Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v C J DeFilippi 7 March 2013 – Decision dated 22 March 2013
ID: JCA15906
Decision:
NON RACEDAY INQUIRY AT RICCARTON
Informant: N M Ydgren- Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: C J DeFilippi - Open Horseman
Date of Hearing: 7 March 2013
Venue: Riccarton Park, Christchurch
Judicial Committee: SC Ching, Chairman – JM Phelan, Committee Member
Present: Mr N M Ydgren, Mr C J DeFilippi
Plea: Admitted
Charge: Breach of Rule 868 (2)
Date of Decision: 22 March 2013
Facts:
This charge was heard as a Non Race day Hearing at the Canterbury Racing-Amberley Clubs meeting at Riccarton Park on 7 March 2013.
An Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N M Ydgren against Open Horseman, Mr CJ DeFilippi, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures in the final 200m when driving “Stent”.
The charge reads as follows:
“In that you failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures in the final 200m to ensure that “Stent” was given full opportunity to win the race.”
Rule 868 (2) reads:
“(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.”
Submissions for Decision:
Mr DeFilippi confirmed to the Committee that the breach was admitted, that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
Mr Ydgren gave evidence and produced a Summary of Facts (Exhibit 2) which was presented to the hearing.
Mr Ydgren stated Mr DeFilippi is licensed as a public trainer and open horseman. He is the co-trainer and was the driver of STENT, who was correctly entered into and did race in event number 9, the Bayer Cropscience New Zealand Handicap Trot. The race was contested over 2600metres from a standing start. STENT drew barrier 2 off a 10 metre handicap. STENT was the win favourite and second place favourite. By start time, the horse had attracted 38.43% of the win pool to pay $2.10 and 16.6% of the place pool to be paying $1.70.
The allegation of the Stipendiary Stewards is that the vigour of Mr DeFilippi, in the closing 200 metres of the race, was unacceptable in the circumstances. Mr Ydgren stated, there is a clear obligation on the part of a driver, that when circumstances permit, they must leave no doubt in the minds of the viewer of the race, (whether that is the Stewards, the public or the Judicial Committee) that the horse is give every opportunity to finish in the best possible position. He said Stewards do not demand that excessive force be used upon horses, however, it is expected that a driver is to demonstrate a concerted effort, especially when they are in contention for stakes and/or dividend bearing places. Mr Ydgren stated the Stewards felt it was entirely realistic to think that STENT had a reasonable chance of winning the race.
Mr Ydgren showed all the relevant films of the final stages of the race. He pointed out STENT racing 3 back on the outer, approaching the final straight and trailing the eventual winner CLOVER DON. He stated that these two horses were the best performed horses in the race. He stated that STENT had received a good run throughout the race and on the final bend was in a position, within striking distance of the leaders. This was supported, Mr Ydgren submitted, by the official margin between the winner CLOVER DON and second placed STENT, being half a head. He said that under minimal urgings STENT made up significant ground on CLOVER DON and it was absolutely reasonable to suggest that STENT would have made up an extra half head, with an acceptable amount of urging from Mr DeFilippi.
Mr Ydgren pointed out on the films that leaving the final turn STENT was observed to hang inwards. The Stewards did not dispute this, but submitted that STENT had recovered well enough, was balanced and in a position where the horse could have been driven with vigour for the final 200 metres of the race.
Mr Ydgren submitted that STENT was trotting well and showed all relevant films to demonstrate there was no anomaly in the horse’s gait that would have prevented Mr DeFilippi from employing greater urgings. He said STENT appeared fluent in his gait and balanced throughout the final stages of the race.
Mr Ydgren produced a written statement (Exhibit 1) from Dr Tania Hill, Veterinary Surgeon, who was the attending Vet on the night in question. Ms Hill examined STENT post-race and found the horse to be free of any condition that may have affected its performance.
Mr Ydgren referred to the transcript of the Stewards investigation on the night in question where Mr DeFilippi admitted that STENT was trotting well, around “95%”. Mr Ydgren submitted that it was without question, that it was entirely permissible for Mr DeFilippi to employ greater urgings and nothing preventing him from making a greater effort in the final 200 metres to win the race.
Mr Ydgren stated that in the final 200 metres Mr DeFilippi can be seen to shake his reins on three occasions. Each time the horse was asked to quicken it responds well. This was a fact that Mr DeFilippi agreed with on the night in question, as per the transcript of the Stewards investigaton. Mr Ydgren submitted that these three shakes of the reins are not overly vigorous and they are only just discernible. In between these three shakes of the reins Mr DeFilippi can be seen to have a firm grip on the reins and the horses head. After each of the three slaps he immediately takes a hold of the horse and reinstates his grip on the reins. This he stated was not consistent with what any viewer would deem as reasonable vigour.
Mr Ydgren stated that Mr DeFilippi does not turn his whip around and at no stage is it used on the horse, the harness or the sulky. This is in contrast to STENTS previous and subsequent starts where the horse was driven aggressively with the whip over the final 200 metres. Mr Ydgren showed films in regard to STENT’s Harness Jewels start and his previous start at Cheviot on 3 March.
