Nelson HRC 11 January 2019 – R 1 – Chair, Mr T Utikere
ID: JCA16811
Meet Title:
Nelson HRC - 11 January 2019
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
PWilliams
Race Date:
2019/01/11
Race Number:
R1
Decision:
The charge is found to be proved against the respondent.
Penalty:
Mr Smith is suspended from the close of racing on Sunday 13 January until the close of racing on Sunday 27 January.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 1 (Insite Aluminium Windows & Doors Mobile Pace 2400m), Information A10828 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 869(3)(g) in that “G Smith (KHAL DROGO) drove in a manner capable of diminishing his chance when challenging for the lead for a considerable distance.”
Rule 869(3) states: "No horseman in any race shall drive:- … (g) in any manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning.”
Mr Smith confirmed that he understood the rule and that he denied the breach.
The Information was filed with the Committee after the last race, and as the nature of the charge that Mr Smith was defending was serious, he was asked if he would prefer to seek an adjournment. He indicated that this was not necessary and he was comfortable for the matter to be dealt with.
Submissions for Decision:
Using the side-on film, Mr Wallis identified that KHAL DROGO had drawn one on the second line. He had initially been four back on the fence, but had been able to get off the fence and into the running line just prior to the Winning Post. He then proceeded to improve three-wide without cover. KHAL DROGO hung in a little as he improved around the field with Mr Smith’s intentions to get the lead quickly off the lead horse. Mr Wallis stated that Mr Smith had tried to catch the leader ‘napping’, and had momentum to be able to do so. The lead horse (JIMMY CANNON) had observed him coming and Mr Keast applied the whip to keep his own momentum going. Mr Keast had informed the Stewards in an interview that he had told Mr Smith that his intention was to remain in front. However, Mr Smith continued with his challenge for the lead.
Using the back straight film, Mr Wallis stated that Stewards had no issue with the initial challenge to JIMMY CANNON over 50 to 60 metres, but Mr Smith had continued to make his challenge down the back straight. The side-on film indicated that at the 400 metres, KHAL DROGO commences to tire and Mr Smith then pulls the horse out with Mr Wallis labelling it a “spent force” that finished 64.5 lengths from the winner.
The Stewards’ contention was that Mr Smith had driven in a manner capable of diminishing his chances by challenging for the lead for a considerable distance when his initial challenge was unsuccessful. Instead, he should have given his horse some respite and not had the field running at the speed they were. He made reference to the relevant times, and said the average handheld time from the 1000m to 800m was a fair speed at 13 seconds on average, and that if that speed had continued, it would equate to a quarter in 28 seconds. Mr Keast had been doing his best to keep the front position, but the Stewards expected Mr Smith to relinquish his challenge. The Track Record for a 3YO colt or gelding was 2:56.1, and the race was run at 2:57.9, so was indicative of the speed they were going. Mr Wallis believed Mr Smith should have taken a hold and either got on the back of Mr Keast, or pulled back and sat parked; and that both of those options were available to him at the time.
Mr Smith took issue with the times that had been referred to by Mr Wallis. His reason for doing so was that there was a strong tail wind when he was attacking down the back straight and that it was not fair to rely on handheld times in this circumstance. He explained that he had driven for the trainer (Mr Scott) for the previous 15 years and that Mr Scott was confident about how KHAL DROGO would race. The only other time Mr Scott had been as confident about a horse was when Mr Smith drove ARTEMIS FLEET in the Central North Island some 15 years earlier. While Mr Smith had broken KHAL DROGO in for Mr Scott, he had nothing to do with the horse for the last 18 months until Mr Scott contacted him a month ago to tell him how good the horse had been going. He had mentioned to Mr Smith that it had previously beaten two other horses on the meeting card, one of which had placed third in the Cup Race. Mr Smith said the trainer was so confident that he had also placed money on the horse. He had asked the trainer whether it was tough or fast, and the reply was that it wasn’t real fast but was tough; and if he got it off the markers, it would do the rest. The horse was also a first starter and Mr Smith believed that he could only go by what the trainer had told him.
