Manawatu HRC 29 March 2019 – R 5 – Chair, Mr T Utikere
ID: JCA12749
Meet Title:
Manawatu HRC - 29 March 2019
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMoffatt
Race Date:
2019/03/29
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
The charge is found to be proved.
Penalty:
Mr MacFarlane is suspended from 30 March until the conclusion of racing on Friday 12 April. This four day suspension incorporates meetings at Auckland on 5th, Manawatu on 9th, Manawatu on 11th and Auckland on 12th April.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5 (Cafe Jacko Mobile Pace 2500m) Information A10265 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) by Licensed Driver Mr T MacFarlane and stated that he: ”...drove THE JANDAL MACHINE carelessly by allowing it to contact the back of the sulky of PHILLYDOTCOM several times before the off side front leg became entangled in the sulky. This in turn caused both horses to be positioned stationary on the track and the race be stopped.”
Mr MacFarlane confirmed that he understood the rule and that he denied the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Using the head-on film, Mr Muirhead identified Mr MacFarlane following Mr Towers, with both runners positioned four and five deep on the running line. Inside the 1300 metres and approaching the 1200 metres, Mr MacFarlane’s horse was observed to have become entangled in the sulky of PHILLYDOTCOM.
The side-on view from the Back Straight Tower was able to give a clear view of the incident. The stewards believed there was a marginal easing of the pace, but that Mr Towers did not take a hold and Mr Curtin, whom Mr Towers was trailing, did not react to any easing of the pace. Mr Muirhead observed that the two-wide line was improving going forward and that Mr MacFarlane and Mr Towers were racing keen at the time.
When the side-on view was zoomed in, it was identified that THE JANDAL MACHINE’s near fore leg made contact with the back of Mr Towers’ sulky on two occasions then stumbled. The horse’s off fore leg then reaches forward and goes inside the confines of Mr Towers’ sulky and becomes entangled. Mr Muirhead identified that the consequences were both horses were then stationary two or three wide on the track, which was an extremely dangerous position with one round to go. As the Steward in charge, Mr Muirhead observed the attendants trying to untangle Mr MacFarlane’s horse, and as this was unable to be done quickly, the race was abandoned and the siren sounded. The respondent had no questions for Mr Muirhead.
The RIU called Mr Towers as a witness. He confirmed he had been travelling at the top bend when the outside line started to improve, at which time his mare took a hold. At that time he felt two taps on his helmet before improving onto the horse in front of him (JACK BATES); then there was a sudden stop. He did not notice any severe change of pace, and there was nothing in front of him to impact his own runner.
Under cross-examination, he confirmed that he took a hold and then moved slightly forward to Mr Curtin’s head. While he felt a tap on his helmet, he confirmed that was not unusual to occur during a race. He said that his mare was a big mare that was out full extension on the cart. He used a Sprint 2000 sulky and confirmed that they sat lower; and as his horse was taller, it was possible that his sulky therefore sat lower to the ground.
In response to Mr Muirhead, he confirmed that his Sprint 2000 sulky had a Warrant of Fitness, and had been a legal type of sulky for many years.
The RIU called Mr Curtin as a witness. He confirmed he drove JACK BATES and was approximately three deep on the running line, not aware of anything that happened behind him at the time of the incident. He had steadied his horse a little bit, but had not taken any evasive action; and that Mr Poutama (racing ahead of him) had eased off, coming back a fraction. This required Mr Curtin to “steady” for a stride.
Under cross-examination, Mr Curtin confirmed that the films demonstrated that Mr Towers’ head had improved slightly onto his own head; and that if he had taken a hold while Mr Towers had gone forward, that would suggest an easing of the pace. Mr Curtin also observed that Mr Towers appeared to be low in the cart.
In response to Mr Muirhead’s observation about his posture at the time, Mr Curtin believed that when he steadied, he didn’t have to pull his horse back. He agreed that he had gone forward towards Mr Poutama rather than going back onto Mr Towers. He said that he had hardly done anything to cause any problems to any trailing horses.
Mr MacFarlane stated that if he had called Mr Butcher as a witness, which he confirmed that he had elected not to do, he would have identified that there was trouble letting the parked horse go around. Mr Curtin’s horse’s head had moved over the sulky of Mr Poutama, which had also happened to Mr Towers and himself. This meant it was a combination of all three things which had an amplified effect as a chain reaction. He also said it had been established by expert witness Curtin, and by Mr Towers’ own admission, that his cart sat low, which was attributed to by the size of his horse. THE JANDAL MACHINE also wore a shadow roll to stop its vision of the ground, so his horse carried on with its forward momentum at the time. He also reiterated that Mr Towers said it was not abnormal for a driver’s helmet to be nudged and that he did not state that his sulky had been touched from behind; Mr MacFarlane submitted this was part of racing when trying to settle on to the back of another runner.