In referring to the transcript from the Stewards investigation on the night in question, Mr De Filippi acknowledged that STENT can accept the whip and has in the past.
In summation Mr Ydgren stated that the Stewards were not in the possession of any evidence that questions the integrity of Mr DeFilippi. The Stewards however, question Mr De Filippi’s failure to fulfil an obligation, which is placed on every driver when they step onto the race track. He said that it is absolutely imperative that when circumstances permit, drivers meet their requirements with the Rules. He said that the evidence overwhelmingly supports a charge bought under this Rule. Mr DeFilippi has erred in his driving over the concluding stages; he has accepted this and pleads guilty to the charge.
He provided a quote from a decision dated 18 February 2005 which reads:
“A breach of this particular Rule is one that invariably jeopardises the integrity of harness racing for reasons which are self-evident. Harness races are based on the requirement that all contestants in a race are given every opportunity by their drivers and that, when the race has been run, all contestants have been fully tested and been asked to do the best that they can do. This has to be the case in order that the betting public, so important to the industry, can have confidence that they have had a run for their money when they have invested their money on contestants in a harness race. Any suggestion that a horse has not been given every possible opportunity and has not been asked to do the best that it can, for whatever reason, will result in loss of public confidence in harness racing. As stated, it is the primary function of the Judicial Committees, in dealing with penalty, to maintain integrity and public confidence in harness racing”.
Mr Ydgren asked the Committee to bear in mind through the hearing a quote from the Hon Justice Mr W R Haylen in relation to a ruling dated 20 May 2009.
“perhaps to throw my interpretation into the mix I might view it this way-that the sort of culpable action that is required to amount to a breach of this Rule might be such that in normal circumstances a reasonable and knowledgeable harness racing spectator might be expected to exclaim with words to the effect “what on earth is he doing “or “my goodness look at that” or some such explanation”.
Mr Ydgren submitted that Mr DeFilippi’s urgings in the final 200 metres of the race have fallen well short of what a reasonable minded person would expect. Had Mr DeFilippi shown a reasonable amount of vigour in the run home and offered STENT every opportunity it is totally fair to think he would have won the race. Mr Ydgren stated the image of racing would not have been dented and we would not have been sitting here today. Given the international exposure to our betting product it is even more important to protect the image and integrity of the sport.
Mr De Filippi, in submissions believed he had been charged under the wrong Rule 868(2) and stated that Rule 868(3) was more appropriate to this case.
Rule 868(3) reads:
(3) Every horseman shall drive his horse out to the end of the brace if he has any reasonable chance of running first, second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth.
The Committee advised Mr DeFilippi that both rules were similar, with the same principles applicable. Sub rule (3) being used usually when a driver is beaten out of a placing by a fast finishing horse, when that driver has relaxed his drive over the final stages. Mr Ydgren, in answer to a question from the Committee, stated that sub-rule (2) was perceived as a more serious rule in comparison to sub-rule (3).
The Committee advised Mr DeFilippi that the hearing would be heard under Rule 868(2) as that was the Rule provided on the Information that he had signed.
Mr De Filippi stated that although it may appear to some people that he should have done more in the run home, he had every intention of winning the race with STENT. He said there was absolutely no advantage to the horse, the owner or himself, by not winning. This was not going to affect the horse’s handicap, which was confirmed by Mr Ydgren. To think otherwise, he stated, goes against his integrity within the racing community.
He submitted that they did not intend to start STENT so soon, after having a 2½ week spell since he last raced on 31 December 2012. The decision was made after discussing it with owner, Mr Trevor Casey, 9 days out from the race. Up until then, he had been engaged to drive CLOVER DON on the night in question, as he had driven that horse at the workouts on 9 February 2013 in which he trialled very well.
Mr DeFilippi stated that because of the late change of plan, they were unable to give STENT a trial or workout before the race which was not normal practice for them or most other trainers. This meant it was 7½ weeks since STENT had last raced without a run off the property.
He submitted that going into the race they were happy with his condition, but knew he lacked race fitness and was a little on the fresh side. He showed this by not standing well at the start and consequently missing away, adding 10-15 metres to his 10 metre handicap.
He said that after getting a reasonably good run during the race, STENT began to hang in on the second half of the last bend. This normally indicates that a horse is starting to feel the pinch and he recalled thinking at the time that maybe missing a trial was going to take its toll.
Mr DeFilippi submitted that he had a natural upright position in the cart which can be misleading and was well qualified to know when a horse was doing its best, especially one that he co trains and has driven before. He said the film clearly shows that STENT is doing his best work at the end of the race and submitted that any use of the whip would not have made a difference to the result.
He stated that the official final 800metres of the race was run in 57.7 with STENT being timed off the video by Mr Phil Barber at 56.8.He stated that the major trot over a mile at the meeting at Menagle, Sydney, the previous Sunday, the winner ran the last 800 metres in 57.9. Mr DeFilippi submitted this showed that STENT was doing his best and that by using the whip would not have made any difference.
