Kaikoura TC – 29 October 2007 – Race 3
ID: JCA21639
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Kaikoura TC - 29 October 2007
Race Date:
2007/10/29
Race Number:
Race 3
Decision: --
Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, filed an information alleging that Licensed Public Trainer, Mr G P Hope, the trainer of VICTORIA RULZ, a runner in Race 3, O’Brien Racing Stables Mobile Pace, "presented the filly with poor quality shoes delaying the start".
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, filed an information alleging that Licensed Public Trainer, Mr G P Hope, the trainer of VICTORIA RULZ, a runner in Race 3, O’Brien Racing Stables Mobile Pace, "presented the filly with poor quality shoes delaying the start".
----Mr Hope did not admit the breach and was present at the hearing of the information.
----Mr Escott informed the Committee that Race 3 was started late due to two horses having to be shod just prior to the start. VICTORIA RULZ delayed the start beyond the advertised starting time due to a problem with one of its shoes.
----Mr Biggs, the blacksmith who was in attendance at the start, said that the shoe was a specialist shoe so it had to go back on the filly. It was severely bent to the front and it was quite severely worn at the toe. In his opinion, the shoe was "pretty well worn" and he would not have put it back on, he said. He had to straighten the shoe and tack it back on. In response to a question from Mr Hope, Mr Biggs acknowledged that the shoe was properly nailed up. Mr Biggs also said that the driver, Mr A M Butt, agreed that the shoe was "pretty well worn out".
----Mr Hope acknowledged that the toe had been worn out "a little bit" but he had put six good nails in that side because he was "a bit wary of that". He submitted he had done his best to produce the filly in satisfactory shoes. The filly has had a history of pulling shoes in her races, he said. He submitted that there was still plenty of wear in the shoe.
----Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:
--"We have carefully listened to the evidence of both parties in this case. Mr Escott informed the Committee that the start of Race 3 was held up when a shoe had to be refitted to VICTORIA RULZ, trained by Mr Hope. Mr Escott called the raceday blacksmith, Mr Biggs, to give evidence. Mr Biggs said that he attended VICTORIA RULZ prior to the start of the Race. Mr Biggs is recognized as a qualified blacksmith on the Nelson-Marlborough circuit. Mr Hope questioned Mr Biggs’ qualifications but his qualifications were accepted by the Committee. In Mr Biggs’ opinion the shoe was a specialist half-shoe and Mr Biggs told the Committee that it was severely bent at the front and worn. He said that he mentioned it to the driver who looked at the shoe and agreed that it could be the last time that the shoe was able to be used.
----Mr Hope said that he did not dispute that shoe was worn but said that the shoe had been well nailed up and the horse has a habit of pulling its shoes in a race. Mr Hope said that the shoe had been well fitted and that was acknowledged by Mr Biggs.
----The Committee accepts Mr Biggs’ evidence that the plate was worn and noted his comments that, with the shoe being reaffixed, it could be the last time it was able to be used.
----A charge under Rule 864 (2) (b) requires a shoe to be "of good quality and in good order and condition". The evidence before this Committee, and accepted by us, indicated that the shoe did not meet those requirements. It is our view that the standard required by the Rule cannot be any less than of good quality and in good order and condition. We are satisfied this was not the case in this instance. Accordingly, we find the charge proved".
----Mr Escott said that, on previous occasions, where the defendant had admitted the breach a fine of $100 had been imposed. He recommended as penalty in the range of $100-125.
--Mr Hope submitted that a fine of $100 was excessive.
----The Committee noted Mr Escott’s recommendation as to penalty. The Committee considered that there was some merit in Mr Hope’s defence and saw no reason to impose anything other than what it regarded as the minimum fine for a breach of the particular Rule.
----Mr Hope was fined the sum of $100.00.