Mr Smith said that his intention was to move around and sit outside JIMMY CANNON. His own horse had good momentum and he did not think Mr Keast would drive JIMMY CANNON as hard as he had. He also did not hear Mr Keast tell him he was staying there, but agreed that his actions indicated he wasn’t going to hand up. Mr Smith felt that JIMMY CANNON was an inferior horse who had always been an outsider of 8/8 and 10/10 in the betting. His assessment of this was based on his analysis of form prior to the race. While Mr Smith did not dispute that the incident did not look that good, he explained that he was not going to ease up and sit in behind as he would have then lost his momentum, and that was not the sort of horse that the trainer had told him it was. He was basically just driving off the trainer’s opinion and that Mr Scott as a trainer did not oversell how his horses would run. After the race, Mr Scott had apologised to Mr Smith for how the horse ran, thinking the horse may have fibrillated, while Mr Smith thought it may have tied up.
Mr Wallis confirmed that when he had spoken to Mr Scott, he had confirmed that he did say to Mr Smith that he believed the horse could be put into the race. When asked by Mr Wallis whether the driver should have continued to challenge for the length of time that he did, Mr Scott believed he should have eased. Mr Wallis also confirmed that the horse had been vet checked with no abnormalities identified.
In response to a question from the Committee about implicitly following what the trainer says as an experienced horseman, Mr Smith accepted that it did depend on how the horse felt; and that his horse had gone from “good to gone” in a space fo 20 metres. He had tried to urge it along but then had to pull it out of the running.
Mr Wallis reiterated that Stewards expect that drivers will challenge for the lead, but that should not occur for the distance that Mr Smith had done so, instead other alternative options should have been taken.
Clarity from the horse’s trainer was requested from the respondent, so Mr Scott was contacted by cellphone and placed on speaker during the hearing. He was invited to inform the hearing of his views on the drive for KHAL DROGO. He stated that he had told Mr Smith to get off when he could and to put the horse into the race. Post-race he had apologised to Mr Smith as he did not expect the horse to go so badly. He also stated that he did not express any concern about how Mr Smith had driven the horse. While he thought Mr Smith may have launched early, he did not expect JIMMY CANNON to not hand up. He also thought that KHAL DROGO had got half a length on JIMMY CANNON, but that it was a tough call to make when you are ready to cross to then decide to drop back; he left this up to Mr Smith as the driver to make that call.
In response to a question from Mr Smith, the trainer said the horse was currently in the paddock and did not seem to have signs of tie up. He was still expecting the horse to do well as it had trialled well; but he had also learnt lots about the horse and that he was not as tough as he thought it was. He concluded by reiterating his disappointment, particularly as a recent two mile trial had seen him run home in 57 seconds.
In summing up, Mr Wallis said he had no issue with Mr Smith challenging for the lead; but the point of contention was that it was for too long. He should have realised that he was not going to make it to the front as Mr Keast had kept him out, and did so until the Winning Post. Mr Smith should have adopted other alternatives: getting on to Mr Keast’s back, or to pull back and sit on Mr Keast’s wheel in the parked position. Mr Smith’s horse had stopped rapidly at the 500 metres and had finished a considerable distance behind the rest of the field.
Finally, Mr Smith clarified that he had not attacked from the 1100 metres to the 400 metres, but did from the 1100m to the 900 metres, then he had sat up. KHAL DROGO was a new horse and he had based his run off what the trainer had told him. He was trying to keep the horse on the bit and focussed, and in hindsight he would have driven it differently. However, he believed that he could only do what he could at the time.
Reasons for Decision:
All of the camera angles have been of assistance to the Committee, and we have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing them to assist us in reaching a decision. We have been able to make some helpful observations in this regard.