Mr De Filippi submitted to having driven CLOVER DON in all his 16 wins prior to the night in question. He said knowing how good a trotter he was, and at that stage of the race (200m) STENT was giving CLOVER DON 3½ lengths start, I had given up thinking I could beat him. This turned out to be an error of judgement on his part, to which he admitted. He stated that that his main aim at this point of the race, was to beat the rest. He said he was both surprised and very happy with the way STENT ran home, knowing his state of fitness.
In submissions Mr DeFilippi stated that CLOVER DON had won 17 races compared to STENT’s 7. Most of CLOVER DON’s wins were against the best trotters in the country-in the Dominion Handicap he ran 3rd in 2011 and 4th the following year 2012.CLOVER DON won 7 races in 2011-2012 season, being the 3rd most wins for a trotter behind I CAN DOOSIT-who won 10 in New Zealand and QUALITY INVASION who won 8.
Mr DeFilippi submitted best times for 2600m stand races before 22 February 2013 for CLOVER DON which was 3.17.7 with STENT at 3.27.2. A 9.5 second difference between both horses’ timings. Other statistics for both horses were CLOVER DON-50 starts for 16 wins and STENT-22 starts for 7 wins. CLOVER DON had won 8 races at Addington Raceway, whereas STENT had only won one.
Mr DeFilippi stated that although STENT would accept the whip he argued that some horses respond better by not being hit by the whip. He believed STENT was one of those horses.
In regards to STENT being restrained after the slaps of the reins, Mr DeFilippi stated that by holding onto a horse’s mouth, it may look like you’re not letting them run but this is not the case. This action is usually to hold a horse together not necessarily to hold a horse back he submitted. He showed the final stages of the race where it was observed that the reins on STENT were loose which proved he went to the line with a loose rein.
Mr DeFilippi made the Committee aware that STENT hit himself in behind during his races and was constantly prone to corns. Mr DeFilippi produced a pad used to protect STENT’s leg when racing which he submitted was well worn after the race in question. He believed STENT had struck himself more than usual on the day in question .Mr DeFilippi produced photos of STENTS hoof (Exhibit C) showing where the shoe had been cut away to take pressure off the corn. He also produced photos of STENTS hind leg (Exhibit C) where he was hitting himself. He said the Stewards, during the investigation, had been shown the horse’s corn issue and where he hits himself.
In relation to STENT’s last start, at the Cheviot meeting on 3 March and after the race in question, Mr DeFilippi stated that STENT trailed CLOVER DON in that event and knew he had the passing lane to take advantage of in the straight. He said that against his wishes and because of this case against him, he drew the whip and used it on at least 5 occasions over the concluding stages. He said the film clearly that when STENT was struck with the whip, he showed no marked improvement. He said he won the race by a nose and if CLOVER DON had not have galloped prior to the line it would have been a 50/50 call, to say STENT would have won. He may have only run second.
Mr DeFilippi acknowledged that he had made an error of judgement with STENT in the concluding stages of the race in question and had admitted the breach. He wanted all the other factors presented by him taken into consideration in deliberations by the Committee.
Reasons for Decision:
As Mr DeFilippi had admitted this breach of the Rules it was found to be proved in accordance with Rule 1111(1)(d).
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
Submissions on Penalty:
Mr Ydgren submitted that the breach found proved through a guilty plea is, in the opinion of the Stewards a serious one. Mr DeFilippi’s drive has brought considerable negative commentary to Harness racing and has served only to dent the reputation of the sport. The Stewards see this offending at the top end of seriousness, under this particular Rule.
Accordingly a penalty must be imposed that firstly reflects the seriousness of the matter and secondly is of such significance as to deter others inclined to commit like acts. Rule 1114(2)(c) and(d) specifically state that the Judicial panel may have regard to any consequential effects upon any person as a result of the breach and also the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Harness Racing. He submitted that these were not minor factors.
The Stewards and the Judicial Committee are charged with the responsibility of protecting the integrity and image of Racing in New Zealand. They are also responsible for maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the harness racing industry. Mr DeFilippi carries with him the weight of public money, also the reputation of the sport and the Stewards must be zealous to see that both of these are guarded. That is to say that these are things which are not to be compromised through either corrupt intent or an error of judgement.
New Zealand Harness Racing is now an international product that attracts interest and betting from overseas countries, with both of these components vital to the future of Harness Racing in New Zealand.
The effect of Mr DeFilippi’s failure to adopt all reasonable and permissible measures means that STENT may have been denied first placing. The point is that the horse was denied the opportunity to do its best and to respond to vigorous driving, of which Mr DeFilippi is capable of and obliged to do. It is not sufficient for a driver to appear to give gentle application of the reins to a horse or vary his normal style of driving because the horse may be having its first start back from a spell. A driver is obligated to use every endeavour to get the best out of the horse and to be, fully focused on getting the best out of the horse.
The Stewards are clearly of the opinion that on this occasion Mr DeFilippi did not use sufficient vigour on the horse. Not only was the failure culpable, but also it is obvious that any analysis of the film would lead an objective viewer to the conclusion that STENT was not placed under sufficient pressure and Mr DeFilippi must take responsibility for that.