Under cross-examination he accepted that it was the responsibility of horsemen driving to not contact the horse it was trailing, but that there were sometimes mitigating circumstances that obstructed that. He also disagreed with Mr Muirhead’s view that no significant chain reaction followed, and confirmed that he was racing in a normal manner. On the balance of probabilities he noted that the combination of Mr Towers going forward and Mr Curtin steadying for a stride, meant that the speed would have had to have changed, and that it did in that second; citing a whole myriad of factors at play.
In conclusion, he reiterated that his horse was wearing a shadow roll, Mr Curtin had taken a hold for a stride, Mr Towers went forward and that there was no contact before the incident with Mr Towers. This combined with the fact that Mr Towers’ cart was very low, confirmed by witnesses Curtin and Tower, meant he was not guilty of the charge.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee considered all of the evidence, and had taken some time to review the relevant film angles at length, in light of the many considered points that Mr MacFarlane had put forward. As a result we have been able to make some observations, and have found the Back Straight Tower’s side-on view of the incident of most value. When we observe Mr Curtin in isolation, it is apparent that there is no observable change in his body’s position, and as such we identify that he had not eased. While he may have steadied, this does not equate to a discernible slowing of the pace at that time. In this sense, we are unable to see a compounding effect upon Mr MacFarlane’s horse. It is clear that Mr Towers does move forward slightly, but if anything, that would have improved the situation for Mr MacFarlane, not contributed to it. If Mr Towers’ sulky is lower to the ground than others, that may be an observation, but we are satisfied that the sulky that he used is registered and is appropriate to be used in the race. The zoom in of the side-on film shows that THE JANDAL MACHINE makes contact with the sulky of PHILLYDOTCOM on at least two occasions; and that the right front leg of THE JANDAL MACHINE clearly becomes entangled in Mr Towers' sulky. Therefore, the only real conclusion is that in the absence of any other factors holding weight, Mr MacFarlane has allowed his horse to get too close, with the result that his horse’s leg becomes entangled in the sulking it was trailing at the time.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Muirhead identified the JCA Penalty Guide starting point of a six drives suspension or a $300 fine for careless driving relating to hitting a wheel, rather than trying to change ground. He also submitted that the consequences needed to be taken into account for this carelessness within the mid-range. One such consequence was due to the risk of injury to horses and drivers, the race had to be called off. Whilst the drivers still received their driving fee, the contest for available stakes had been eliminated. He described the respondent as a very active driver who had eight or nine drives at each day of the Manawatu HRC meetings. His record was identified as clean, having no significant breach within the previous 12 months period. The RIU submitted a five to six days suspension as appropriate.
Mr MacFarlane believed the penalty submission of the RIU to be severe. He stated that if Mr Towers’ sulky was different, the incident would not have been as worse. He identified a clean record under the rule, and that as he did not chase the horse forward, there was no deliberate action on his part. He said that driving was his livelihood and sought a combination of a period of suspension and a fine, which Mr Muirhead did not object to. Mr MacFarlane said he often averaged five drives at Auckland Meetings and sought the immediate commencement of any period of suspension to be imposed.
Reasons for Penalty:
The JCA Penalty Guide does identify a starting point for a breach of this rule of a six drives suspension. We consider it appropriate to adopt that. In mitigation we have considered his good record under this rule. We accept that while the actual level of carelessness may be towards the low end, there are significant consequences that must be applied in aggravation. These include the element of safety to the horse and driver. The films established that THE JANDAL MACHINE’s off fore leg remains caught in the sulky while both horses are still travelling in the race. At speed there is the potential for significant injury to have occurred. A further feature is that the race had to be abandoned, resulting in the inability for competitors to compete for the stakes monies on offer. When looking at upcoming meetings, the next four meetings cover two meetings each at Auckland and Manawatu venues. A suspension of those Meetings would equate to approximately 24 drives for Mr MacFarlane, which we consider as appropriate.
