Marlborough HRC 13 January 2012 – R 3 (heard 15 January 2012 at Marlborough)
ID: JCA22013
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Marlborough HRC - 13 January 2012
Meet Chair:
JPhelan
Meet Committee Member 1:
JMillar
Race Date:
2012/01/13
Race Number:
R 3
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr S P Renault – Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Mr N R McGrath – Licensed Trainer
Information No: A5075
Meeting: Marlborough Harness Racing Club
Date: 13 January 2012 (heard 15 January 2012 at Marlborough)
Race No: 3
Rules: 865(2)
Judicial Committee: J Millar, Chairman – J Phelan , Committee Member
Plea: Not Admitted
Charge:
Alleged failure to present horse in previously notified blinds.
Evidence:
Stipendiary Steward Mr S P Renault filed an information against Licensed Trainer Mr N R McGrath alleging a breach of Rule 865(2). It was alleged that as the trainer of “Strawbs Better Act” (13), which started in Race 3, the Criterion Hotel Maiden Mobile Pace, he failed to present the horse with the previously notified blinds.
The charge reads as follows:
“I the above named informant allege that the above named respondent committed a breach of Rule 865(2) (in that) trainer N R McGrath failed to present “Strawbs Better Act” with the previously notified blinds”
Rule 865(2) reads as follows.
“(2) Every horse entered in a totalisator race shall be presented in the assembly area prior to the race in the same notifiable gear as that notified under sub-rule (1).”
Mr McGrath had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted.
Submissions For Decision:
Mr Renault gave evidence that Mr McGrath had presented “Strawbs Better Act” in the Assembly Area, (Birdcage) without blinds as previously notified. That Mr McIntyre, Stipendiary Steward, had drawn Mr McGrath’s attention to the omission. That Mr McGrath had returned to the stabling area, fitted the blinds and returned to the Assembly Area within 12 minutes of the start of the race, with the blinds fitted. That Mr McGrath had ample time to warm up prior to the race, and that there had been no further ramifications.
Mr McGrath drew the panel’s attention to the Official Programme for that days racing, which indicated that connections had until 3.15pm, to present their horses for race 3. He said that he had entered the Assembly Area early, being the first horse to enter, and on having been advised of the blinds not being fitted, had ample time to return to the stabling area, fit the blinds, and return to the Assembly Area prior to 3.15pm. He added that by doing so he had complied with presenting “Strawbs Better Act” properly geared for the race within the 3.15pm deadline.
Mr Renault referred to the definition of Assembly Area as;-
“means the Birdcage, Parade Ring, or other area where horses are assembled prior to entering the track for the purposes of the race”
Further that Rule 858 reads:-
“Every horseman and/or person in charge of a horse shall ensure:-
(a) the horse is, not later than the time fixed by the stewards (whether in the regulations for the race meeting, official racebook or otherwise) prior to any race paraded at the assembly area approved by the Stipendiary Steward”
Mr Renault gave evidence that the Birdcage was the approved (Assembly) area for the day and that “Strawbs Better Act” was presented once it had arrived in the Birdcage.
He added that the Stipendiary Stewards concern was that if Mr McIntyre had not noticed the breach, the horse may have raced in gear other than as previously notified.
Mr McGrath disputed that he would not have realised the error prior to the start of the race.
Reasons For Decision:
After hearing Mr Renault’s evidence we were satisfied that the “Assembly Area” for the days racing was the Birdcage as specified under Rule 858 (a). Also that a horse has been presented for racing once entering the Assembly Area, regardless of time.
We found that “Strawbs Better Act” was presented in the Assembly Area for race 3 without previously notified blinds prior to the 3.15pm deadline for race 3. That on being advised by Mr McIntyre of the omission that Mr McGrath had had time to fit the blinds and return to the Parade Ring prior to 3.15pm.
After hearing submissions from both Mr McGrath and Mr Renault we are satisfied that the horse was presented for racing when it first entered the Assembly Area. As well as being satisfied that under the rules this is the correct interpretation, Mr McGraths contention that horses could be re-presented once errors had been discovered, would make the management of this process particularly difficult.
Accordingly we find the charge proven in accordance with Rule 1111 (1) (d)
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
Submissions on Penalty:
In relation to penalty Mr Renault advised that a breach of Rule 865(2) was usually dealt with under the Minor Infringement Notice system. However, this was the Respondent’s fifth breach of this Rule within the past 365 days and under the provisions of Rule 1105A(3)(c) it was necessary to file an Information on this occasion. The previous breaches had resulted in fines of $100-00 each for the first three breaches dealt with under the Minor Infringement Notice system. The next two breaches each resulted in a fine of $200-00 each.
Mr Renault submitted that a fine of between $100 and $200 was sought.
Reasons for Decision on Penalty:
In considering the matter of an appropriate penalty we took into account that Mr McGrath had five previous breaches of this rule in the last twelve months, the breach was not admitted but that McGrath had provided what was obviously in his perception a reasonable defence.
The informant indicated that the public had not been misled due to early intervention, and that there had been no other adverse ramifications as a result of the breach. We considered a fine of $200 was appropriate.
Penalty:
Mr McGrath was fined the sum of $200.00.