With respect to the offending Mr DeFilippi has through his actions had a significant impact on the betting community. As referred to throughout this case they were relieved of any opportunity to see STENT win the race. This affects win, each way, pick six, multis, trifectas, quinellas and any other number of exotic bets which may have been running through the horse. The confidence of the punter is something that cannot be tampered with through actions like those of Mr DeFilippi.
Mr DeFilippi has a clear record under this Rule. It also cannot be ignored that Mr DeFilippi has admitted the breach and should be given some credit for this which has been considered by the Stewards in coming to their recommendation.
Mr Ydgren provided copies of previous decisions that the Stewards regard as relevant and similar to this case. One is that of HRNZ v “H” where this driver was suspended for 3 months. Another was that of HRNZ v “B” where the driver was charged under sub rule (3), failed to drive his horse out to the end of the race and was suspended for a period of three weeks- included in this penalty was two premier days and a Miracle Mile drive. Also included was HRNZ v ”W” where this driver was charged under sub rule (3) and was suspended for a period 4 weeks and a fine of $1,000.
Mr Ydgren submitted that the matter should be dealt with by way of a suspension and that period of suspension should be one month. He also submitted that if the Committee saw that a fine was more appropriate a fine of $2,500 be imposed.
Mr DeFilippi in submissions stated that with his experience, approximately 1,800 wins and 20,000 total drives gave him the qualifications to know when a horse is doing its best. He submitted that STENT was doing his best in the final stages of the race in question and any use of the whip would not have made any difference to STENT’s performance.
He stated that the cases used by the Stewards in their penalty submissions were not comparable to this case. He said that in HRNZ v“H” the driver, “a hobby driver”, showed no vigour in the run home and vigorously restrained his horse close to the line receiving a 3 months suspension.
This breach was far more serious than his breach he submitted. He stated that a more relevant breach was RIU v “M” (Exhibit A) where the driver was charged under the same Rule. He said that this was also a trotting race, the driver denying the breach and was fined the sum of $750 with costs incurred of $300. Mr DeFilippi submitted that this case was the most comparable to his case. He also submitted that a case from the Kaikoura meeting last year, RIU v “P”, where a driver mistook the number of rounds on the favourite, admitted a charge under a different Rule and was fined $600. He stated that this driver had given his horse no show by mistaking the number of rounds. He submitted that this driver had made a misjudgement and was dealt with on the day. He asked the Committee to consider if his case was worse that the RIU v ”P” case. He also said that if his case had of been dealt with on the night in question, there would have none of the repercussions in regard to complaints with his drive in the days afterward. He said that it was not his fault that the matter was not dealt with on the night in question.
Reasons for Penalty:
In determining penalty we carefully considered the submissions made by both Mr Ydgren and Mr DeFilippi in conjunction with video replays and relevant documents provided. The Committee also took into consideration Mr DeFilippi’s good record and admission of the breach.
The Committee, however, find that Mr De Filippi made a serious error of judgement with his drive on STENT over the final 200 metres of the race, to which he has admitted.
Mr DeFilippi has failed to adopt all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure his horse had every opportunity to finish in the best possible position. He only used minimal urgings to encourage his horse over the final 200m. These urgings have fallen well short of what a reasonable minded person would expect, especially when taking into account that it was entirely permissible to implement more vigour. With the margin between first and second only half a head, a reasonably minded person would think that had Mr DeFilippi employed a little more vigour over the concluding 200 metres and that extra vigour not necessarily with the whip, that STENT may have won the race.
Mr Ydgren submitted that the HRNZ v “H”, HRNZ v “B” and HRNZ v “W” were relevant and similar. The Committee found that none of these cases were close enough to the present case to be of much assistance.
Mr DeFilippi submitted that RIU v “M” and RIU v “P” were relevant and similar to this case. Again the Committee found that neither of these cases was close enough to the present case to be of much assistance.
The Judicial Committee is charged with the responsibility of imposing a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the matter and as to deter others similarly disposed or inclined to commit like acts whether through an error of judgement or corrupt intent. It is critical for the reputation of the racing industry that public and stakeholder confidence is maintained at the highest possible level.
The JCA Penalty guide provides a starting point of 15 drives or a fine of $750 for a breach of this Rule. The Committee was satisfied that this was a breach in the mid to high range and that the penalty must reflect this.
We therefore believe that an appropriate penalty in this case is that of a suspension.
The Committee looked at Mr DeFilippi’s driving record and estimated that he would normally have an average of 5-6 drives per meeting and used this as the basis for the length of suspension.
We have therefore decided that an appropriate length of suspension in this case is 3 weeks.
Penalty:
Accordingly, Mr De Filippi’s horseman’s license is suspended for 3 weeks from the conclusion of racing on 24 March 2013 up to and including 14 April 2013. This period of suspension includes the Feature meeting at Addington on 30 March, Addington Harness on 5 April, Rangiora Harness on 7 April, Addington Harness on 12 April and the Banks Peninsula Meeting on 14 April.
The matter of costs was considered but no orders for costs were made.
