Nelson HRC 12 January 2020 – R 2 (heard 31 January 2020 at Addington) – Chair, Mr R G McKenzie

hearingid: 07a99e7d0c77f113fb7ad7cc914a05fd

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 12/01/2020

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Nelson HRC 12 January 2020 - R 2 (heard 31 January 2020 at Addington) - Chair, Mr R G McKenzie

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: Mr S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: Mr M J Anderson, Licensed Open Driver

Information No: A13116

Meeting: Nelson Harness Racing Club

Date: 12 January 2020 (heard 31 January 2020 at Addington)

Venue: Richmond Park, Nelson

Race: 2

Rule No: 870 (1)

Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie, Chairman – Mr S C Ching, Member

Plea: Denied

FACTS:

Following the running of Race 2, Allan Hahn Contracting Trot, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr M J Anderson, alleging that Mr Anderson, as the driver of GOTTA TICKET in the race, “failed to take all reasonable steps to return the horse to its correct gait through the early stages of the race”.

The Information was served on Mr Anderson and filed with the Judicial Committee on the raceday and was adjourned sine die. It was heard at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan TC at Addington Raceway on 31 January 2020.

Mr Anderson was present at the hearing of the Information. He indicated that he understood the Rule and the charge, and that he denied the charge.

Rule 870 provides as follows:

(1) When any horse breaks from its gait in any race its driver shall immediately take all reasonable steps to return it to its proper gait and where clearance exists immediately take such horse clear of the field.

SUBMISSION(S):

Mr Renault submitted that Mr Anderson’s drive had gone into a pace from the start and had continued in a pace for approximately 150 metres.

Mr Anderson was aware that the horse was in a pace, Mr Renault submitted – he looked down at the horse’s legs after the start – but he continued in the race without restraining the horse for approximately 150 metres.

Mr Renault then proceeded to show the available video replays of the first 200 metres of the race. He pointed out GOTTA TICKET, a former pacer he said, driven by Mr Anderson, drawn barrier position 4 at the 2400 metres standing start race for trotters. He pointed out the marker on the outside of the track marking the distance 150 metres after the start. Mr Anderson took hold of his horse, checking it into a break, just after passing that marker. He showed that Mr Anderson had looked down after the barrier was released, Mr Renault said.

The concern that the Stewards had, Mr Renault said, was that the horse was clearly pacing. They were alleging that Mr Anderson had taken no action to return the horse to its correct gait – that is to say, he had failed to immediately take all reasonable steps. Had the horse gone on to finish in a dividend or stakes-bearing placing, Stewards would have sought disqualification for the horse being in the incorrect gait for a distance in excess of 150 metres, Mr Renault said. In the event, the horse had galloped and lost its chance.

Mr Anderson did eventually take the appropriate action, Mr Renault said, but had failed to do so immediately, as he was unaware that the horse was in the incorrect gait. Although, his looking down after the start would suggest that Mr Anderson was checking the gait of the horse, Mr Renault said, the horse continuing in a pace for 150 metres suggested that he was not aware that it was in a pace.

Mr Anderson had a video replay of the horse’s race on Day 1 of the meeting on 10 January shown to the hearing. In this race, the horse had also paced away, and within 5-7 strides, he had pulled the horse up, he said. The trainer, after the race, told him that the horse did this all the time and he proceeded to tell him how to overcome this on the second day.

Mr Anderson then produced an email from trainer which stated:

In regard to Matt Anderson’s drive on Gotta Ticket at Nelson Sunday 12th, Matt was advised to not chase or hunt Gotta Ticket away from the stand and to let the horse be and find his own rhythm. Unfortunately in this instance the horse has paced away which he can do and has done in some of his previous starts. Matt was instructed not to fight the horse as this can result in the horse not settling and to continue to pace or gallop for [sic] considerable amount of ground. Generally the horse pops back into the trot of his own accord quickly if he steps away in a pace. Matt has also never driven this horse leading up to the Nelson meeting.

