Marlborough RC – 15 June 2008 – Race 2
ID: JCA20050
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Marlborough RC - 15 June 2008
Race Date:
2008/06/15
Race Number:
Race 2
Decision:
Following the running of race two, an Information was lodged against driver, Mr N Berkett, alleging a breach of Rule 857(7)(g), in that he failed to maintain his position behind the mobile when driving GUNMAN
Following the running of race two, an Information was lodged against driver, Mr N Berkett, alleging a breach of Rule 857(7)(g), in that he failed to maintain his position behind the mobile when driving GUNMAN, who had drawn two.
----Mr Berkett denied the breach.
----The Rule reads:
----857(7) No Horseman shall...
----(g) fail to come up into and/or maintain his position.
----Presenting his evidence, Mr McIntyre explained that Mr Berkett, on GUNMAN, had drawn two behind the mobile and, after being up on the gate early, he drifted to be at least a length back at the start, thereby inconveniencing the second-line runners who had drawn behind him.
----He called on Mr Ydgren to interpret the video. He identified Mr Berkett, who had drawn two, outside Mr Curtin, and immediately behind him were Mr Orange (on HUNTER THE PUNTER) who was the most inconvenienced, and Mr Thornley (on DECEPTIVE BENDS). He showed that, approaching the start, Mr Berkett pulled back off the gate, thereby disadvantaging Mr Orange, who was two to three lengths back at the start of the race, and Mr Thornley.
----Concluding the evidence, Mr McIntyre added that, at no stage, did there appear to be a flaw with the horse’s gait.
----Mr Berkett, in his submissions, said there were extenuating circumstances with the horse (GUNMAN) and he explained at some length about not having other horses to work or trial with and then, when with other horses, he had ‘freaked’. He added that, in Nelson there was a false start on the first day, and that fired him up and he wouldn’t go up on the gate, and the second day he was squeezed and went into a gallop.
----When advised by the chair that these were factors to be considered in mitigation, Mr Berkett said that he was pointing out that his horse was green and lacking confidence and, if he had let his head go, he would have gone into a break.
----He acknowledged and accepted that he was not up on the gate, and he also appreciated the horses in behind him were inconvenienced by his not being on the gate, but he was trying to explain the difficulties with the horse.
----To this, Mr McIntyre advised Mr Berkett that there was the option of being placed on the unruly if he thought there was going to be a problem, and the horse should be educated before going to the races.
----Decision:
----In this case, Mr Berkett denied a breach of Rule 857(7)(g), that he failed to maintain his position behind the mobile when driving GUNMAN who had drawn two in race two.
----Evidence was given by the stewards, and the film shown, and I accept that Mr Berkett, after being on the gate, drifted to be at least a length back at the start of the race, thereby inconveniencing the horses behind, particularly Mr Orange (on HUNTER THE PUNTER) which had drawn two on the second line. As a result, he was disadvantaged, losing considerable ground at the start, and not able to start from the correct mark.
----It was acknowledged by Mr Berkett that he was not on the gate at the time, and he explained his reasons for this, but these points he mentioned I accept as being factors more to be considered in respect to penalty, not necessarily in determining the charge.
--Accordingly, as acknowledged by Mr Berkett, I find he failed to maintain his position and I therefore find the charge proved.
----Penalty:
----In respect to penalty, Mr McIntyre said Mr Berkett is a senior horseman who drives on very few occasions and he recommended a fine in keeping with the JCA guidelines
----At this point, the parties were advised that there were three similar matters at the recent Nelson meeting and the monetary penalties were from $150.00 to $200.00.
----To this, Mr Berkett indicated his horse needed racing and he intended to take him to Addington, so he would sooner take a suspension, which would still allow him to educate him, rather than a monetary penalty. He also said he preferred a suspension because his other horse also has problems and he can’t race her at the current time.
----In determining penalty, the committee accepts that Mr Berkett had difficulties with his young horse but, as inferred by the stewards, those aspects should be mostly ironed out before the races.
----One of the principles or purposes of a penalty is just that - a penalty or punishment - and, whilst a suspension would deny Mr Berkett the opportunity to drive his horse, that in this particular case would be a convenience, and I doubt the value or validity of a suspension as a penalty or a punishment in relation to this breach. Therefore, I am not satisfied a suspension is appropriate.
----One of the other factors is consistency in dealing with penalty. Mr Berkett does not drive often and, with only the one active racehorse, a suitable period of suspension in his case may not be seen as either a proper, or equitable penalty, or consistent for this particular breach.
----Taking all the factors into consideration and, in particular, the consistency aspect when dealing with penalty, which has been the subject of much publicity, a fine is in my view the only appropriate course. Mr Berkett is fined the sum of $150.00.
----This takes into account what Mr Berkett said in relation to the horse, allowing him the opportunity to educate and drive his horse should he wish. He also indicated that, although finances were ‘a bit tight’, he could afford to pay a fine, and that concession is considered in determining the sum.