SC Ching JM Phelan
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 10/03/2013
Publish Date: 10/03/2013
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: e36126f75bd3a628780a46188df12d97
informantnumber: A4964
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 10/03/2013
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v C J DeFilippi 7 March 2013 - Decision dated 22 March 2013
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
NON RACEDAY INQUIRY AT RICCARTON
Informant: N M Ydgren- Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: C J DeFilippi - Open Horseman
Date of Hearing: 7 March 2013
Venue: Riccarton Park, Christchurch
Judicial Committee: SC Ching, Chairman – JM Phelan, Committee Member
Present: Mr N M Ydgren, Mr C J DeFilippi
Plea: Admitted
Charge: Breach of Rule 868 (2)
Date of Decision: 22 March 2013
Facts:
This charge was heard as a Non Race day Hearing at the Canterbury Racing-Amberley Clubs meeting at Riccarton Park on 7 March 2013.
An Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N M Ydgren against Open Horseman, Mr CJ DeFilippi, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures in the final 200m when driving “Stent”.
The charge reads as follows:
“In that you failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures in the final 200m to ensure that “Stent” was given full opportunity to win the race.”
Rule 868 (2) reads:
“(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.”
Submissions for Decision:
Mr DeFilippi confirmed to the Committee that the breach was admitted, that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
Mr Ydgren gave evidence and produced a Summary of Facts (Exhibit 2) which was presented to the hearing.
Mr Ydgren stated Mr DeFilippi is licensed as a public trainer and open horseman. He is the co-trainer and was the driver of STENT, who was correctly entered into and did race in event number 9, the Bayer Cropscience New Zealand Handicap Trot. The race was contested over 2600metres from a standing start. STENT drew barrier 2 off a 10 metre handicap. STENT was the win favourite and second place favourite. By start time, the horse had attracted 38.43% of the win pool to pay $2.10 and 16.6% of the place pool to be paying $1.70.
The allegation of the Stipendiary Stewards is that the vigour of Mr DeFilippi, in the closing 200 metres of the race, was unacceptable in the circumstances. Mr Ydgren stated, there is a clear obligation on the part of a driver, that when circumstances permit, they must leave no doubt in the minds of the viewer of the race, (whether that is the Stewards, the public or the Judicial Committee) that the horse is give every opportunity to finish in the best possible position. He said Stewards do not demand that excessive force be used upon horses, however, it is expected that a driver is to demonstrate a concerted effort, especially when they are in contention for stakes and/or dividend bearing places. Mr Ydgren stated the Stewards felt it was entirely realistic to think that STENT had a reasonable chance of winning the race.
Mr Ydgren showed all the relevant films of the final stages of the race. He pointed out STENT racing 3 back on the outer, approaching the final straight and trailing the eventual winner CLOVER DON. He stated that these two horses were the best performed horses in the race. He stated that STENT had received a good run throughout the race and on the final bend was in a position, within striking distance of the leaders. This was supported, Mr Ydgren submitted, by the official margin between the winner CLOVER DON and second placed STENT, being half a head. He said that under minimal urgings STENT made up significant ground on CLOVER DON and it was absolutely reasonable to suggest that STENT would have made up an extra half head, with an acceptable amount of urging from Mr DeFilippi.
Mr Ydgren pointed out on the films that leaving the final turn STENT was observed to hang inwards. The Stewards did not dispute this, but submitted that STENT had recovered well enough, was balanced and in a position where the horse could have been driven with vigour for the final 200 metres of the race.
Mr Ydgren submitted that STENT was trotting well and showed all relevant films to demonstrate there was no anomaly in the horse’s gait that would have prevented Mr DeFilippi from employing greater urgings. He said STENT appeared fluent in his gait and balanced throughout the final stages of the race.
Mr Ydgren produced a written statement (Exhibit 1) from Dr Tania Hill, Veterinary Surgeon, who was the attending Vet on the night in question. Ms Hill examined STENT post-race and found the horse to be free of any condition that may have affected its performance.
Mr Ydgren referred to the transcript of the Stewards investigation on the night in question where Mr DeFilippi admitted that STENT was trotting well, around “95%”. Mr Ydgren submitted that it was without question, that it was entirely permissible for Mr DeFilippi to employ greater urgings and nothing preventing him from making a greater effort in the final 200 metres to win the race.
Mr Ydgren stated that in the final 200 metres Mr DeFilippi can be seen to shake his reins on three occasions. Each time the horse was asked to quicken it responds well. This was a fact that Mr DeFilippi agreed with on the night in question, as per the transcript of the Stewards investigaton. Mr Ydgren submitted that these three shakes of the reins are not overly vigorous and they are only just discernible. In between these three shakes of the reins Mr DeFilippi can be seen to have a firm grip on the reins and the horses head. After each of the three slaps he immediately takes a hold of the horse and reinstates his grip on the reins. This he stated was not consistent with what any viewer would deem as reasonable vigour.
Mr Ydgren stated that Mr DeFilippi does not turn his whip around and at no stage is it used on the horse, the harness or the sulky. This is in contrast to STENTS previous and subsequent starts where the horse was driven aggressively with the whip over the final 200 metres. Mr Ydgren showed films in regard to STENT’s Harness Jewels start and his previous start at Cheviot on 3 March.
