Charge:
Struck and moved inside marker line
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5, The Marque Hotel Christchurch Graduation Series (Final) Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mrs K R Williams, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr R T May, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (7A) (a) & (b) in that Mr May, as the driver of WAIPAWA JUNIOR in the race, “struck and shifted inside the track marker line in the run home”.
Mr May was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he did not admit the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(7A) Every horseman who moves inwards shall ensure:
(a) that contact is not made with any track marker
(b) that any part of the sulky does not protrude inside the marker line.
It shall be a defence to a breach of this sub-rule if the horseman establishes that the breach was attributable to the behaviour of his own horse or any other horseman in the race.
Submissions for Decision:
Mrs Williams pointed out to the Committee that WAIPAWA JUNIOR had been disqualified from the race at an earlier protest hearing pursuant to Rule 869 (7B). At that protest hearing, the trainer of the horse, Mr G R Dunn, had not contested the protest.
Mrs Williams showed video replays of the run home. She pointed out Mr May, driving WAIPAWA JUNIOR, racing 3-back on the markers turning for home. He then shifted into the passing lane, striking one marker, going inside a second marker and coming out just before the third marker. Mrs Williams said that the horse did “head in there” but Mr May continued to use the whip and reins and activated the removable hood. She submitted that Mr May had a “lack of control” of the horse which allowed it to shift inside the marker line, without being steered in there.
Mr May said that the horse was having its second raceday start and the race had been run in a very fast time of 3-11.6 for the mobile 2600 metres. When he pulled the horse in, he did not realise that he was “in that far”. The horse had shied away from the cart in front, which was a wide cart. Mr May said that, although the horse had lost 5th placing, he had not affected any other runner. He also stated that the horse had been distracted by several track markers dislodged by a runner in front. There was room for the horse in the early stages of the passing lane although it did get tight at a later stage of the run home, he said.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee found that Mr May did angle WAIPAWA JUNIOR into the passing lane after being 3-back on the markers turning for home. From that point, the horse’s sulky wheel struck one track marker and ran inside another. Mr May did not dispute this.
The Committee further found that Mr May did not take sufficient steps to ensure that the horse did not go inside the track marker line. The Committee noted Mr May’s submissions as to the horse’s inexperience, the fast time and the other matters he referred to. In the Committee’s view, these were contributing factors at best. Further, it was not a defence for Mr May to say that he did not realise how far inside the marker line he had gone.
The Committee was not satisfied that Mr May took all reasonable or possible steps to prevent the horse going inside the track marker line.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mrs Williams said that the race was a $15,000 Graduation Series final. She submitted that the usual fine for a breach of the Rule is $200. In this case, she submitted that the fine should be between $200-300 because of the class of race. Mr May had no previous breaches of the Rule. Mrs Williams acknowledged that the present breach was less serious than a case where a driver goes inside the markers to gain a run to which he is not entitled. In this case, it was a simple lack of attention.
Mr May submitted that the breach was a minor one.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee in determining penalty took into account Mr May’s previous good record and that the breach was at the lower end of a scale of seriousness. It also took into account that the horse’s inexperience may have been a contributing factor. The Committee noted that the Penalty Guide recommended a fine of $200 for a breach of the Rule and that fines imposed have ranged from $150-250. In this case, a fine at the lower end of the range submitted by Mrs Williams was appropriate