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: b143c64314b7fba0605e136828561ddd
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 13/01/2012
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Marlborough HRC 13 January 2012 - R 3 (heard 15 January 2012 at Marlborough)
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr S P Renault – Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Mr N R McGrath – Licensed Trainer
Information No: A5075
Meeting: Marlborough Harness Racing Club
Date: 13 January 2012 (heard 15 January 2012 at Marlborough)
Race No: 3
Rules: 865(2)
Judicial Committee: J Millar, Chairman – J Phelan , Committee Member
Plea: Not Admitted
Charge:
Alleged failure to present horse in previously notified blinds.
Evidence:
Stipendiary Steward Mr S P Renault filed an information against Licensed Trainer Mr N R McGrath alleging a breach of Rule 865(2). It was alleged that as the trainer of “Strawbs Better Act” (13), which started in Race 3, the Criterion Hotel Maiden Mobile Pace, he failed to present the horse with the previously notified blinds.
The charge reads as follows:
“I the above named informant allege that the above named respondent committed a breach of Rule 865(2) (in that) trainer N R McGrath failed to present “Strawbs Better Act” with the previously notified blinds”
Rule 865(2) reads as follows.
“(2) Every horse entered in a totalisator race shall be presented in the assembly area prior to the race in the same notifiable gear as that notified under sub-rule (1).”
Mr McGrath had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted.
Submissions For Decision:
Mr Renault gave evidence that Mr McGrath had presented “Strawbs Better Act” in the Assembly Area, (Birdcage) without blinds as previously notified. That Mr McIntyre, Stipendiary Steward, had drawn Mr McGrath’s attention to the omission. That Mr McGrath had returned to the stabling area, fitted the blinds and returned to the Assembly Area within 12 minutes of the start of the race, with the blinds fitted. That Mr McGrath had ample time to warm up prior to the race, and that there had been no further ramifications.
Mr McGrath drew the panel’s attention to the Official Programme for that days racing, which indicated that connections had until 3.15pm, to present their horses for race 3. He said that he had entered the Assembly Area early, being the first horse to enter, and on having been advised of the blinds not being fitted, had ample time to return to the stabling area, fit the blinds, and return to the Assembly Area prior to 3.15pm. He added that by doing so he had complied with presenting “Strawbs Better Act” properly geared for the race within the 3.15pm deadline.
Mr Renault referred to the definition of Assembly Area as;-
“means the Birdcage, Parade Ring, or other area where horses are assembled prior to entering the track for the purposes of the race”
Further that Rule 858 reads:-
“Every horseman and/or person in charge of a horse shall ensure:-
(a) the horse is, not later than the time fixed by the stewards (whether in the regulations for the race meeting, official racebook or otherwise) prior to any race paraded at the assembly area approved by the Stipendiary Steward”
Mr Renault gave evidence that the Birdcage was the approved (Assembly) area for the day and that “Strawbs Better Act” was presented once it had arrived in the Birdcage.
He added that the Stipendiary Stewards concern was that if Mr McIntyre had not noticed the breach, the horse may have raced in gear other than as previously notified.
Mr McGrath disputed that he would not have realised the error prior to the start of the race.
Reasons For Decision:
After hearing Mr Renault’s evidence we were satisfied that the “Assembly Area” for the days racing was the Birdcage as specified under Rule 858 (a). Also that a horse has been presented for racing once entering the Assembly Area, regardless of time.
We found that “Strawbs Better Act” was presented in the Assembly Area for race 3 without previously notified blinds prior to the 3.15pm deadline for race 3. That on being advised by Mr McIntyre of the omission that Mr McGrath had had time to fit the blinds and return to the Parade Ring prior to 3.15pm.
After hearing submissions from both Mr McGrath and Mr Renault we are satisfied that the horse was presented for racing when it first entered the Assembly Area. As well as being satisfied that under the rules this is the correct interpretation, Mr McGraths contention that horses could be re-presented once errors had been discovered, would make the management of this process particularly difficult.
Accordingly we find the charge proven in accordance with Rule 1111 (1) (d)
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
Submissions on Penalty:
In relation to penalty Mr Renault advised that a breach of Rule 865(2) was usually dealt with under the Minor Infringement Notice system. However, this was the Respondent’s fifth breach of this Rule within the past 365 days and under the provisions of Rule 1105A(3)(c) it was necessary to file an Information on this occasion. The previous breaches had resulted in fines of $100-00 each for the first three breaches dealt with under the Minor Infringement Notice system. The next two breaches each resulted in a fine of $200-00 each.
Mr Renault submitted that a fine of between $100 and $200 was sought.
Reasons for Decision on Penalty:
In considering the matter of an appropriate penalty we took into account that Mr McGrath had five previous breaches of this rule in the last twelve months, the breach was not admitted but that McGrath had provided what was obviously in his perception a reasonable defence.
The informant indicated that the public had not been misled due to early intervention, and that there had been no other adverse ramifications as a result of the breach. We considered a fine of $200 was appropriate.
Penalty:
Mr McGrath was fined the sum of $200.00.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 865(2)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 1bfa208ad2f2ef0f327abc6e5f78fe99
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: b3aa23d6c4b771f2445033066f84c01b
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 13/01/2012
meet_title: Marlborough HRC - 13 January 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: marlborough-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: JPhelan
meet_pm1: JMillar
meet_pm2: none
name: Marlborough HRC