Mr Anderson said that he was aware that the horse was in a pace, but he was attempting to drive according to the trainer’s advice. On the first day, he had tugged on the left rein three or four times hoping the horse would switch back to a pace, which it did, but it broke shortly thereafter. In the race in question, he did not take such action hoping that it would “pop back” into a trot as the trainer had instructed it should.

Mr Anderson confirmed that, firstly, he knew the horse was pacing and, secondly, that he had allowed it to continue for too long, although he did take hold of the horse before the 150 metres, he submitted. He had first ascertained that there was clearance for him to take the horse clear of the field. He had told the Gills that he would not be driving the horse in the future, and he does not intend to do so, he said.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

Mr Anderson has not admitted the breach, but he has acknowledged that, firstly, he was aware that the horse was pacing from barrier rise and, secondly, that he allowed it to continue to pace before breaking it up near the point 150 metres after the start.

The Committee is satisfied that Mr Anderson has failed in this instance to immediately take all reasonable steps to return the horse to its proper gait. Furthermore, the Committee is also clearly satisfied that the proviso in the Rule, that clearance must exist before taking the horse clear of the field, was satisfied in this case although we heard no submissions from either party in relation to this. The elements of the charge have, therefore, been made out and, further, they have been admitted by Mr Anderson, even though he maintained his defence to the charge.

Mr Anderson gave an explanation to the hearing as to why he had driven the horse in the manner he did. That explanation was, in the Committee’s view, a reasonable one. Whilst that explanation does not amount to a defence to the charge, it nevertheless explains his actions. He drove the horse in a manner that, he believed, would give it the best chance of beginning safely, without breaking, and therefore be able to compete in the race for connections and punters. Unfortunately, this did not happen, despite Mr Anderson’s best intentions.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:

Mr Renault told the Committee that Mr Anderson has had 196 drives to date this season and, last season, had 169 drives. He has a clear record under the rule.

The Penalty Guide starting point is an 8-drives suspension or a $400 fine, Mr Renault said.

The concern for the Stewards was that Mr Anderson has continued to drive for such a distance without correcting his horse and has, effectively, extinguished the chances of the horse, Mr Renault said.

Stewards were submitting that an appropriate penalty would be a period of suspension of 2 days, equating to 8 drives, Mr Renault said, based on 4-5 drives per meeting on average. He had earlier stated that the breach was mid-range, but the consequences high.

Mr Anderson submitted that the penalty for a breach of the rule is usually a fine, rather than a suspension. Mr Anderson put it to Mr Renault that he had indicated on the day that he would be seeking a fine and not a suspension. Mr Renault responded that the Stewards have since given the matter further consideration.

Mr Anderson’s submission was that a warning would be an appropriate penalty, but he accepted that the Committee had no jurisdiction to deal with the breach in that way. He said that he accepted that a fine of, perhaps, $150 was an appropriate penalty.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The starting point for penalty in the Penalty Guide was available to the Committee when it came to consider the matter of penalty. That starting point, correctly referred to by Mr Renault, is an 8-drive suspension or a $400 fine. The only information available to the Committee, as far as previous penalties are concerned, are a small number of historical penalties. It appears that breaches of this particular rule are rare. Those penalties were fines of $200 and $400 and, in another, a 1-day suspension. The circumstances of those breaches were not available.

The Committee is satisfied that a suspension is not required. Therefore, from the starting point of a $400 fine for a mid-range breach, we adjust this down by $100 for what, we find, is a low-end breach. We do not accept the submission of the Stewards that the consequences were high-end. We are satisfied that Mr Anderson’s intentions were good, in that he was attempting to give his horse, we believe, the best possible chance in the race, even though those intentions turned out to be misguided.

Mr Anderson is a very busy driver (365 drives in the least season and a half) and he has a clear record under the Rule. For this mitigating factor, we are able to give him a discount of $50 from the adjusted starting point.

PENALTY:

Mr Anderson is fined the sum of $250.

R G McKenzie

CHAIRMAN

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 870(1)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: