Manawatu HRC 21 February 2012 – R 7 (heard 6 March 2012 at Pukekohe)
ID: JCA21669
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Manawatu HRC - 21 February 2012
Meet Chair:
PWilliams
Meet Committee Member 1:
TUtikere
Race Date:
2012/02/21
Race Number:
R 7
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr J Muirhead, Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr S Lawson Junior Horseman (Driver of Royal Tiger)
Information No: A2253
Meeting: Manawatu Harness Racing Club
Date: 21 February 2012 (heard 6 March 2012 at Pukekohe)
Venue: Palmerston North
Rule No: 869(3)(b) and Easing Down Regulations
Race: 7
Judicial Committee: A Dooley, Chairman - B Scott, Committee Member
Plea: Denied
Person's Present: Mr T Taumanu - Stipendiary Steward, Mr R Lawson – Trainer, assisting Mr Lawson, Mr T Mitchell - Licensed Open Horseman (HELICON)
Charge
Following race 7 an information was filed pursuant to Rule 869(3)(b) and the Easing Down Regulations. The informant, Mr Muirhead alleged that “Junior Horseman Mr S Lawson failed to concede ROYAL TIGER'S position when not in a position to maintain his place inside HELICON causing interference to his own horse which resulted in interference to HAYLIN HURRICANE racing into the first bend”.
Evidence
Mr Muirhead read out the Rules and Mr S Lawson acknowledged he understood them. Mr Muirhead advised that the easing down rule he was referring to was under the section that states: Any horseman who fails to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place, may be charged under Rule 869(3) Careless Driving.
Mr Muirhead demonstrated the incident using the head on and side on films. He pointed out to the committee that ROYAL TIGER drew 2 on the second row with HELICON leaving the mobile barrier from barrier position 4. He said Mr Mitchell driving HELICON had moved back at the start and looked to position himself on the back off Mr Ferguson's drive. He believed Mr Mitchell held a head to a neck advantage over Mr Lawson's drive when they contested a position for 50 to 60 metres. He said there was fair amount of pressure coming from Mr Mitchell's inside and he demonstrated that Mr Mitchell’s sulky wheels were noticeably being sledged outwards. He showed on the films that there was contact from the off hind leg of ROYAL TIGER’S with the sulky wheel of HELICON.
This resulted in significant interference affecting 2 runners. Mr Muirhead said Mr S Lawson should have conceded his position noting that there was ample room for him to improve on his inner. He said Mr S Lawson tried to catch up to Mr Mitchell by slapping his horse with the reins on 2 occasions. He believed that Mr S Lawson was not in a position to do so. He said Mr Mitchell's manoeuvre was normal practice and safe.
Mr S Lawson did not wish to cross examine Mr Muirhead's evidence. However Mr R Lawson told the committee that he did not necessarily accept all the evidence put forward by Mr Muirhead.
Mr Muirhead called Mr Mitchell, the driver of HELICON, as a witness. Mr Mitchell told the committee that he was racing outside ROYAL TIGER, driven by Mr S Lawson, holding a head advantage when he was attempting to ease him down. He said he jostled for a position along with Mr Lawson with ROYAL TIGER'S back leg hitting his wheel resulting in ROYAL TIGER galloping and losing all chance. Mr Mitchell said he instigated the move because he had a head advantage over Mr S Lawson and attempted to move him down. He said Mr S Lawson was unlucky as he hit his wheel but told the committee his horse was slightly in front of him.
Mr S Lawson told the committee he did attempt to hold out Mr Mitchell and contested for a position over 60 metres. He believed he was entitled to contest the position as he was driving competitively. He demonstrated on the video films that Mr Mitchell prior to the winning post was holding an advantage over his drive. However when he slapped his drive up with the reins he got back to near level terms with his horse’s head turned out to keep Mr Mitchell from easing him down. He said when he ultimately decided to pull out of the duel and concede his horse’s hind leg hit Mr Mitchell’s sulky wheel.
