Invercargill HRC 7 April 2013 – R 7 (heard on 14 April 2013 at Winton)
ID: JCA22532
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Invercargill HRC - 7 April 2013
Meet Chair:
NSkelt
Meet Committee Member 1:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2013/04/07
Race Number:
R 7
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Information No: A5916
Meeting: Invercargill Harness Racing Club
Date: 7 April 2013
Venue: Invercargill
Rule No: 869(3)(b)
Judicial Committee: G Hall, Chairman - P Knowles, Committee Member
Plea: Not admitted
Informant: Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr B McLellan - Licensed Open Horseman
Also Present:
Mr M Johnson - JCA observer
Mr Maurice Kerr - Licensed Open Horseman
Mr Robin Swain - Licensed Open Horseman
Mr Craig Ferguson - Licensed Open Horseman
Mr Renault, stipendiary steward, alleged that on Sunday 7 April 2013 at a race meeting held by the Invercargill Harness Racing Club, in race 7 Mr B McLellan drove carelessly when driving KELVIN GROVE near the 400 metres and striking the wheel of ESTEEM. This resulted in Mr McLellan’s horse breaking.
Rule 869(3)(b) states: “No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly.”
Mr Renault demonstrated on the videos that KELVIN GROVE struck the wheel of Mr Kerr as he went to move inside Mr Kerr. KELVIN GROVE stumbled and almost fell. He said there were 4 angles but trackside was the best. He said Mr Williams’ horse, which was sitting parked, tired at about the 600 metres. He pointed out Mr Cox was immediately behind Mr Williams, Mr Kerr was behind Mr Cox, and Mr McLellan was behind Mr Kerr. He said Mr Kerr’s horse was carted back as a consequence of Mr Williams’ horse tiring. He demonstrated that Mr Cox endeavoured to go 3 wide to avoid the tiring horse that was coming back on to him but Mr Swain, who was 3 wide, pushed him back down. Mr Cox’s horse went rough for a few strides.
Mr Renault demonstrated that Mr McLellan moved to the inside of Mr Kerr and his horse came into contact with the sulky wheel of Mr Kerr and broke. He said this was because Mr McLellan had failed to allow sufficient room when making this move. This was why he alleged Mr McLellan’s driving was careless. He agreed there was an easing of pace but said this was not abrupt and Mr McLellan should have been aware of this easing and have given himself more room by easing his horse and keeping clear. He said Mr McLellan had made an error of judgment, which had resulted in his horse losing its chance. He said it was his belief that Mr Cox’s horse going rough had occurred before this incident happened. He also believed that Mr McLellan had moved inside Mr Kerr before Mr Kerr received the check.
Mr McLellan opened his defence by stating that he was the victim of circumstances in that Mr Kerr had come back on him at the same time as he had decided to move downwards on the track. He said he would call witnesses that would indicate the second line was on quick retreat at the relevant time and that the stipendiary stewards report from the day supported this. He demonstrated on the video that Mr Kerr received a check, which was evidenced by the head of his horse coming up. He said Mr Kerr had not moved inwards or outwards at the time he was shifting ground but Mr Kerr had come back on to him and he had hit Mr Kerr’s wheel. He said the factors happening ahead of him were out of his control. He said he was vulnerable when Mr Kerr came back as he already started his inwards move.
Mr Kerr said the horse he was following tangled briefly and was stopping. Mr Kerr said he had received a check and the horse behind him just touched his wheel and broke. He said this was just after the horse in front of him went rough. He said the touching of wheel was as he had taken hold of his horse. He had had no difficulty with his horse prior to the check.
Mr Swain said Mr Cox had “half pie come out”. He said he had held his ground when Mr Cox tried to come out and that the hind leg of Mr Cox’s horse had just touched his wheel. The horse put in a rough stride or two as a consequence but had carried on without breaking.
Mr Ferguson gave evidence that he saw Mr Cox trying to push out, and that Mr Cox had been pushed back down by Mr Swain. He said at this time Mr Cox had gone rough for a few strides.