It is not in dispute that Mr Smith was positioned three-wide without cover at the point of the bend leaving the straight. He then takes approximately 250 metres to get to the point where he is positioned alongside JIMMY CANNON. In our assessment, KHAL DROGO gets a length at best on that horse approaching the 1000 metres. Mr Keast then responded in order to keep Mr Smith out, and Mr Smith then urged his horse the whole way down the back straight.
Much has been said of the times recorded for the various stages of the race. Mr Smith raises valid considerations about the role that the wind may have played in some of those handheld readings. This would lead us to accept the argument advanced by Mr Smith in part. However, while some parallels could be drawn with some of the times that have been referred to by both parties, as they do not form a key component that we rely upon heavily in reaching our decision, we do not intend to head down that path.
The betting odds, or whether a particular runner was a favourite or not, is irrelevant. JIMMY CANNON may not have responded how Mr Smith or Mr Scott may have been expecting, but it was still entitled to be where it was and to respond in the manner that it did. While the instructions of a trainer are no doubt important, they do form part of the wider consideration that a driver must rely upon when engaging in a race. Such instructions are not, and never should be, the only thing that informs a driver’s tactics during a race. With regard to Mr Smith, as a very experienced senior horseman, he knows that he is required to read various situations and act accordingly.
What is in dispute is whether or not Mr Smith challenged for the lead for too long and whether he should have taken advantage of other alternatives instead. Mr Smith disagrees about the distance over which he believes he ‘attacked’ for the lead, and also that it was not necessary for him to adopt an alternative option; or that the options were not appropriate for his horse.
In our assessment, it was a sustained distance of approximately 400 metres, from the 900 metres to the 500 metres, where Mr Smith continued to challenge for the lead, when clearly there was no chance of Mr Keast handing it up. We accept that Mr Smith may not have genuinely heard Mr Keast’s calling to him; but all parties agree that Mr Keast’s actions clearly demonstrate a concurrence with his intentions. We have observed from the films that there was plenty of room to ease back, from the 900 metres until KHAL DROGO tires, but the respondent elected not to do so during that distance.
It is our view that the action, or inaction, taken by Mr Smith was unreasonable in the circumstances, and that had diminished the chances of KHAL DROGO winning the race. There is an obligation on an experienced horseman, such as Mr Smith, to exercise judgement, and we find that on this occasion, he has erred in his judgement.
Submissions for Penalty:
In presenting Mr Smith’s record, Mr Wallis identified him as a busy driver with 400 drives last season, and 197 drives for the current season, prior to racing at Nelson. He drives for trainers in the Canterbury and upper North Island areas, and has a clear record under this rule for the preceding 12 months.
Mr Wallis identified the JCA Penalty Guide starting point for a breach of this rule (Race dueling) is a 40 drives suspension or a $2,000 fine. Stewards submitted a term of suspension as appropriate and with the current ‘carnival circuit’ underway, Stewards estimated that on average Mr Smith would have around six to seven drives per meeting. Stewards submitted a six day period of suspension as appropriate. The upcoming meetings being: 16 January - Timaru, 18 January - Blenheim, 20 January - Blenheim, 25 January - Addington, 27 January - Banks Peninsula and 1 February - Addington.
Mr Smith submitted his preference for a fine rather than a period of suspension. He did not believe his offending was at the high end, he had not been charged under this rule before and he did not want to let people down. If a period of suspension was to be imposed he advised that no firm commitments existed anywhere except for Nelson’s second day meeting on Sunday 12 January. Mr Smith also alluded to a new trotter of his (GREAT THINGS HAPPEN) scheduled to race at Addington, and he did not want anyone else driving him. He confirmed that his preference for a fine or a combination of a suspension and fine was to allow him to drive this horse at Addington and to not let people down.