Mr Taumanu in cross examination did ask Mr S Lawson to confirm that on the race day concerned when being interviewed by the Stewards he admitted that Mr Mitchell did have an advantage on his drive and should have conceded. Mr R Lawson replied by saying Mr S Lawson was allowed to change his opinion. Mr Taumanu then asked Mr S Lawson why he contested for the position when he had previously driven ROYAL TIGER and was aware of its racing manners. Mr S Lawson admitted to the committee that he was aware ROYAL TIGER poor racing manners.
The committee asked Mr S Lawson to demonstrate on the video films were he ultimately decided to concede to Mr Mitchell. The films were played several times with Mr S Lawson attempting to show the committee at what particular stage of the race he eased.
Mr R Lawson produced a JCA report referring to a similar charge at Manawatu on the 15/11/2011. The committee advised Mr R Lawson that it did not have access to the films and that it was not relevant to this case because this committee was not involved in the decision.
Mr R Lawson in summing up said he disputed that Mr Mitchell had a clear advantage and he had previously spoke at length to the films supporting what Mr S Lawson had submitted. He emphasised that Mr S Lawson was entitled to drive competitively and believed that he did relent in the end after disputing the position with Mr Mitchell. He conceded that the outside hind leg of ROYAL TIGER touched Mr Mitchell’s sulky wheel. He said they believed there was enough doubt in this charge.
Reasons For Decision
The committee carefully considered all the evidence as presented. We reviewed the video films a number of times and found the following key factors. Mr Mitchell signals his intention to move onto the back of Mr Ferguson's drive while holding a head advantage over Mr S Lawson's drive. The committee believes the margin of a head is a clear advantage. Notwithstanding the decision referred to by Mr R Lawson, we note that on the night Mr S Lawson believed a head advantage in his favour was a clear advantage. The video films clearly showed Mr S Lawson was shaking the reins at his horse even though he was under pressure from Mr Mitchell, and even though he conceded to the committee that he had driven ROYAL TIGER previously and was aware of its racing manners. Subsequently his horse broke and lost all chance. Finally the regulations are quite clear and Mr S Lawson should have conceded at an earlier point and the video films do not support Mr S Lawson’s evidence that he did ease.
Decision
The committee accordingly finds the charge against Mr S Lawson to be proved.
Submissions For Penalty
Mr Muirhead submitted the JCA guidelines provided for a starting point fine of $400. He said the situation was avoidable and the consequences resulted in 2 horses being eliminated from the race. He assessed the level of interference to be at the high point and submitted a suspension of 3 days was an appropriate penalty.
Mr R Lawson submitted they would prefer a fine over a suspension stating Mr S Lawson needs to be driving and pointed out the Junior Driver Championships are coming up for selection. Mr R Lawson believed the consequential affects should not be taken into account under Rule 869(3). They were more relevant under Rule 869(4). He told the committee that Mr S Lawson was a Junior Horseman and should receive a lesser fine. He said Mr S Lawson would have a number of drives at the upcoming Manawatu meetings.
Mr Muirhead then submitted a fine of $500 if this was to be preferred over a suspension.
Mr R Lawson submitted he totally disagreed with Mr Muirhead’s suggested fine.
Mr S Lawson advised the committee he had firm commitments for Auckland on 9th March 2012.
Reasons For Penalty
The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The mitigating factor is that we assess Mr S Lawson's record as good. The aggravating factor is that we assess the level of carelessness to be in the higher bracket because he was fully aware of ROYAL TIGER’S racing manners, with the committee firmly believing that he should have conceded earlier. We have taken into account the submissions from both parties and perused the JCA Penalty Schedules in regard to charges under this Rule. We accept that Mr S Lawson will be driving at the upcoming Manawatu meetings however we did highlight to Mr R Lawson that these dates fell outside the 7 day deferment rule. Balancing all the above factors the committee believes that a fine of $350.00 is appropriate.
Penalty
Accordingly we impose a fine of $350.00 on Mr S Lawson.
