Marlborough HRC – 16 June 2006 – Race 10

hearingid: f6ac7ea5c0943f2880b6ab183610e136

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 16/06/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Marlborough HRC - 16 June 2006 - Race 10

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 10, the Royal Hotel Mobile Pace, an information was lodged by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr C. E. Sprott, Licensed Trainer of "Village Lord" (13), alleging a breach of Rule 864(2)(d).

This charge was laid at the Marlborough Harness Club's meeting on 16 June 2006 where it was adjourned to be heard at the New Zealand Metropolitan Club's meeting on 30 June 2006.

Following the running of Race 10, the Royal Hotel Mobile Pace, an information was lodged by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr C. E. Sprott, Licensed Trainer of "Village Lord" (13), alleging a breach of Rule 864(2)(d). The charge reads as follows.

The rule reads as follows.

Mr Sprott had indicated on the information that he did not admit this breach

of the Rules and he confirmed this before the hearing began.

Mr Escott gave evidence that the driver of Village Lord, Mr C. T. Woodward, had told Stipendiary Steward Mr Ydgren the he was unable to pull the hopple shorteners during the race. The reason was that the cord had come detached between the handle and the shortener pins.

Mr Woodward gave evidence that when the cord was inspected after the race it was found that the knot attaching the cord to the handle had come undone.

Mr Sprott asked Mr Woodward if he had been asked to inspect the hopple shorteners before the race. Mr Woodward agreed that he had been asked to do this and said he had made an inspection and found that the pins had been properly inserted. However Mr Woodward also said that he did not check to see if the cord

was properly attached to the handle.

Mr Woodward was also asked by Mr Sprott if the malfunction had affected the chances of "Village Lord" or any other horse in the race, and he agreed that it hadn?t.

Mr Sprott gave evidence and produced the hopple shorteners to show that they were in good condition. It was Mr Sprott's evidence that he had attached the cord properly and he could offer no explanation as to why the cord had come adrift.

After hearing the evidence I adjourned to consider my decision.

I was satisfied that the cord had not been affixed properly and that this was the reason for the malfunction. The provisions of Rule 864(2)(d) are quite clear that the trainer (in this case) of a horse has the responsibility to ensure that gear does not malfunction. Rule 1008 provides as follows.

"1008. In the absence of any express provision to the contrary in any

proceeding for a breach of these Rules:-

--

--
1. it shall not be necessary for the informant to prove that the defendant
--

or any person intended to commit that or any breach of the Rule; and

--
2. any breach of the Rule shall be considered as an offence of strict liability."

On returning to the Enquiry Room I advised the parties that a full written

decision would be completed later, and I gave the following oral decision.

"You have been charged with a breach of Rule 864(2)(d) in that the hopple shorteners on "Village Lord" malfunctioned. You denied this breach and the evidence was that the driver of the horse tried to pull the hopple shorteners and found that a knot had come undone. You produced the hopple shorteners tonight to show that they were in good order. You also had agreement from Mr Woodward, at any rate, that the malfunction did not affect the chances of "Village Lord" or any other horse in the race.

Rule 864(2)(e) requires that steps shall be taken to activate all gear on a horse.

I will also read a Rule out to you that applies in this case. Its Rule 1008 [reads rule as set out above].

So in this particular case I am satisfied at the hopple shorteners didn?t work,

that it was your responsibility to see that they did work, and therefore I find the charge proved."

JM Phelan

CHAIRMAN

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 864.2.d, 864.2.e

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: d37636eab1f813154a0d1bee2d4aaab1

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 10

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 3f3b2b422f4d5b817aff3bd35557785e

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 16/06/2006

meet_title: Marlborough HRC - 16 June 2006

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: marlborough-hrc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Marlborough HRC