--------
P H Welch
--Chairman
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: 687745ba761ec982e52c8385db70b4e2
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 15/06/2008
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Marlborough RC - 15 June 2008 - Race 2
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Following the running of race two, an Information was lodged against driver, Mr N Berkett, alleging a breach of Rule 857(7)(g), in that he failed to maintain his position behind the mobile when driving GUNMAN
Following the running of race two, an Information was lodged against driver, Mr N Berkett, alleging a breach of Rule 857(7)(g), in that he failed to maintain his position behind the mobile when driving GUNMAN, who had drawn two.
----Mr Berkett denied the breach.
----The Rule reads:
----857(7) No Horseman shall...
----(g) fail to come up into and/or maintain his position.
----Presenting his evidence, Mr McIntyre explained that Mr Berkett, on GUNMAN, had drawn two behind the mobile and, after being up on the gate early, he drifted to be at least a length back at the start, thereby inconveniencing the second-line runners who had drawn behind him.
----He called on Mr Ydgren to interpret the video. He identified Mr Berkett, who had drawn two, outside Mr Curtin, and immediately behind him were Mr Orange (on HUNTER THE PUNTER) who was the most inconvenienced, and Mr Thornley (on DECEPTIVE BENDS). He showed that, approaching the start, Mr Berkett pulled back off the gate, thereby disadvantaging Mr Orange, who was two to three lengths back at the start of the race, and Mr Thornley.
----Concluding the evidence, Mr McIntyre added that, at no stage, did there appear to be a flaw with the horse’s gait.
----Mr Berkett, in his submissions, said there were extenuating circumstances with the horse (GUNMAN) and he explained at some length about not having other horses to work or trial with and then, when with other horses, he had ‘freaked’. He added that, in Nelson there was a false start on the first day, and that fired him up and he wouldn’t go up on the gate, and the second day he was squeezed and went into a gallop.
----When advised by the chair that these were factors to be considered in mitigation, Mr Berkett said that he was pointing out that his horse was green and lacking confidence and, if he had let his head go, he would have gone into a break.
----He acknowledged and accepted that he was not up on the gate, and he also appreciated the horses in behind him were inconvenienced by his not being on the gate, but he was trying to explain the difficulties with the horse.
----To this, Mr McIntyre advised Mr Berkett that there was the option of being placed on the unruly if he thought there was going to be a problem, and the horse should be educated before going to the races.
----Decision:
----In this case, Mr Berkett denied a breach of Rule 857(7)(g), that he failed to maintain his position behind the mobile when driving GUNMAN who had drawn two in race two.
----Evidence was given by the stewards, and the film shown, and I accept that Mr Berkett, after being on the gate, drifted to be at least a length back at the start of the race, thereby inconveniencing the horses behind, particularly Mr Orange (on HUNTER THE PUNTER) which had drawn two on the second line. As a result, he was disadvantaged, losing considerable ground at the start, and not able to start from the correct mark.
----It was acknowledged by Mr Berkett that he was not on the gate at the time, and he explained his reasons for this, but these points he mentioned I accept as being factors more to be considered in respect to penalty, not necessarily in determining the charge.
--Accordingly, as acknowledged by Mr Berkett, I find he failed to maintain his position and I therefore find the charge proved.
----Penalty:
----In respect to penalty, Mr McIntyre said Mr Berkett is a senior horseman who drives on very few occasions and he recommended a fine in keeping with the JCA guidelines
----At this point, the parties were advised that there were three similar matters at the recent Nelson meeting and the monetary penalties were from $150.00 to $200.00.
----To this, Mr Berkett indicated his horse needed racing and he intended to take him to Addington, so he would sooner take a suspension, which would still allow him to educate him, rather than a monetary penalty. He also said he preferred a suspension because his other horse also has problems and he can’t race her at the current time.
----In determining penalty, the committee accepts that Mr Berkett had difficulties with his young horse but, as inferred by the stewards, those aspects should be mostly ironed out before the races.
----One of the principles or purposes of a penalty is just that - a penalty or punishment - and, whilst a suspension would deny Mr Berkett the opportunity to drive his horse, that in this particular case would be a convenience, and I doubt the value or validity of a suspension as a penalty or a punishment in relation to this breach. Therefore, I am not satisfied a suspension is appropriate.
----One of the other factors is consistency in dealing with penalty. Mr Berkett does not drive often and, with only the one active racehorse, a suitable period of suspension in his case may not be seen as either a proper, or equitable penalty, or consistent for this particular breach.
----Taking all the factors into consideration and, in particular, the consistency aspect when dealing with penalty, which has been the subject of much publicity, a fine is in my view the only appropriate course. Mr Berkett is fined the sum of $150.00.
----This takes into account what Mr Berkett said in relation to the horse, allowing him the opportunity to educate and drive his horse should he wish. He also indicated that, although finances were ‘a bit tight’, he could afford to pay a fine, and that concession is considered in determining the sum.
--------
P H Welch
--Chairman
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 857.7.g
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: b66c91ee18830538d081a4f3b7c5d9fc
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 32a5a876c8aae1fff5eabc6a673ca83f
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 15/06/2008
meet_title: Marlborough RC - 15 June 2008
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: marlborough-rc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Marlborough RC