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: a33756cb3c41ec2fd61cf4a0b8672e75
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 21/02/2012
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Manawatu HRC 21 February 2012 - R 7 (heard 6 March 2012 at Pukekohe)
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr J Muirhead, Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr S Lawson Junior Horseman (Driver of Royal Tiger)
Information No: A2253
Meeting: Manawatu Harness Racing Club
Date: 21 February 2012 (heard 6 March 2012 at Pukekohe)
Venue: Palmerston North
Rule No: 869(3)(b) and Easing Down Regulations
Race: 7
Judicial Committee: A Dooley, Chairman - B Scott, Committee Member
Plea: Denied
Person's Present: Mr T Taumanu - Stipendiary Steward, Mr R Lawson – Trainer, assisting Mr Lawson, Mr T Mitchell - Licensed Open Horseman (HELICON)
Charge
Following race 7 an information was filed pursuant to Rule 869(3)(b) and the Easing Down Regulations. The informant, Mr Muirhead alleged that “Junior Horseman Mr S Lawson failed to concede ROYAL TIGER'S position when not in a position to maintain his place inside HELICON causing interference to his own horse which resulted in interference to HAYLIN HURRICANE racing into the first bend”.
Evidence
Mr Muirhead read out the Rules and Mr S Lawson acknowledged he understood them. Mr Muirhead advised that the easing down rule he was referring to was under the section that states: Any horseman who fails to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place, may be charged under Rule 869(3) Careless Driving.
Mr Muirhead demonstrated the incident using the head on and side on films. He pointed out to the committee that ROYAL TIGER drew 2 on the second row with HELICON leaving the mobile barrier from barrier position 4. He said Mr Mitchell driving HELICON had moved back at the start and looked to position himself on the back off Mr Ferguson's drive. He believed Mr Mitchell held a head to a neck advantage over Mr Lawson's drive when they contested a position for 50 to 60 metres. He said there was fair amount of pressure coming from Mr Mitchell's inside and he demonstrated that Mr Mitchell’s sulky wheels were noticeably being sledged outwards. He showed on the films that there was contact from the off hind leg of ROYAL TIGER’S with the sulky wheel of HELICON.
This resulted in significant interference affecting 2 runners. Mr Muirhead said Mr S Lawson should have conceded his position noting that there was ample room for him to improve on his inner. He said Mr S Lawson tried to catch up to Mr Mitchell by slapping his horse with the reins on 2 occasions. He believed that Mr S Lawson was not in a position to do so. He said Mr Mitchell's manoeuvre was normal practice and safe.
Mr S Lawson did not wish to cross examine Mr Muirhead's evidence. However Mr R Lawson told the committee that he did not necessarily accept all the evidence put forward by Mr Muirhead.
Mr Muirhead called Mr Mitchell, the driver of HELICON, as a witness. Mr Mitchell told the committee that he was racing outside ROYAL TIGER, driven by Mr S Lawson, holding a head advantage when he was attempting to ease him down. He said he jostled for a position along with Mr Lawson with ROYAL TIGER'S back leg hitting his wheel resulting in ROYAL TIGER galloping and losing all chance. Mr Mitchell said he instigated the move because he had a head advantage over Mr S Lawson and attempted to move him down. He said Mr S Lawson was unlucky as he hit his wheel but told the committee his horse was slightly in front of him.
Mr S Lawson told the committee he did attempt to hold out Mr Mitchell and contested for a position over 60 metres. He believed he was entitled to contest the position as he was driving competitively. He demonstrated on the video films that Mr Mitchell prior to the winning post was holding an advantage over his drive. However when he slapped his drive up with the reins he got back to near level terms with his horse’s head turned out to keep Mr Mitchell from easing him down. He said when he ultimately decided to pull out of the duel and concede his horse’s hind leg hit Mr Mitchell’s sulky wheel.
Mr Taumanu in cross examination did ask Mr S Lawson to confirm that on the race day concerned when being interviewed by the Stewards he admitted that Mr Mitchell did have an advantage on his drive and should have conceded. Mr R Lawson replied by saying Mr S Lawson was allowed to change his opinion. Mr Taumanu then asked Mr S Lawson why he contested for the position when he had previously driven ROYAL TIGER and was aware of its racing manners. Mr S Lawson admitted to the committee that he was aware ROYAL TIGER poor racing manners.
The committee asked Mr S Lawson to demonstrate on the video films were he ultimately decided to concede to Mr Mitchell. The films were played several times with Mr S Lawson attempting to show the committee at what particular stage of the race he eased.