We are satisfied that Mr McLellan was making a legitimate move downwards on the track. He had waited until the opportunity presented itself for him to move off the back of Mr Kerr. We accept that prior to Mr McLellan moving the second line was retreating and this was a reason Mr McLellan was shifting ground. As to the speed they were retreating, we note the description in the steward’s report that the leading horse in the second line was tiring and stopping quickly. We do not believe this movement was sudden but the second line was clearly retreating due to the leading horse in the 2 wide line compounding. The second line came back a second time, and a little quicker, when Mr Cox’s horse put in a couple of rough strides.
It is our view that after Mr McLellan has commenced his downwards manoeuvre Mr Cox’s horse has gone roughly when pushed down by Mr Swain as permitted by the Rules. The horse puts in a few rough strides before settling. Mr Kerr’s evidence is very clear. He has stated that immediately prior to the touching of his wheel he was checked and had to take hold of his horse. The video confirms this as it shows Mr Kerr’s horse’s head hard up against the head of the driver in front and the head of his horse come up as he takes hold. We believe Mr Cox’s horse going roughly was the reason the second line came back again and this was when Mr Kerr received a second check. Unfortunately this was the very moment Mr McLellan chose to move to Mr Kerr’s inner.
The key issue is has Mr McLellan allowed sufficient room when moving to the inside of Mr Kerr. The fact that there was contact with the inside of the wheel of Mr Kerr would suggest he did not. Mr McLellan has said he did and was simply the victim of circumstances in that two further things occurred (Mr Cox’s horse going rough and Mr Kerr receiving a check) in addition to the second line retreating as he was making his move. He described it as the “concertina effect”. We agree with him on this point. Were it not so, we would have found for Mr Renault.
We have found the matter to be finely balanced. But we have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. We believe there is sufficient doubt as to whether Mr McLellan was careless. In these circumstances we dismiss the charge.
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: ef6ec6a77dd322e9faf67552e2c5cd03
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 07/04/2013
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Invercargill HRC 7 April 2013 - R 7 (heard on 14 April 2013 at Winton)
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Information No: A5916
Meeting: Invercargill Harness Racing Club
Date: 7 April 2013
Venue: Invercargill
Rule No: 869(3)(b)
Judicial Committee: G Hall, Chairman - P Knowles, Committee Member
Plea: Not admitted
Informant: Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr B McLellan - Licensed Open Horseman
Also Present:
Mr M Johnson - JCA observer
Mr Maurice Kerr - Licensed Open Horseman
Mr Robin Swain - Licensed Open Horseman
Mr Craig Ferguson - Licensed Open Horseman
Mr Renault, stipendiary steward, alleged that on Sunday 7 April 2013 at a race meeting held by the Invercargill Harness Racing Club, in race 7 Mr B McLellan drove carelessly when driving KELVIN GROVE near the 400 metres and striking the wheel of ESTEEM. This resulted in Mr McLellan’s horse breaking.
Rule 869(3)(b) states: “No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly.”
Mr Renault demonstrated on the videos that KELVIN GROVE struck the wheel of Mr Kerr as he went to move inside Mr Kerr. KELVIN GROVE stumbled and almost fell. He said there were 4 angles but trackside was the best. He said Mr Williams’ horse, which was sitting parked, tired at about the 600 metres. He pointed out Mr Cox was immediately behind Mr Williams, Mr Kerr was behind Mr Cox, and Mr McLellan was behind Mr Kerr. He said Mr Kerr’s horse was carted back as a consequence of Mr Williams’ horse tiring. He demonstrated that Mr Cox endeavoured to go 3 wide to avoid the tiring horse that was coming back on to him but Mr Swain, who was 3 wide, pushed him back down. Mr Cox’s horse went rough for a few strides.