----R G McKenzie P H M Welch
----CHAIRMAN PANELLIST
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: e0cad523481c0648b2f5523cb2f0c0ec
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 29/10/2007
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Kaikoura TC - 29 October 2007 - Race 3
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, filed an information alleging that Licensed Public Trainer, Mr G P Hope, the trainer of VICTORIA RULZ, a runner in Race 3, O’Brien Racing Stables Mobile Pace, "presented the filly with poor quality shoes delaying the start".
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, filed an information alleging that Licensed Public Trainer, Mr G P Hope, the trainer of VICTORIA RULZ, a runner in Race 3, O’Brien Racing Stables Mobile Pace, "presented the filly with poor quality shoes delaying the start".
----Mr Hope did not admit the breach and was present at the hearing of the information.
----Mr Escott informed the Committee that Race 3 was started late due to two horses having to be shod just prior to the start. VICTORIA RULZ delayed the start beyond the advertised starting time due to a problem with one of its shoes.
----Mr Biggs, the blacksmith who was in attendance at the start, said that the shoe was a specialist shoe so it had to go back on the filly. It was severely bent to the front and it was quite severely worn at the toe. In his opinion, the shoe was "pretty well worn" and he would not have put it back on, he said. He had to straighten the shoe and tack it back on. In response to a question from Mr Hope, Mr Biggs acknowledged that the shoe was properly nailed up. Mr Biggs also said that the driver, Mr A M Butt, agreed that the shoe was "pretty well worn out".
----Mr Hope acknowledged that the toe had been worn out "a little bit" but he had put six good nails in that side because he was "a bit wary of that". He submitted he had done his best to produce the filly in satisfactory shoes. The filly has had a history of pulling shoes in her races, he said. He submitted that there was still plenty of wear in the shoe.
----Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:
--"We have carefully listened to the evidence of both parties in this case. Mr Escott informed the Committee that the start of Race 3 was held up when a shoe had to be refitted to VICTORIA RULZ, trained by Mr Hope. Mr Escott called the raceday blacksmith, Mr Biggs, to give evidence. Mr Biggs said that he attended VICTORIA RULZ prior to the start of the Race. Mr Biggs is recognized as a qualified blacksmith on the Nelson-Marlborough circuit. Mr Hope questioned Mr Biggs’ qualifications but his qualifications were accepted by the Committee. In Mr Biggs’ opinion the shoe was a specialist half-shoe and Mr Biggs told the Committee that it was severely bent at the front and worn. He said that he mentioned it to the driver who looked at the shoe and agreed that it could be the last time that the shoe was able to be used.
----Mr Hope said that he did not dispute that shoe was worn but said that the shoe had been well nailed up and the horse has a habit of pulling its shoes in a race. Mr Hope said that the shoe had been well fitted and that was acknowledged by Mr Biggs.
----The Committee accepts Mr Biggs’ evidence that the plate was worn and noted his comments that, with the shoe being reaffixed, it could be the last time it was able to be used.
----A charge under Rule 864 (2) (b) requires a shoe to be "of good quality and in good order and condition". The evidence before this Committee, and accepted by us, indicated that the shoe did not meet those requirements. It is our view that the standard required by the Rule cannot be any less than of good quality and in good order and condition. We are satisfied this was not the case in this instance. Accordingly, we find the charge proved".
----Mr Escott said that, on previous occasions, where the defendant had admitted the breach a fine of $100 had been imposed. He recommended as penalty in the range of $100-125.
--Mr Hope submitted that a fine of $100 was excessive.
----The Committee noted Mr Escott’s recommendation as to penalty. The Committee considered that there was some merit in Mr Hope’s defence and saw no reason to impose anything other than what it regarded as the minimum fine for a breach of the particular Rule.
----Mr Hope was fined the sum of $100.00.
----R G McKenzie P H M Welch
----CHAIRMAN
PANELLISTsumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 864.2.b
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 66eedee3a00ebfe8cf5cb94cb1371a84
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: eb0353eba6cc0b64416e4b0c081aadc3
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 29/10/2007
meet_title: Kaikoura TC - 29 October 2007
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: kaikoura-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Kaikoura TC