Kurow TC 4 August 2013 – R 9
ID: JCA10587
Meet Title:
Kurow TC - 4 August 2013
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
PKnowles
Race Date:
2013/08/04
Race Number:
R 9
Decision:
We dismiss the charge.
Charge:
Careless driving.
Facts:
Mr Renault alleged that Mr Orange (SUNNIVUE IMPULSE) drove carelessly passing the 2100 metres when improving to the lead and not allowing sufficient room for IGNITE (Mr Anderson) resulting in that runner breaking and losing its chance.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Renault called Mr Anderson to give evidence. He said he had handed up the lead to Mr Orange at about the 2100 metres. He said as the respondent came round IGNITE got keen. He believed Mr Orange had crossed in front of him and he did not think Mr Orange had hit his wheel at that time, as he did not hear anything. He thought there was room for Mr Orange to cross and that he was behind SUNNIVUE IMPULSE for a few strides before IGNITE broke. He thought IGNITE had gone forward into the back of SUNNIVUE IMPULSE.
Mr Renault questioned Mr Anderson as to why his evidence was different to that which he had given when first questioned by the stipendiary stewards. Mr Anderson said he did not believe he had changed his account of the incident.
Mr Orange asked Mr Anderson whether he had crossed clearly before IGNITE hit the wheel of SUNNIVUE IMPULSE. Mr Anderson replied, “Yes”.
Mr Renault demonstrated the incident on a number of video angles. These were inconclusive as to whether the respondent was still crossing Mr Anderson when IGNITE broke. Mr Renault demonstrated by pausing one video angle that it appeared Mr Orange had not.
Mr Orange stated he believed the videos were clear, and that he had crossed IGNITE and was ahead of that horse for some 2 or 3 strides before it broke. He said Mr Anderson’s evidence supported his contention. He said he believed Mr Anderson was having difficulty restraining his horse after he had crossed and that was why IGNITE broke.
Mr Orange called Mr Williamson (SOUTHLAND REFLECTOR) who was racing one out and behind Mr Orange at the time he moved up and went to the lead. He stated he believed Mr Orange had crossed IGNITE before that horse broke.
Mr Renault in summing up said Mr Orange had crossed too close to Mr Anderson and had checked IGNITE. He emphasised SUNNIVUE IMPULSE had sustained a flat tyre in this incident, which must have been the result of IGNITE coming into contact with the cart of SUNNIVUE IMPULSE.
Reasons for Decision:
The replays of the incident are not clear. Mr Renault is correct when he says that one angle suggests that Mr Orange may have still been in the act of crossing IGNITE when that horse breaks. However, the evidence from Mr Anderson and Mr Williamson is very clear and is to the effect that IGNITE broke some 2 or 3 strides after SUNNIVUE IMPULSE had crossed. Two of the video angles support this evidence and suggest that the respondent was clear when he crossed to the lead.
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: 03e67976bb0196bab7e0ff98778bce5f
informantnumber: A1833
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 30/07/2013
hearing_title: Kurow TC 4 August 2013 - R 9
charge:
Careless driving.
facts:
Mr Renault alleged that Mr Orange (SUNNIVUE IMPULSE) drove carelessly passing the 2100 metres when improving to the lead and not allowing sufficient room for IGNITE (Mr Anderson) resulting in that runner breaking and losing its chance.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Renault called Mr Anderson to give evidence. He said he had handed up the lead to Mr Orange at about the 2100 metres. He said as the respondent came round IGNITE got keen. He believed Mr Orange had crossed in front of him and he did not think Mr Orange had hit his wheel at that time, as he did not hear anything. He thought there was room for Mr Orange to cross and that he was behind SUNNIVUE IMPULSE for a few strides before IGNITE broke. He thought IGNITE had gone forward into the back of SUNNIVUE IMPULSE.
Mr Renault questioned Mr Anderson as to why his evidence was different to that which he had given when first questioned by the stipendiary stewards. Mr Anderson said he did not believe he had changed his account of the incident.
Mr Orange asked Mr Anderson whether he had crossed clearly before IGNITE hit the wheel of SUNNIVUE IMPULSE. Mr Anderson replied, “Yes”.
Mr Renault demonstrated the incident on a number of video angles. These were inconclusive as to whether the respondent was still crossing Mr Anderson when IGNITE broke. Mr Renault demonstrated by pausing one video angle that it appeared Mr Orange had not.
Mr Orange stated he believed the videos were clear, and that he had crossed IGNITE and was ahead of that horse for some 2 or 3 strides before it broke. He said Mr Anderson’s evidence supported his contention. He said he believed Mr Anderson was having difficulty restraining his horse after he had crossed and that was why IGNITE broke.
Mr Orange called Mr Williamson (SOUTHLAND REFLECTOR) who was racing one out and behind Mr Orange at the time he moved up and went to the lead. He stated he believed Mr Orange had crossed IGNITE before that horse broke.
Mr Renault in summing up said Mr Orange had crossed too close to Mr Anderson and had checked IGNITE. He emphasised SUNNIVUE IMPULSE had sustained a flat tyre in this incident, which must have been the result of IGNITE coming into contact with the cart of SUNNIVUE IMPULSE.
reasonsfordecision:
The replays of the incident are not clear. Mr Renault is correct when he says that one angle suggests that Mr Orange may have still been in the act of crossing IGNITE when that horse breaks. However, the evidence from Mr Anderson and Mr Williamson is very clear and is to the effect that IGNITE broke some 2 or 3 strides after SUNNIVUE IMPULSE had crossed. Two of the video angles support this evidence and suggest that the respondent was clear when he crossed to the lead.
Decision:
We dismiss the charge.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr B Orange - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr J Anderson - Junior Driver and Driver of IGNITE, Mr M Williamson - Open Horseman and Driver of SOUTHLAND REFLECTOR
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 1890fc50e84f70c9c1b811fd2c6c0615
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: c81a822650fe46ff0943cf00f199a357
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 04/08/2013
meet_title: Kurow TC - 4 August 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: kurow-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: PKnowles
meet_pm2: none
name: Kurow TC