Mr Renault demonstrated that Mr McLellan moved to the inside of Mr Kerr and his horse came into contact with the sulky wheel of Mr Kerr and broke. He said this was because Mr McLellan had failed to allow sufficient room when making this move. This was why he alleged Mr McLellan’s driving was careless. He agreed there was an easing of pace but said this was not abrupt and Mr McLellan should have been aware of this easing and have given himself more room by easing his horse and keeping clear. He said Mr McLellan had made an error of judgment, which had resulted in his horse losing its chance. He said it was his belief that Mr Cox’s horse going rough had occurred before this incident happened. He also believed that Mr McLellan had moved inside Mr Kerr before Mr Kerr received the check.
Mr McLellan opened his defence by stating that he was the victim of circumstances in that Mr Kerr had come back on him at the same time as he had decided to move downwards on the track. He said he would call witnesses that would indicate the second line was on quick retreat at the relevant time and that the stipendiary stewards report from the day supported this. He demonstrated on the video that Mr Kerr received a check, which was evidenced by the head of his horse coming up. He said Mr Kerr had not moved inwards or outwards at the time he was shifting ground but Mr Kerr had come back on to him and he had hit Mr Kerr’s wheel. He said the factors happening ahead of him were out of his control. He said he was vulnerable when Mr Kerr came back as he already started his inwards move.
Mr Kerr said the horse he was following tangled briefly and was stopping. Mr Kerr said he had received a check and the horse behind him just touched his wheel and broke. He said this was just after the horse in front of him went rough. He said the touching of wheel was as he had taken hold of his horse. He had had no difficulty with his horse prior to the check.
Mr Swain said Mr Cox had “half pie come out”. He said he had held his ground when Mr Cox tried to come out and that the hind leg of Mr Cox’s horse had just touched his wheel. The horse put in a rough stride or two as a consequence but had carried on without breaking.
Mr Ferguson gave evidence that he saw Mr Cox trying to push out, and that Mr Cox had been pushed back down by Mr Swain. He said at this time Mr Cox had gone rough for a few strides.
We are satisfied that Mr McLellan was making a legitimate move downwards on the track. He had waited until the opportunity presented itself for him to move off the back of Mr Kerr. We accept that prior to Mr McLellan moving the second line was retreating and this was a reason Mr McLellan was shifting ground. As to the speed they were retreating, we note the description in the steward’s report that the leading horse in the second line was tiring and stopping quickly. We do not believe this movement was sudden but the second line was clearly retreating due to the leading horse in the 2 wide line compounding. The second line came back a second time, and a little quicker, when Mr Cox’s horse put in a couple of rough strides.
It is our view that after Mr McLellan has commenced his downwards manoeuvre Mr Cox’s horse has gone roughly when pushed down by Mr Swain as permitted by the Rules. The horse puts in a few rough strides before settling. Mr Kerr’s evidence is very clear. He has stated that immediately prior to the touching of his wheel he was checked and had to take hold of his horse. The video confirms this as it shows Mr Kerr’s horse’s head hard up against the head of the driver in front and the head of his horse come up as he takes hold. We believe Mr Cox’s horse going roughly was the reason the second line came back again and this was when Mr Kerr received a second check. Unfortunately this was the very moment Mr McLellan chose to move to Mr Kerr’s inner.
The key issue is has Mr McLellan allowed sufficient room when moving to the inside of Mr Kerr. The fact that there was contact with the inside of the wheel of Mr Kerr would suggest he did not. Mr McLellan has said he did and was simply the victim of circumstances in that two further things occurred (Mr Cox’s horse going rough and Mr Kerr receiving a check) in addition to the second line retreating as he was making his move. He described it as the “concertina effect”. We agree with him on this point. Were it not so, we would have found for Mr Renault.
We have found the matter to be finely balanced. But we have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. We believe there is sufficient doubt as to whether Mr McLellan was careless. In these circumstances we dismiss the charge.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: b8b7380c2c6f092795044c963800cc8e
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: 974d64ff3b049f362bfe2b7eaed8757e
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 07/04/2013
meet_title: Invercargill HRC - 7 April 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: invercargill-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: NSkelt
meet_pm1: RMcKenzie
meet_pm2: none
name: Invercargill HRC