In response, Mr Wallis submitted that any penalty must be meaningful, rather than to accommodate issues of convenience, citing that there must be consequences for licensed holders’ actions. Mr Renault also identified a charge involving B Wiilliamson (Invercargill), where a combination of a suspension and fine was imposed. The approach taken in that decision indicated a higher monetary penalty in lieu of a day’s suspension. Mr Renault submitted that in such a circumstance where a combination may be the end result, it would be more appropriate for a higher number of days suspension rather than a 50/50 split. He said Stewards were seeking a suspension due to the seriousness of the incident, and that was consistent with the approach taken by the Raceday Judicial Committee in Williamson.
When the hearing resumed and the Committee was about to announce it’s decision on Penalty, the respondent also advised that depending on how well GREAT THINGS HAPPEN trials in the next few days, that horse may also travel to Melbourne for a race later this month.
Reasons for Penalty:
The JCA Penalty Guide identifies a starting point of a 40 drives suspension or a $2,000 fine for a breach of this rule. After considering the submissions on penalty from both parties, we have determined that a period of suspension is appropriate. This is due to the seriousness of the charge and the need for an element of deterrence to be factored into any penalty imposed. This is extremely relevant as this is not a charge that is often encountered, and there must be a meaningful sanction for a breach of the rule.
A key aspect of the submission from the respondent for including a fine within any penalty, was to allow him to drive GREAT THINGS HAPPEN at an upcoming Addington meeting(s). The inference therefore would be a penalty of convenience; and this Committee believes that penalties must be meaningful and consistent, rather than exist for the purpose of convenience.
The information provided by Mr Smith is somewhat tentative and uncertain as to the future plans for GREAT THINGS HAPPEN. He tells us that that horse’s trial performance will determine it’s next steps, but at the time of determining a penalty, those plans are tentative and uncertain. We adopt a 40 drives period of suspension starting point, which for Mr Smith equates to a six days suspension. In mitigation we apply his record under this rule and consider a five days suspension as appropriate.
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: a361e0c511824a75c706d539b1b342d9
informantnumber: A10828
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Drove in a manner capable of diminishing chance of winning
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 13/01/2019
hearing_title: Nelson HRC 11 January 2019 - R 1 - Chair, Mr T Utikere
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 1 (Insite Aluminium Windows & Doors Mobile Pace 2400m), Information A10828 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 869(3)(g) in that “G Smith (KHAL DROGO) drove in a manner capable of diminishing his chance when challenging for the lead for a considerable distance.”
Rule 869(3) states: "No horseman in any race shall drive:- … (g) in any manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning.”
Mr Smith confirmed that he understood the rule and that he denied the breach.
The Information was filed with the Committee after the last race, and as the nature of the charge that Mr Smith was defending was serious, he was asked if he would prefer to seek an adjournment. He indicated that this was not necessary and he was comfortable for the matter to be dealt with.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Using the side-on film, Mr Wallis identified that KHAL DROGO had drawn one on the second line. He had initially been four back on the fence, but had been able to get off the fence and into the running line just prior to the Winning Post. He then proceeded to improve three-wide without cover. KHAL DROGO hung in a little as he improved around the field with Mr Smith’s intentions to get the lead quickly off the lead horse. Mr Wallis stated that Mr Smith had tried to catch the leader ‘napping’, and had momentum to be able to do so. The lead horse (JIMMY CANNON) had observed him coming and Mr Keast applied the whip to keep his own momentum going. Mr Keast had informed the Stewards in an interview that he had told Mr Smith that his intention was to remain in front. However, Mr Smith continued with his challenge for the lead.
Using the back straight film, Mr Wallis stated that Stewards had no issue with the initial challenge to JIMMY CANNON over 50 to 60 metres, but Mr Smith had continued to make his challenge down the back straight. The side-on film indicated that at the 400 metres, KHAL DROGO commences to tire and Mr Smith then pulls the horse out with Mr Wallis labelling it a “spent force” that finished 64.5 lengths from the winner.
