Marlborough HRC – 20 January 2008 – Race 5

hearingid: 5d7ccf0003202b0e5743a6838ff58289

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 20/01/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Marlborough HRC - 20 January 2008 - Race 5

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of race five on the programme, an Information was lodged against Mr RD Holmes, the driver of Donegal Flat, alleging a breach of Rule 869(3)(f), in that he drove improperly

Following the running of race five on the programme, an Information was lodged against Mr RD Holmes, the driver of Donegal Flat, alleging a breach of Rule 869(3)(f), in that he drove improperly when moving Donegal Flat out when in a break rounding the final bend, allowing stablemate Lough Beg (NR McGrath) a run through. Mr Holmes denied the breach.

Presenting her evidence, stipendiary steward Mrs Williams said that Mr Holmes was the driver of Donegal Flat and, immediately in the trailing position was Lough Beg, the stablemate driven by Mr McGrath. She said that rounding the final bend, Donegal Flat went into a break and Mr Holmes elected to move his horse out, in doing so, allowed Lough Beg a run through. She said it may have got this run anyway, but certainly not at that stage if Donegal Flat had continued to trot.

She referred to and read Rule 870(1), and said that it was the stipendiary stewards’ view that Mr Holmes did not have the clearance on the outside to take his horse wider and that, in doing so, he forced the other horses outside him to race wider on the final bend. She said that the main concern was that the stablemate got a run from about the 400metre mark which it may not otherwise have got.

Mrs Williams referred to the perception to the betting public, and the need to protect the integrity of harness racing. She accepted that, when a horse breaks, the driver is required to take it wider, but that it was not expected when there are horses on its outside and, in this case, Mr Holmes made his own clearance.

She then called on Mr McIntyre, who was positioned at the top of the straight, to give his interpretation and, in doing so, he referred to the video of the race. He showed Mr Holmes racing in front and, just prior to coming off the back straight, his horse went into a break. He said there were several drivers calling out and Mr Holmes looked around and slowly moved out. As he moved out, he forced others outside him to move wider on the track, and allowed his stablemate to move through on the inside.

To Mrs Williams, Mr McIntyre said Mr Iggo (The Fat Controller) was immediately outside Mr Holmes, with Mr Ford (Manakau Spur) outside Mr Iggo. He said there were also trailing members getting into a position for a run at this stage of the race and he would have expected Mr Holmes to have stayed in his position, even if this were bad luck on those immediately behind. He said that, on the apex of the turn, as Mr Holmes moved out, other horses were required to move wider and he agreed with Mrs Williams that Mr McGrath (on Lough Beg) then got a run that he may not otherwise have received, or sooner than he would have done.

Asked by Mr Holmes if he had caused any interference, Mr McIntyre said he hadn’t, but that he had hindered others by forcing them wider on the track.

To the Chairman, on Mr Holmes’ looking around, Mr McIntyre said he believed Mr Holmes was looking for a way to try to get out of the way of other horses. He said he was not asserting that Mr Holmes knew that his stablemate was directly behind him.

Mrs Williams, however, said that drivers should know where the other horses are on the track. She said it may have been an error of judgement by Mr Holmes, but it is not a good public perception when, on the final bend, a stablemate gets a run that it would not otherwise have got, and other horses are required to race wider on the track.

She stated that Mr Holmes should have stayed in a break on the fence and allowed the other horses to have gone around him.

Mr Holmes, in his account, asked how much other drivers were required to race wider on the track, and he referred to the video to highlight his point that there was very little wider movement, and they were not inconvenienced. He also said that, after his break, other drivers, including Mr Iggo (The Fat Controller), were clear of him and had every opportunity to go to the fence in front, but elected to sit one-off.

In a statement, Mr Holmes said he had always been taught to give every runner behind you every opportunity of not being interfered with and finding the line in the race. In doing so, he had always opted to do the same thing, that is, to come one-off the fence so that horses can pass inside and outside of you and not be interfered with, then get the horse back in the correct gait when clear of the field. Often, when the one in front breaks and comes back on you, those further back also suffer the consequences.

In this case, he said he was in front and he was not aware the stablemate, who was off 10metres, was on his back, and said that he was surprised when Lough Beg moved through on the inside. He also said that, at the same time on the first day, his horse broke and he knew he wouldn’t settle for a distance.

He said he had come off the fence for two reasons: to enable everyone to get a fair opportunity of a run in the straight, and because he had room to do so. In summary, he felt he had done everything correctly, that no-one was squeezed and he had caused no interference to any horse in the running.

Mrs Williams said that, while they were not alleging interference, she accepted what Mr Holmes has said in that, on most occasions, drivers can move out and allow horses to get a run on both the inside and the outside without causing a problem.

She was not suggesting it was a deliberate act but, in this case, it was his stablemate, and the appearance - the public perception - of that horse getting a run to go on and win the race, was the concern.

In this case, Mr Holmes appears on a charge of improper driving under Rule 869(3)(f) when, after his horse Donegal Flat broke, he moved out wider on the track, allowing his stablemate Lough Beg (NR McGrath) to go on to win the race.

That Mr Holmes’ horse Donegal Flat broke, and what happened thereafter, is not in dispute, although there was considerable discussion and differing accounts or interpretations for that.

In summary, the crux of the stipendiary steward’s argument is that Mr Holmes, in a break, moved wider on the track and, by doing so, allowed his stablemate through on the inside to win the race.

Mr Holmes’ view was that he didn’t realise his stablemate was there and, regardless of who was behind him, he would have done the same. He said that, by moving wider, he was endeavouring to give every horse a run and, whilst the movement was acknowledged, it was with safety and without interference.

Following the evidence, I am inclined to Mr Holmes’ account. I note the incident occurred some distance from the finish of the race, that is, at the end of the back straight, allowing other horses the opportunity to go on to win the race had they been good enough. It was also pointed out in evidence, and it was clear on the video, that at least one of the drivers had the opportunity to go to the front and down on to the fence, but did not do so, and any inconvenience through being forced wider on the track, was minimal.

The charge was properly brought because of the perception of what could be termed ‘team driving’, that is, Mr Holmes deliberately allowing his stablemate, Lough Beg, a clear run. Whether that horse may, or may not, have got the run anyway is subjective.

The benefit of any doubt, in this case, goes to Mr Holmes. Whilst it may have been seen as an error of judgement, or practice, taking all the factors into consideration I am not satisfied his action was improper. This would convey a deliberate, wilful act to allow a stablemate to win and, on the evidence, I am not satisfied that is the case. Accordingly, the charge is dismissed.

P H Welch

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.3.f, 870.1

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: abed12dddadc6633f2c24e7ecf0f1fe7

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 5

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 97a0c473d858fe1003cb7cd47f5d4069

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 20/01/2008

meet_title: Marlborough HRC - 20 January 2008

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: marlborough-hrc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Marlborough HRC