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: 53156f011d099723347f452f9c110c22
informantnumber: A10265
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 31/03/2019
hearing_title: Manawatu HRC 29 March 2019 - R 5 - Chair, Mr T Utikere
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 5 (Cafe Jacko Mobile Pace 2500m) Information A10265 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) by Licensed Driver Mr T MacFarlane and stated that he: ”...drove THE JANDAL MACHINE carelessly by allowing it to contact the back of the sulky of PHILLYDOTCOM several times before the off side front leg became entangled in the sulky. This in turn caused both horses to be positioned stationary on the track and the race be stopped.”
Mr MacFarlane confirmed that he understood the rule and that he denied the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Using the head-on film, Mr Muirhead identified Mr MacFarlane following Mr Towers, with both runners positioned four and five deep on the running line. Inside the 1300 metres and approaching the 1200 metres, Mr MacFarlane’s horse was observed to have become entangled in the sulky of PHILLYDOTCOM.
The side-on view from the Back Straight Tower was able to give a clear view of the incident. The stewards believed there was a marginal easing of the pace, but that Mr Towers did not take a hold and Mr Curtin, whom Mr Towers was trailing, did not react to any easing of the pace. Mr Muirhead observed that the two-wide line was improving going forward and that Mr MacFarlane and Mr Towers were racing keen at the time.
When the side-on view was zoomed in, it was identified that THE JANDAL MACHINE’s near fore leg made contact with the back of Mr Towers’ sulky on two occasions then stumbled. The horse’s off fore leg then reaches forward and goes inside the confines of Mr Towers’ sulky and becomes entangled. Mr Muirhead identified that the consequences were both horses were then stationary two or three wide on the track, which was an extremely dangerous position with one round to go. As the Steward in charge, Mr Muirhead observed the attendants trying to untangle Mr MacFarlane’s horse, and as this was unable to be done quickly, the race was abandoned and the siren sounded. The respondent had no questions for Mr Muirhead.
The RIU called Mr Towers as a witness. He confirmed he had been travelling at the top bend when the outside line started to improve, at which time his mare took a hold. At that time he felt two taps on his helmet before improving onto the horse in front of him (JACK BATES); then there was a sudden stop. He did not notice any severe change of pace, and there was nothing in front of him to impact his own runner.
Under cross-examination, he confirmed that he took a hold and then moved slightly forward to Mr Curtin’s head. While he felt a tap on his helmet, he confirmed that was not unusual to occur during a race. He said that his mare was a big mare that was out full extension on the cart. He used a Sprint 2000 sulky and confirmed that they sat lower; and as his horse was taller, it was possible that his sulky therefore sat lower to the ground.
In response to Mr Muirhead, he confirmed that his Sprint 2000 sulky had a Warrant of Fitness, and had been a legal type of sulky for many years.
The RIU called Mr Curtin as a witness. He confirmed he drove JACK BATES and was approximately three deep on the running line, not aware of anything that happened behind him at the time of the incident. He had steadied his horse a little bit, but had not taken any evasive action; and that Mr Poutama (racing ahead of him) had eased off, coming back a fraction. This required Mr Curtin to “steady” for a stride.
Under cross-examination, Mr Curtin confirmed that the films demonstrated that Mr Towers’ head had improved slightly onto his own head; and that if he had taken a hold while Mr Towers had gone forward, that would suggest an easing of the pace. Mr Curtin also observed that Mr Towers appeared to be low in the cart.
In response to Mr Muirhead’s observation about his posture at the time, Mr Curtin believed that when he steadied, he didn’t have to pull his horse back. He agreed that he had gone forward towards Mr Poutama rather than going back onto Mr Towers. He said that he had hardly done anything to cause any problems to any trailing horses.
Mr MacFarlane stated that if he had called Mr Butcher as a witness, which he confirmed that he had elected not to do, he would have identified that there was trouble letting the parked horse go around. Mr Curtin’s horse’s head had moved over the sulky of Mr Poutama, which had also happened to Mr Towers and himself. This meant it was a combination of all three things which had an amplified effect as a chain reaction. He also said it had been established by expert witness Curtin, and by Mr Towers’ own admission, that his cart sat low, which was attributed to by the size of his horse. THE JANDAL MACHINE also wore a shadow roll to stop its vision of the ground, so his horse carried on with its forward momentum at the time. He also reiterated that Mr Towers said it was not abnormal for a driver’s helmet to be nudged and that he did not state that his sulky had been touched from behind; Mr MacFarlane submitted this was part of racing when trying to settle on to the back of another runner.