The Stewards’ contention was that Mr Smith had driven in a manner capable of diminishing his chances by challenging for the lead for a considerable distance when his initial challenge was unsuccessful. Instead, he should have given his horse some respite and not had the field running at the speed they were. He made reference to the relevant times, and said the average handheld time from the 1000m to 800m was a fair speed at 13 seconds on average, and that if that speed had continued, it would equate to a quarter in 28 seconds. Mr Keast had been doing his best to keep the front position, but the Stewards expected Mr Smith to relinquish his challenge. The Track Record for a 3YO colt or gelding was 2:56.1, and the race was run at 2:57.9, so was indicative of the speed they were going. Mr Wallis believed Mr Smith should have taken a hold and either got on the back of Mr Keast, or pulled back and sat parked; and that both of those options were available to him at the time.
Mr Smith took issue with the times that had been referred to by Mr Wallis. His reason for doing so was that there was a strong tail wind when he was attacking down the back straight and that it was not fair to rely on handheld times in this circumstance. He explained that he had driven for the trainer (Mr Scott) for the previous 15 years and that Mr Scott was confident about how KHAL DROGO would race. The only other time Mr Scott had been as confident about a horse was when Mr Smith drove ARTEMIS FLEET in the Central North Island some 15 years earlier. While Mr Smith had broken KHAL DROGO in for Mr Scott, he had nothing to do with the horse for the last 18 months until Mr Scott contacted him a month ago to tell him how good the horse had been going. He had mentioned to Mr Smith that it had previously beaten two other horses on the meeting card, one of which had placed third in the Cup Race. Mr Smith said the trainer was so confident that he had also placed money on the horse. He had asked the trainer whether it was tough or fast, and the reply was that it wasn’t real fast but was tough; and if he got it off the markers, it would do the rest. The horse was also a first starter and Mr Smith believed that he could only go by what the trainer had told him.
Mr Smith said that his intention was to move around and sit outside JIMMY CANNON. His own horse had good momentum and he did not think Mr Keast would drive JIMMY CANNON as hard as he had. He also did not hear Mr Keast tell him he was staying there, but agreed that his actions indicated he wasn’t going to hand up. Mr Smith felt that JIMMY CANNON was an inferior horse who had always been an outsider of 8/8 and 10/10 in the betting. His assessment of this was based on his analysis of form prior to the race. While Mr Smith did not dispute that the incident did not look that good, he explained that he was not going to ease up and sit in behind as he would have then lost his momentum, and that was not the sort of horse that the trainer had told him it was. He was basically just driving off the trainer’s opinion and that Mr Scott as a trainer did not oversell how his horses would run. After the race, Mr Scott had apologised to Mr Smith for how the horse ran, thinking the horse may have fibrillated, while Mr Smith thought it may have tied up.
Mr Wallis confirmed that when he had spoken to Mr Scott, he had confirmed that he did say to Mr Smith that he believed the horse could be put into the race. When asked by Mr Wallis whether the driver should have continued to challenge for the length of time that he did, Mr Scott believed he should have eased. Mr Wallis also confirmed that the horse had been vet checked with no abnormalities identified.
In response to a question from the Committee about implicitly following what the trainer says as an experienced horseman, Mr Smith accepted that it did depend on how the horse felt; and that his horse had gone from “good to gone” in a space fo 20 metres. He had tried to urge it along but then had to pull it out of the running.
Mr Wallis reiterated that Stewards expect that drivers will challenge for the lead, but that should not occur for the distance that Mr Smith had done so, instead other alternative options should have been taken.
Clarity from the horse’s trainer was requested from the respondent, so Mr Scott was contacted by cellphone and placed on speaker during the hearing. He was invited to inform the hearing of his views on the drive for KHAL DROGO. He stated that he had told Mr Smith to get off when he could and to put the horse into the race. Post-race he had apologised to Mr Smith as he did not expect the horse to go so badly. He also stated that he did not express any concern about how Mr Smith had driven the horse. While he thought Mr Smith may have launched early, he did not expect JIMMY CANNON to not hand up. He also thought that KHAL DROGO had got half a length on JIMMY CANNON, but that it was a tough call to make when you are ready to cross to then decide to drop back; he left this up to Mr Smith as the driver to make that call.
