Nelson HRC 7 June 2013 – R 10
ID: JCA13081
Meet Title:
Nelson HRC - 7 June 2013
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
PWilliams
Race Date:
2013/06/07
Race Number:
Race 10
Decision:
As the breach was admitted, the committee found the charge proved.
Penalty:
Mr May was fined $250.
Charge:
Following the running of Race 10 (Andrew Stuart Racing Stables Mobile Pace 2400m), Information A1879 was filed with the judicial committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) by Horseman R May and stated: "You drove in a manner in which stewards deem careless by allowing your runner to strike the sulky wheel of LUMOS causing it to come free of the rim."
Rule 869(3) states: "No horseman in any race shall drive:-...(b) carelessly;"
Mr May confirmed he understood the rule and that he admitted the breach.
Facts:
Using the available films, Mr Ydgren identified Mr May's horse JEANS MATTJESTY and the drive of Mr J Dunn (LUMOS) at the point of dispatch from the mobile. It was pointed out that Mr May had drawn three off the front line and was restraining off the mobile and attempting to gain a position on the back of Mr Dunn who had drawn two on the second row. Mr Ydgren identified JEANS MATTJESTY 'bobble' for a stride, having just touched LUMOS' outside wheel. It was then observed that Mr Dunn looked down at his wheel immediately after contact had been made. Mr Ydgren acknowledged that the tyre had punctured straight away and that as a result of the puncture, the tyre and tube of LUMOS' sulky had come off the rim during the remainder of the race. For clarity, it was submitted that the point of contact was made 100m after despatch. The stewards submitted that Mr Dunn had confirmed this to them after the race.
Mr May thought that he was clear of Mr Dunn's wheel, but accepted that the films indicated that he was not. He believed Mr Holmes, who started first on the second row, was going to pull back and come off the fence at the same time, as he was entitled to do. This was the reason why Mr May had decided to pull down quicker than he normally would. He believed the contact to be a very minor hit and identified that when the wheels of new sulkies that were now in use were struck, a runner who was the recipient of being struck was basically out of the race. This was due to the thin nature of the tyres that were on the new sulkies.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Wallis identified Mr May as a busy driver having had 683 drives in the current season prior to this meeting. Records indicated a previous careless charge back on 10 August 2012. The stewards submitted the level of carelessness to be very low, however, the resultant effect of the carelessness was high in that he took the favoured runner out of the race. In light of Mr May's admittance of the breach and his excellent record, the stewards submitted a fine of $300 as appropriate.
Mr May believed his previous careless charge was not for hitting a wheel and could not remember the last time he had been charged for striking a wheel. He believed that he had 'just touched it' and that the nature of the new sulkies made the resultant effect a regular occurrence in comparison to the older style sulkies. He submitted his preference for a fine.
Reasons for Penalty:
The committee had regard to all of the submission placed before it and identified the JCA Penalty guidelines starting point of a $400 fine. It also determined that a monetary penalty was appropriate in this instance. The committee accepted that Mr May's actions on this occasion were unintentional, and placed the level of carelessness at the low end. Whilst Mr May expressed his views about the wheel integrity of the new sulkies, his horse did strike the wheel of LUMOS due to him not being clear when attempting to gain a position on Mr Dunn's back soon after dispatch. The effect of Mr May's actions were that the chances of LUMOS in the race were materially impacted upon as a result of the damage sustained to its outer wheel. In addition to the low level of carelessness, the committee also considered Mr May's early admittance of the breach and his exceptional record for one of the countries busiest drivers. Such a combination of mitigating features lead to a reduction from the starting point adopted by the committee. The fine imposed was also in line with similar careless breaches in recent times.
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: 3e7fbe5a08a77f300cd9db17bff9098b
informantnumber: A1879
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 31/05/2013
hearing_title: Nelson HRC 7 June 2013 - R 10
charge:
Following the running of Race 10 (Andrew Stuart Racing Stables Mobile Pace 2400m), Information A1879 was filed with the judicial committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) by Horseman R May and stated: "You drove in a manner in which stewards deem careless by allowing your runner to strike the sulky wheel of LUMOS causing it to come free of the rim."
Rule 869(3) states: "No horseman in any race shall drive:-...(b) carelessly;"
Mr May confirmed he understood the rule and that he admitted the breach.
facts:
Using the available films, Mr Ydgren identified Mr May's horse JEANS MATTJESTY and the drive of Mr J Dunn (LUMOS) at the point of dispatch from the mobile. It was pointed out that Mr May had drawn three off the front line and was restraining off the mobile and attempting to gain a position on the back of Mr Dunn who had drawn two on the second row. Mr Ydgren identified JEANS MATTJESTY 'bobble' for a stride, having just touched LUMOS' outside wheel. It was then observed that Mr Dunn looked down at his wheel immediately after contact had been made. Mr Ydgren acknowledged that the tyre had punctured straight away and that as a result of the puncture, the tyre and tube of LUMOS' sulky had come off the rim during the remainder of the race. For clarity, it was submitted that the point of contact was made 100m after despatch. The stewards submitted that Mr Dunn had confirmed this to them after the race.
Mr May thought that he was clear of Mr Dunn's wheel, but accepted that the films indicated that he was not. He believed Mr Holmes, who started first on the second row, was going to pull back and come off the fence at the same time, as he was entitled to do. This was the reason why Mr May had decided to pull down quicker than he normally would. He believed the contact to be a very minor hit and identified that when the wheels of new sulkies that were now in use were struck, a runner who was the recipient of being struck was basically out of the race. This was due to the thin nature of the tyres that were on the new sulkies.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
As the breach was admitted, the committee found the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Wallis identified Mr May as a busy driver having had 683 drives in the current season prior to this meeting. Records indicated a previous careless charge back on 10 August 2012. The stewards submitted the level of carelessness to be very low, however, the resultant effect of the carelessness was high in that he took the favoured runner out of the race. In light of Mr May's admittance of the breach and his excellent record, the stewards submitted a fine of $300 as appropriate.
Mr May believed his previous careless charge was not for hitting a wheel and could not remember the last time he had been charged for striking a wheel. He believed that he had 'just touched it' and that the nature of the new sulkies made the resultant effect a regular occurrence in comparison to the older style sulkies. He submitted his preference for a fine.
reasonsforpenalty:
The committee had regard to all of the submission placed before it and identified the JCA Penalty guidelines starting point of a $400 fine. It also determined that a monetary penalty was appropriate in this instance. The committee accepted that Mr May's actions on this occasion were unintentional, and placed the level of carelessness at the low end. Whilst Mr May expressed his views about the wheel integrity of the new sulkies, his horse did strike the wheel of LUMOS due to him not being clear when attempting to gain a position on Mr Dunn's back soon after dispatch. The effect of Mr May's actions were that the chances of LUMOS in the race were materially impacted upon as a result of the damage sustained to its outer wheel. In addition to the low level of carelessness, the committee also considered Mr May's early admittance of the breach and his exceptional record for one of the countries busiest drivers. Such a combination of mitigating features lead to a reduction from the starting point adopted by the committee. The fine imposed was also in line with similar careless breaches in recent times.
penalty:
Mr May was fined $250.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr S Wallis - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr R May - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr N Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 1e3042bf9a929e9196452a63b3cf73b1
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 77101b9145c5e15ed49aa20bcbf5b05c
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 07/06/2013
meet_title: Nelson HRC - 7 June 2013
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