse had not allowed room for Mr Williamson in the passing lane and Mr Williamson had driven over the markers in an attempt to create a run.
Mr Wallis submitted the $300 or 6 drive starting point for careless driving contacting a wheel should be adopted. He believed an uplift to $400 was appropriate as the respondent’s actions had cost his horse, which was favoured in the betting, a chance of finishing in a dividend bearing position.
Mr Williamson stated that he would accept the fine but emphasised again that CAST A SHADOW had been racing keenly when it hit the cart and that he had had a hold of the horse at the time. He did not believe he could have done any more than he had, and it was not a bad example of a breach of this rule.
reasonsforpenalty:
We view the breach as mid-range. Mr Williamson has simply misjudged his inwards move when driving a horse that was racing very keenly and which he had under a hold. His actions have cost CAST A SHADOW any chance of being involved in the finish of the race. Prior to the breach, CAST A SHADOW looked to be full of running. We agree an uplift to $400 is appropriate.
There can be no discount for admission of the breach but equally we apply no uplift for the fact the charge was defended, as that is Mr Williamson’s right. Mr Williamson’s record is very good, especially when the large number of drives he has had in the past two seasons is taken into account. We afford a $50 discount for this record.
penalty:
Mr Williamson is fined the sum of $350.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr S Wallis - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr M Williamson - Open Horseman
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 73518ff56dd681710163140f05c6373b
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 8ec3f5446664718166a1d25b14b08b0c
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 04/06/2018
meet_title: Invercargill HRC - 4 June 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: invercargill-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: MConway
meet_pm2: none
name: Invercargill HRC