In response to a question from Mr Smith, the trainer said the horse was currently in the paddock and did not seem to have signs of tie up. He was still expecting the horse to do well as it had trialled well; but he had also learnt lots about the horse and that he was not as tough as he thought it was. He concluded by reiterating his disappointment, particularly as a recent two mile trial had seen him run home in 57 seconds.
In summing up, Mr Wallis said he had no issue with Mr Smith challenging for the lead; but the point of contention was that it was for too long. He should have realised that he was not going to make it to the front as Mr Keast had kept him out, and did so until the Winning Post. Mr Smith should have adopted other alternatives: getting on to Mr Keast’s back, or to pull back and sit on Mr Keast’s wheel in the parked position. Mr Smith’s horse had stopped rapidly at the 500 metres and had finished a considerable distance behind the rest of the field.
Finally, Mr Smith clarified that he had not attacked from the 1100 metres to the 400 metres, but did from the 1100m to the 900 metres, then he had sat up. KHAL DROGO was a new horse and he had based his run off what the trainer had told him. He was trying to keep the horse on the bit and focussed, and in hindsight he would have driven it differently. However, he believed that he could only do what he could at the time.
reasonsfordecision:
All of the camera angles have been of assistance to the Committee, and we have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing them to assist us in reaching a decision. We have been able to make some helpful observations in this regard.
It is not in dispute that Mr Smith was positioned three-wide without cover at the point of the bend leaving the straight. He then takes approximately 250 metres to get to the point where he is positioned alongside JIMMY CANNON. In our assessment, KHAL DROGO gets a length at best on that horse approaching the 1000 metres. Mr Keast then responded in order to keep Mr Smith out, and Mr Smith then urged his horse the whole way down the back straight.
Much has been said of the times recorded for the various stages of the race. Mr Smith raises valid considerations about the role that the wind may have played in some of those handheld readings. This would lead us to accept the argument advanced by Mr Smith in part. However, while some parallels could be drawn with some of the times that have been referred to by both parties, as they do not form a key component that we rely upon heavily in reaching our decision, we do not intend to head down that path.
The betting odds, or whether a particular runner was a favourite or not, is irrelevant. JIMMY CANNON may not have responded how Mr Smith or Mr Scott may have been expecting, but it was still entitled to be where it was and to respond in the manner that it did. While the instructions of a trainer are no doubt important, they do form part of the wider consideration that a driver must rely upon when engaging in a race. Such instructions are not, and never should be, the only thing that informs a driver’s tactics during a race. With regard to Mr Smith, as a very experienced senior horseman, he knows that he is required to read various situations and act accordingly.
What is in dispute is whether or not Mr Smith challenged for the lead for too long and whether he should have taken advantage of other alternatives instead. Mr Smith disagrees about the distance over which he believes he ‘attacked’ for the lead, and also that it was not necessary for him to adopt an alternative option; or that the options were not appropriate for his horse.
In our assessment, it was a sustained distance of approximately 400 metres, from the 900 metres to the 500 metres, where Mr Smith continued to challenge for the lead, when clearly there was no chance of Mr Keast handing it up. We accept that Mr Smith may not have genuinely heard Mr Keast’s calling to him; but all parties agree that Mr Keast’s actions clearly demonstrate a concurrence with his intentions. We have observed from the films that there was plenty of room to ease back, from the 900 metres until KHAL DROGO tires, but the respondent elected not to do so during that distance.
It is our view that the action, or inaction, taken by Mr Smith was unreasonable in the circumstances, and that had diminished the chances of KHAL DROGO winning the race. There is an obligation on an experienced horseman, such as Mr Smith, to exercise judgement, and we find that on this occasion, he has erred in his judgement.
Decision:
The charge is found to be proved against the respondent.
sumissionsforpenalty:
In presenting Mr Smith’s record, Mr Wallis identified him as a busy driver with 400 drives last season, and 197 drives for the current season, prior to racing at Nelson. He drives for trainers in the Canterbury and upper North Island areas, and has a clear record under this rule for the preceding 12 months.
Mr Wallis identified the JCA Penalty Guide starting point for a breach of this rule (Race dueling) is a 40 drives suspension or a $2,000 fine. Stewards submitted a term of suspension as appropriate and with the current ‘carnival circuit’ underway, Stewards estimated that on average Mr Smith would have around six to seven drives per meeting. Stewards submitted a six day period of suspension as appropriate. The upcoming meetings being: 16 January - Timaru, 18 January - Blenheim, 20 January - Blenheim, 25 January - Addington, 27 January - Banks Peninsula and 1 February - Addington.
Mr Smith submitted his preference for a fine rather than a period of suspension. He did not believe his offending was at the high end, he had not been charged under this rule before and he did not want to let people down. If a period of suspension was to be imposed he advised that no firm commitments existed anywhere except for Nelson’s second day meeting on Sunday 12 January. Mr Smith also alluded to a new trotter of his (GREAT THINGS HAPPEN) scheduled to race at Addington, and he did not want anyone else driving him. He confirmed that his preference for a fine or a combination of a suspension and fine was to allow him to drive this horse at Addington and to not let people down.
In response, Mr Wallis submitted that any penalty must be meaningful, rather than to accommodate issues of convenience, citing that there must be consequences for licensed holders’ actions. Mr Renault also identified a charge involving B Wiilliamson (Invercargill), where a combination of a suspension and fine was imposed. The approach taken in that decision indicated a higher monetary penalty in lieu of a day’s suspension. Mr Renault submitted that in such a circumstance where a combination may be the end result, it would be more appropriate for a higher number of days suspension rather than a 50/50 split. He said Stewards were seeking a suspension due to the seriousness of the incident, and that was consistent with the approach taken by the Raceday Judicial Committee in Williamson.
When the hearing resumed and the Committee was about to announce it’s decision on Penalty, the respondent also advised that depending on how well GREAT THINGS HAPPEN trials in the next few days, that horse may also travel to Melbourne for a race later this month.
reasonsforpenalty:
The JCA Penalty Guide identifies a starting point of a 40 drives suspension or a $2,000 fine for a breach of this rule. After considering the submissions on penalty from both parties, we have determined that a period of suspension is appropriate. This is due to the seriousness of the charge and the need for an element of deterrence to be factored into any penalty imposed. This is extremely relevant as this is not a charge that is often encountered, and there must be a meaningful sanction for a breach of the rule.
A key aspect of the submission from the respondent for including a fine within any penalty, was to allow him to drive GREAT THINGS HAPPEN at an upcoming Addington meeting(s). The inference therefore would be a penalty of convenience; and this Committee believes that penalties must be meaningful and consistent, rather than exist for the purpose of convenience.
The information provided by Mr Smith is somewhat tentative and uncertain as to the future plans for GREAT THINGS HAPPEN. He tells us that that horse’s trial performance will determine it’s next steps, but at the time of determining a penalty, those plans are tentative and uncertain. We adopt a 40 drives period of suspension starting point, which for Mr Smith equates to a six days suspension. In mitigation we apply his record under this rule and consider a five days suspension as appropriate.
penalty:
Mr Smith is suspended from the close of racing on Sunday 13 January until the close of racing on Sunday 27 January.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(g)
Informant: Mr S Wallis - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr G Smith - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward, Mr P Scott - Trainer of KHAL DROGO
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 52238b612acdd8f6dee404e13aed9013
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: a7b16d9304dc6e30b6d171d041e06e44
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 11/01/2019
meet_title: Nelson HRC - 11 January 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nelson-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: PWilliams
meet_pm2: none
name: Nelson HRC