In referring to the transcript from the Stewards investigation on the night in question, Mr De Filippi acknowledged that STENT can accept the whip and has in the past.
In summation Mr Ydgren stated that the Stewards were not in the possession of any evidence that questions the integrity of Mr DeFilippi. The Stewards however, question Mr De Filippi’s failure to fulfil an obligation, which is placed on every driver when they step onto the race track. He said that it is absolutely imperative that when circumstances permit, drivers meet their requirements with the Rules. He said that the evidence overwhelmingly supports a charge bought under this Rule. Mr DeFilippi has erred in his driving over the concluding stages; he has accepted this and pleads guilty to the charge.
He provided a quote from a decision dated 18 February 2005 which reads:
“A breach of this particular Rule is one that invariably jeopardises the integrity of harness racing for reasons which are self-evident. Harness races are based on the requirement that all contestants in a race are given every opportunity by their drivers and that, when the race has been run, all contestants have been fully tested and been asked to do the best that they can do. This has to be the case in order that the betting public, so important to the industry, can have confidence that they have had a run for their money when they have invested their money on contestants in a harness race. Any suggestion that a horse has not been given every possible opportunity and has not been asked to do the best that it can, for whatever reason, will result in loss of public confidence in harness racing. As stated, it is the primary function of the Judicial Committees, in dealing with penalty, to maintain integrity and public confidence in harness racing”.
Mr Ydgren asked the Committee to bear in mind through the hearing a quote from the Hon Justice Mr W R Haylen in relation to a ruling dated 20 May 2009.
“perhaps to throw my interpretation into the mix I might view it this way-that the sort of culpable action that is required to amount to a breach of this Rule might be such that in normal circumstances a reasonable and knowledgeable harness racing spectator might be expected to exclaim with words to the effect “what on earth is he doing “or “my goodness look at that” or some such explanation”.
Mr Ydgren submitted that Mr DeFilippi’s urgings in the final 200 metres of the race have fallen well short of what a reasonable minded person would expect. Had Mr DeFilippi shown a reasonable amount of vigour in the run home and offered STENT every opportunity it is totally fair to think he would have won the race. Mr Ydgren stated the image of racing would not have been dented and we would not have been sitting here today. Given the international exposure to our betting product it is even more important to protect the image and integrity of the sport.
Mr De Filippi, in submissions believed he had been charged under the wrong Rule 868(2) and stated that Rule 868(3) was more appropriate to this case.
Rule 868(3) reads:
(3) Every horseman shall drive his horse out to the end of the brace if he has any reasonable chance of running first, second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth.
The Committee advised Mr DeFilippi that both rules were similar, with the same principles applicable. Sub rule (3) being used usually when a driver is beaten out of a placing by a fast finishing horse, when that driver has relaxed his drive over the final stages. Mr Ydgren, in answer to a question from the Committee, stated that sub-rule (2) was perceived as a more serious rule in comparison to sub-rule (3).
The Committee advised Mr DeFilippi that the hearing would be heard under Rule 868(2) as that was the Rule provided on the Information that he had signed.
Mr De Filippi stated that although it may appear to some people that he should have done more in the run home, he had every intention of winning the race with STENT. He said there was absolutely no advantage to the horse, the owner or himself, by not winning. This was not going to affect the horse’s handicap, which was confirmed by Mr Ydgren. To think otherwise, he stated, goes against his integrity within the racing community.
He submitted that they did not intend to start STENT so soon, after having a 2½ week spell since he last raced on 31 December 2012. The decision was made after discussing it with owner, Mr Trevor Casey, 9 days out from the race. Up until then, he had been engaged to drive CLOVER DON on the night in question, as he had driven that horse at the workouts on 9 February 2013 in which he trialled very well.
Mr DeFilippi stated that because of the late change of plan, they were unable to give STENT a trial or workout before the race which was not normal practice for them or most other trainers. This meant it was 7½ weeks since STENT had last raced without a run off the property.
He submitted that going into the race they were happy with his condition, but knew he lacked race fitness and was a little on the fresh side. He showed this by not standing well at the start and consequently missing away, adding 10-15 metres to his 10 metre handicap.
He said that after getting a reasonably good run during the race, STENT began to hang in on the second half of the last bend. This normally indicates that a horse is starting to feel the pinch and he recalled thinking at the time that maybe missing a trial was going to take its toll.
Mr DeFilippi submitted that he had a natural upright position in the cart which can be misleading and was well qualified to know when a horse was doing its best, especially one that he co trains and has driven before. He said the film clearly shows that STENT is doing his best work at the end of the race and submitted that any use of the whip would not have made a difference to the result.
He stated that the official final 800metres of the race was run in 57.7 with STENT being timed off the video by Mr Phil Barber at 56.8.He stated that the major trot over a mile at the meeting at Menagle, Sydney, the previous Sunday, the winner ran the last 800 metres in 57.9. Mr DeFilippi submitted this showed that STENT was doing his best and that by using the whip would not have made any difference.