Under cross-examination he accepted that it was the responsibility of horsemen driving to not contact the horse it was trailing, but that there were sometimes mitigating circumstances that obstructed that. He also disagreed with Mr Muirhead’s view that no significant chain reaction followed, and confirmed that he was racing in a normal manner. On the balance of probabilities he noted that the combination of Mr Towers going forward and Mr Curtin steadying for a stride, meant that the speed would have had to have changed, and that it did in that second; citing a whole myriad of factors at play.
In conclusion, he reiterated that his horse was wearing a shadow roll, Mr Curtin had taken a hold for a stride, Mr Towers went forward and that there was no contact before the incident with Mr Towers. This combined with the fact that Mr Towers’ cart was very low, confirmed by witnesses Curtin and Tower, meant he was not guilty of the charge.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee considered all of the evidence, and had taken some time to review the relevant film angles at length, in light of the many considered points that Mr MacFarlane had put forward. As a result we have been able to make some observations, and have found the Back Straight Tower’s side-on view of the incident of most value. When we observe Mr Curtin in isolation, it is apparent that there is no observable change in his body’s position, and as such we identify that he had not eased. While he may have steadied, this does not equate to a discernible slowing of the pace at that time. In this sense, we are unable to see a compounding effect upon Mr MacFarlane’s horse. It is clear that Mr Towers does move forward slightly, but if anything, that would have improved the situation for Mr MacFarlane, not contributed to it. If Mr Towers’ sulky is lower to the ground than others, that may be an observation, but we are satisfied that the sulky that he used is registered and is appropriate to be used in the race. The zoom in of the side-on film shows that THE JANDAL MACHINE makes contact with the sulky of PHILLYDOTCOM on at least two occasions; and that the right front leg of THE JANDAL MACHINE clearly becomes entangled in Mr Towers' sulky. Therefore, the only real conclusion is that in the absence of any other factors holding weight, Mr MacFarlane has allowed his horse to get too close, with the result that his horse’s leg becomes entangled in the sulking it was trailing at the time.
Decision:
The charge is found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Muirhead identified the JCA Penalty Guide starting point of a six drives suspension or a $300 fine for careless driving relating to hitting a wheel, rather than trying to change ground. He also submitted that the consequences needed to be taken into account for this carelessness within the mid-range. One such consequence was due to the risk of injury to horses and drivers, the race had to be called off. Whilst the drivers still received their driving fee, the contest for available stakes had been eliminated. He described the respondent as a very active driver who had eight or nine drives at each day of the Manawatu HRC meetings. His record was identified as clean, having no significant breach within the previous 12 months period. The RIU submitted a five to six days suspension as appropriate.
Mr MacFarlane believed the penalty submission of the RIU to be severe. He stated that if Mr Towers’ sulky was different, the incident would not have been as worse. He identified a clean record under the rule, and that as he did not chase the horse forward, there was no deliberate action on his part. He said that driving was his livelihood and sought a combination of a period of suspension and a fine, which Mr Muirhead did not object to. Mr MacFarlane said he often averaged five drives at Auckland Meetings and sought the immediate commencement of any period of suspension to be imposed.
reasonsforpenalty:
The JCA Penalty Guide does identify a starting point for a breach of this rule of a six drives suspension. We consider it appropriate to adopt that. In mitigation we have considered his good record under this rule. We accept that while the actual level of carelessness may be towards the low end, there are significant consequences that must be applied in aggravation. These include the element of safety to the horse and driver. The films established that THE JANDAL MACHINE’s off fore leg remains caught in the sulky while both horses are still travelling in the race. At speed there is the potential for significant injury to have occurred. A further feature is that the race had to be abandoned, resulting in the inability for competitors to compete for the stakes monies on offer. When looking at upcoming meetings, the next four meetings cover two meetings each at Auckland and Manawatu venues. A suspension of those Meetings would equate to approximately 24 drives for Mr MacFarlane, which we consider as appropriate.
penalty:
Mr MacFarlane is suspended from 30 March until the conclusion of racing on Friday 12 April. This four day suspension incorporates meetings at Auckland on 5th, Manawatu on 9th, Manawatu on 11th and Auckland on 12th April.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr J Muirhead - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr T MacFarlane - Driver of THE JANDAL MACHINE
Otherperson: Mr B Towers - Driver of PHILLYDOTCOM, Mr J Curtin - Driver of JACK BATES
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: ed88c9b70524c21abb35b5f3c5b5e56c
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 1ad312228ed74dd7659b3b7fd52e74d7
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 29/03/2019
meet_title: Manawatu HRC - 29 March 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: manawatu-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: NMoffatt
meet_pm2: none
name: Manawatu HRC