Mr R Lawson produced a JCA report referring to a similar charge at Manawatu on the 15/11/2011. The committee advised Mr R Lawson that it did not have access to the films and that it was not relevant to this case because this committee was not involved in the decision.
Mr R Lawson in summing up said he disputed that Mr Mitchell had a clear advantage and he had previously spoke at length to the films supporting what Mr S Lawson had submitted. He emphasised that Mr S Lawson was entitled to drive competitively and believed that he did relent in the end after disputing the position with Mr Mitchell. He conceded that the outside hind leg of ROYAL TIGER touched Mr Mitchell’s sulky wheel. He said they believed there was enough doubt in this charge.
Reasons For Decision
The committee carefully considered all the evidence as presented. We reviewed the video films a number of times and found the following key factors. Mr Mitchell signals his intention to move onto the back of Mr Ferguson's drive while holding a head advantage over Mr S Lawson's drive. The committee believes the margin of a head is a clear advantage. Notwithstanding the decision referred to by Mr R Lawson, we note that on the night Mr S Lawson believed a head advantage in his favour was a clear advantage. The video films clearly showed Mr S Lawson was shaking the reins at his horse even though he was under pressure from Mr Mitchell, and even though he conceded to the committee that he had driven ROYAL TIGER previously and was aware of its racing manners. Subsequently his horse broke and lost all chance. Finally the regulations are quite clear and Mr S Lawson should have conceded at an earlier point and the video films do not support Mr S Lawson’s evidence that he did ease.
Decision
The committee accordingly finds the charge against Mr S Lawson to be proved.
Submissions For Penalty
Mr Muirhead submitted the JCA guidelines provided for a starting point fine of $400. He said the situation was avoidable and the consequences resulted in 2 horses being eliminated from the race. He assessed the level of interference to be at the high point and submitted a suspension of 3 days was an appropriate penalty.
Mr R Lawson submitted they would prefer a fine over a suspension stating Mr S Lawson needs to be driving and pointed out the Junior Driver Championships are coming up for selection. Mr R Lawson believed the consequential affects should not be taken into account under Rule 869(3). They were more relevant under Rule 869(4). He told the committee that Mr S Lawson was a Junior Horseman and should receive a lesser fine. He said Mr S Lawson would have a number of drives at the upcoming Manawatu meetings.
Mr Muirhead then submitted a fine of $500 if this was to be preferred over a suspension.
Mr R Lawson submitted he totally disagreed with Mr Muirhead’s suggested fine.
Mr S Lawson advised the committee he had firm commitments for Auckland on 9th March 2012.
Reasons For Penalty
The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The mitigating factor is that we assess Mr S Lawson's record as good. The aggravating factor is that we assess the level of carelessness to be in the higher bracket because he was fully aware of ROYAL TIGER’S racing manners, with the committee firmly believing that he should have conceded earlier. We have taken into account the submissions from both parties and perused the JCA Penalty Schedules in regard to charges under this Rule. We accept that Mr S Lawson will be driving at the upcoming Manawatu meetings however we did highlight to Mr R Lawson that these dates fell outside the 7 day deferment rule. Balancing all the above factors the committee believes that a fine of $350.00 is appropriate.
Penalty
Accordingly we impose a fine of $350.00 on Mr S Lawson.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)and the Easing Down Regulations
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: fc1dc565fc5317b8d6f05cd0ce41f6e2
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: c1efb5bc111c07440b89adee6ea90dc7
meet_expapproval: approved
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 1
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 21/02/2012
meet_title: Manawatu HRC - 21 February 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "MemberRole": "Chair ", "MemberID": "PWilliams", "Member": "", "OtherExpenses": "0", "KMs": "260", "Total": "161.2", "kmprice": 161.19999999999999, "Approved": "on"}, {"Comment": [], "MemberRole": "Panel member 1 ", "MemberID": "TUtikere", "Member": "", "OtherExpenses": "0", "KMs": "0", "Total": "0.0", "kmprice": 0.0, "Approved": "on"}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: manawatu-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: PWilliams
meet_pm1: TUtikere
meet_pm2: none
name: Manawatu HRC