Mr De Filippi submitted to having driven CLOVER DON in all his 16 wins prior to the night in question. He said knowing how good a trotter he was, and at that stage of the race (200m) STENT was giving CLOVER DON 3½ lengths start, I had given up thinking I could beat him. This turned out to be an error of judgement on his part, to which he admitted. He stated that that his main aim at this point of the race, was to beat the rest. He said he was both surprised and very happy with the way STENT ran home, knowing his state of fitness.
In submissions Mr DeFilippi stated that CLOVER DON had won 17 races compared to STENT’s 7. Most of CLOVER DON’s wins were against the best trotters in the country-in the Dominion Handicap he ran 3rd in 2011 and 4th the following year 2012.CLOVER DON won 7 races in 2011-2012 season, being the 3rd most wins for a trotter behind I CAN DOOSIT-who won 10 in New Zealand and QUALITY INVASION who won 8.
Mr DeFilippi submitted best times for 2600m stand races before 22 February 2013 for CLOVER DON which was 3.17.7 with STENT at 3.27.2. A 9.5 second difference between both horses’ timings. Other statistics for both horses were CLOVER DON-50 starts for 16 wins and STENT-22 starts for 7 wins. CLOVER DON had won 8 races at Addington Raceway, whereas STENT had only won one.
Mr DeFilippi stated that although STENT would accept the whip he argued that some horses respond better by not being hit by the whip. He believed STENT was one of those horses.
In regards to STENT being restrained after the slaps of the reins, Mr DeFilippi stated that by holding onto a horse’s mouth, it may look like you’re not letting them run but this is not the case. This action is usually to hold a horse together not necessarily to hold a horse back he submitted. He showed the final stages of the race where it was observed that the reins on STENT were loose which proved he went to the line with a loose rein.
Mr DeFilippi made the Committee aware that STENT hit himself in behind during his races and was constantly prone to corns. Mr DeFilippi produced a pad used to protect STENT’s leg when racing which he submitted was well worn after the race in question. He believed STENT had struck himself more than usual on the day in question .Mr DeFilippi produced photos of STENTS hoof (Exhibit C) showing where the shoe had been cut away to take pressure off the corn. He also produced photos of STENTS hind leg (Exhibit C) where he was hitting himself. He said the Stewards, during the investigation, had been shown the horse’s corn issue and where he hits himself.
In relation to STENT’s last start, at the Cheviot meeting on 3 March and after the race in question, Mr DeFilippi stated that STENT trailed CLOVER DON in that event and knew he had the passing lane to take advantage of in the straight. He said that against his wishes and because of this case against him, he drew the whip and used it on at least 5 occasions over the concluding stages. He said the film clearly that when STENT was struck with the whip, he showed no marked improvement. He said he won the race by a nose and if CLOVER DON had not have galloped prior to the line it would have been a 50/50 call, to say STENT would have won. He may have only run second.
Mr DeFilippi acknowledged that he had made an error of judgement with STENT in the concluding stages of the race in question and had admitted the breach. He wanted all the other factors presented by him taken into consideration in deliberations by the Committee.
Reasons for Decision:
As Mr DeFilippi had admitted this breach of the Rules it was found to be proved in accordance with Rule 1111(1)(d).
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
Submissions on Penalty:
Mr Ydgren submitted that the breach found proved through a guilty plea is, in the opinion of the Stewards a serious one. Mr DeFilippi’s drive has brought considerable negative commentary to Harness racing and has served only to dent the reputation of the sport. The Stewards see this offending at the top end of seriousness, under this particular Rule.
Accordingly a penalty must be imposed that firstly reflects the seriousness of the matter and secondly is of such significance as to deter others inclined to commit like acts. Rule 1114(2)(c) and(d) specifically state that the Judicial panel may have regard to any consequential effects upon any person as a result of the breach and also the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Harness Racing. He submitted that these were not minor factors.
The Stewards and the Judicial Committee are charged with the responsibility of protecting the integrity and image of Racing in New Zealand. They are also responsible for maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the harness racing industry. Mr DeFilippi carries with him the weight of public money, also the reputation of the sport and the Stewards must be zealous to see that both of these are guarded. That is to say that these are things which are not to be compromised through either corrupt intent or an error of judgement.
New Zealand Harness Racing is now an international product that attracts interest and betting from overseas countries, with both of these components vital to the future of Harness Racing in New Zealand.
The effect of Mr DeFilippi’s failure to adopt all reasonable and permissible measures means that STENT may have been denied first placing. The point is that the horse was denied the opportunity to do its best and to respond to vigorous driving, of which Mr DeFilippi is capable of and obliged to do. It is not sufficient for a driver to appear to give gentle application of the reins to a horse or vary his normal style of driving because the horse may be having its first start back from a spell. A driver is obligated to use every endeavour to get the best out of the horse and to be, fully focused on getting the best out of the horse.
The Stewards are clearly of the opinion that on this occasion Mr DeFilippi did not use sufficient vigour on the horse. Not only was the failure culpable, but also it is obvious that any analysis of the film would lead an objective viewer to the conclusion that STENT was not placed under sufficient pressure and Mr DeFilippi must take responsibility for that.
With respect to the offending Mr DeFilippi has through his actions had a significant impact on the betting community. As referred to throughout this case they were relieved of any opportunity to see STENT win the race. This affects win, each way, pick six, multis, trifectas, quinellas and any other number of exotic bets which may have been running through the horse. The confidence of the punter is something that cannot be tampered with through actions like those of Mr DeFilippi.
Mr DeFilippi has a clear record under this Rule. It also cannot be ignored that Mr DeFilippi has admitted the breach and should be given some credit for this which has been considered by the Stewards in coming to their recommendation.
Mr Ydgren provided copies of previous decisions that the Stewards regard as relevant and similar to this case. One is that of HRNZ v “H” where this driver was suspended for 3 months. Another was that of HRNZ v “B” where the driver was charged under sub rule (3), failed to drive his horse out to the end of the race and was suspended for a period of three weeks- included in this penalty was two premier days and a Miracle Mile drive. Also included was HRNZ v ”W” where this driver was charged under sub rule (3) and was suspended for a period 4 weeks and a fine of $1,000.
Mr Ydgren submitted that the matter should be dealt with by way of a suspension and that period of suspension should be one month. He also submitted that if the Committee saw that a fine was more appropriate a fine of $2,500 be imposed.
Mr DeFilippi in submissions stated that with his experience, approximately 1,800 wins and 20,000 total drives gave him the qualifications to know when a horse is doing its best. He submitted that STENT was doing his best in the final stages of the race in question and any use of the whip would not have made any difference to STENT’s performance.
He stated that the cases used by the Stewards in their penalty submissions were not comparable to this case. He said that in HRNZ v“H” the driver, “a hobby driver”, showed no vigour in the run home and vigorously restrained his horse close to the line receiving a 3 months suspension.
This breach was far more serious than his breach he submitted. He stated that a more relevant breach was RIU v “M” (Exhibit A) where the driver was charged under the same Rule. He said that this was also a trotting race, the driver denying the breach and was fined the sum of $750 with costs incurred of $300. Mr DeFilippi submitted that this case was the most comparable to his case. He also submitted that a case from the Kaikoura meeting last year, RIU v “P”, where a driver mistook the number of rounds on the favourite, admitted a charge under a different Rule and was fined $600. He stated that this driver had given his horse no show by mistaking the number of rounds. He submitted that this driver had made a misjudgement and was dealt with on the day. He asked the Committee to consider if his case was worse that the RIU v ”P” case. He also said that if his case had of been dealt with on the night in question, there would have none of the repercussions in regard to complaints with his drive in the days afterward. He said that it was not his fault that the matter was not dealt with on the night in question.
Reasons for Penalty:
In determining penalty we carefully considered the submissions made by both Mr Ydgren and Mr DeFilippi in conjunction with video replays and relevant documents provided. The Committee also took into consideration Mr DeFilippi’s good record and admission of the breach.
The Committee, however, find that Mr De Filippi made a serious error of judgement with his drive on STENT over the final 200 metres of the race, to which he has admitted.
Mr DeFilippi has failed to adopt all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure his horse had every opportunity to finish in the best possible position. He only used minimal urgings to encourage his horse over the final 200m. These urgings have fallen well short of what a reasonable minded person would expect, especially when taking into account that it was entirely permissible to implement more vigour. With the margin between first and second only half a head, a reasonably minded person would think that had Mr DeFilippi employed a little more vigour over the concluding 200 metres and that extra vigour not necessarily with the whip, that STENT may have won the race.
Mr Ydgren submitted that the HRNZ v “H”, HRNZ v “B” and HRNZ v “W” were relevant and similar. The Committee found that none of these cases were close enough to the present case to be of much assistance.
Mr DeFilippi submitted that RIU v “M” and RIU v “P” were relevant and similar to this case. Again the Committee found that neither of these cases was close enough to the present case to be of much assistance.
The Judicial Committee is charged with the responsibility of imposing a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the matter and as to deter others similarly disposed or inclined to commit like acts whether through an error of judgement or corrupt intent. It is critical for the reputation of the racing industry that public and stakeholder confidence is maintained at the highest possible level.
The JCA Penalty guide provides a starting point of 15 drives or a fine of $750 for a breach of this Rule. The Committee was satisfied that this was a breach in the mid to high range and that the penalty must reflect this.
We therefore believe that an appropriate penalty in this case is that of a suspension.
The Committee looked at Mr DeFilippi’s driving record and estimated that he would normally have an average of 5-6 drives per meeting and used this as the basis for the length of suspension.
We have therefore decided that an appropriate length of suspension in this case is 3 weeks.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
Accordingly, Mr De Filippi’s horseman’s license is suspended for 3 weeks from the conclusion of racing on 24 March 2013 up to and including 14 April 2013. This period of suspension includes the Feature meeting at Addington on 30 March, Addington Harness on 5 April, Rangiora Harness on 7 April, Addington Harness on 12 April and the Banks Peninsula Meeting on 14 April.
The matter of costs was considered but no orders for costs were made.
SC Ching JM Phelan
Chairman Committee Member
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 868(2)
Informant: Mr N M Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr N M Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward, Mr C J DeFilippi - Open Horseman
Respondent: Mr C J DeFilippi - Open Horseman
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: