Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v JV Douglas – 19 September 2011 – Decision dated 30 September 2011
ID: JCA14111
Decision:
NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Stipendiary Steward C. J. Allison
Defendant: Mr J.V. Douglas- Graduation Horseman
Information No: 68885
Meeting: Gore Harness Racing Club
Date: 28 August 2011
Venue: Gore
Race No. 5: Kubala Seeds Gore Fillies & Mares Mobile Pace
Rule No: 869(3)(g)
Judicial Committee: Chairman - N. D. Skelt - Committee Member – J.M Phelan
Plea: Admitted
Also Present: Mr M. R. Davidson (Registrar), Racing Investigator Mr R. D. Scott (Observer)
Charge:
[1] This matter was heard at Invercargill on 19 September 2011. The information was filed on the day of the race meeting, but as it was deemed to be serious it was adjourned to be heard as non race day matter.
[2] Following the running of Race 5, the Kubala Seeds Gore Fillies & Mares Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr C. J. Allison against Graduation Horseman Mr J.V. Douglas, the driver of “Pandora’s Maya” (2), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(g) in that he drove his horse in a manner that was capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning the race.
[3] The charge reads as follows.
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(g) in that Mr Douglas drove his horse “Pandora’s Maya” in a manner that was capable of diminishing it’s chances of winning by duelling for the lead through this race.”
[4] Rule 869(3)(g) reads as follows.
“(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(g) in any manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning.”
[5] Mr Douglas had indicated on the Information that he did admit the breach of the Rule and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Douglas also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
Facts:
[6] During this hearing video coverage of the race was shown on many occasions to illustrate the evidence given by Mr Allison and Mr Douglas. In order to best understand the evidence it is necessary to set out in full what the video coverage shows.
[7] This was a 2200 metre mobile start race for fillies and mares only. The main players were “Motu Miss Lilli” (2) which started from 2 on the front line; “Pandora’s Maya” (7) which started from 7 on the front line, and “Temporary Use” (12) which started from 2 on the second line. After the start, and by the winning post on the first occasion, “Motu Miss Lilli” had gone to the lead, and “Pandora’s Maya” was able to cross over and sit outside that horse. “Temporary Use”, which had drawn the second line directly behind “Motu Miss Lilli”, was able to follow that horse through and into the trail.
[8] The order of these first three horses remained the same, and by the end of the first 400 – 500 metres it was noticeable that these three horses had started to open up a gap on the rest of the field. With a lap (1000 metres) to run there was a considerable gap between the first three and the rest of the field, this gap estimated to be 30 metres. By the time the 800 metre mark was reached this gap had been reduced to about 10 metres, and from that point on the three leaders were overtaken. At the end of the race “Motu Mis Lilli” finished 7th; “Pandora’s Maya” 6th, and “Temporary Use” 3rd. “Pandora’s Maya” finished about 9 ½ lengths from the winner of this race.
[9] “Pandora’s Maya” was having is third race day start, having been placed in both its race day starts, and it was 3/3 in the betting.
The Evidence:
[10] Mr Allison gave evidence that this charge related to the drivers of both “Motu Miss Lilli” and “Pandora’s Maya” being unwilling to give up the lead. By doing this the drivers had driven at an unsustainable pace and therefore diminished the chances of their horses. Mr Allison produced the official race timings for all nine races on this day. It showed that the final 800 metres of this race took 62.2 seconds, and was the slowest of the day by 2.3 seconds.
[11] There were three other 2200 metre mobile starts on this day (a maiden, a 1 win and a 2 win) and the times for the first 1400 metres of these races were (respectively) 1-48.0 seconds; 1-51.3 seconds, and 1-49.5 seconds. By comparison the lead time in this race was 1-44.0 seconds.
[12] Mr Douglas gave evidence that shortly after coming alongside “Motu Miss Lilli” he asked Mr Higgs if he could go to the front, but Mr Higgs refused saying that he would be “pressing forward”. Not much was said after this, but Mr Douglas said that he pressurised Mr Higgs again for the lead, but he wouldn’t let him take it. Mr Douglas said that with a lap to go he got well in front, but not enough to cross to the lead. Shortly after this he “relented” but by this time it was too late.
[13] When asked about the options available to him Mr Douglas said he could have eased but decided not to.
Reasons for Decision:
[14] Rule 869(3)(g) states that it is a breach of the Rules of Harness Racing for a horseman to drive in a manner which is capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning. It is not necessary for the Informant to prove that the manner of driving did in fact diminish the horse’s chances.
[15] After reviewing the evidence and the video coverage we were satisfied that this incident was a duel for the lead over most of the race. It could be clearly seen that neither driver was prepared to give up the lead, and just as clear that the horses were being driven at an unsustainable speed, and that neither driver was prepared to take available options to end that duelling.
[16] We have also taken particular note of the evidence of Mr Douglas. He was quite clear in his evidence that he wanted to lead. Mr Douglas continued to try for the lead until about the 800 metre mark, and Mr Higgs never wavered from his determination to keep the lead. Both drivers had “options” available to avoid this situation, but neither of them did so.
[17] Mr Allison referred to the Appeals Tribunal’s decision in N. A. C v. HRNZ (2010), and that case in turn referred to the Appeals Tribunal’s decision in HRNZ v. J. and C. (2000). Although the charge in the J. & C. case was brought under Rule 868(2), it related to an alleged speed duel, as in the present case. The factors identified as being relevant in the J. & C. case were as follows.
- The distance of the race.
- The stage of the race where the duelling occurred.
- The distance over which the duelling occurred.
- The distance which the horses in question were ahead of the rest of the field.
- The speed at which the horses were travelling in order to maintain or take the lead, and in this regard sectional times for the race are relevant.
- The energy expended in having to maintain or reach the lead, in this regard the relevance is did the driver have to urge the horse merely by shaking the reins or did the driver resort to use of whip, pulling ear plugs etc.
[18] To apply these factors to the present case, most of them are present. The duelling went on for most of the race; at one stage the horses were 30 metres in front of the rest of the field, and the sectional times were considerably faster than for other races run that day.
Decision:
The Committee was satisfied a clear breach of the rule had occurred and as a result the charge is proven.
Clearly Mr. Douglas has made a poor decision and an error of judgement badly misjudging the pace of the race. He has not at any point made any attempt to take any other action, when he had many opportunities to do so.
In this instance the standard of driving was well below what is acceptable, with the horse Pandora’s Maya chances of winning the race or finishing in a dividend or stake bearing place being in our opinion diminished.
Submissions on penalty :
Stipendiary Steward Mr Allison asked the Committee to consider the following points on submissions on penalty.
1. Mr Douglas is currently licensed with a public trainers licence and a Graduation Horseman’s Licence. He has been licensed in the Harness Racing industry since 1990.
2. Mr Douglas had a total of eight drives for the current season on the day of the breach of the rule. Mr Douglas had a total of 11 drives for all of the previous season and 15 drives two seasons ago.
3. Mr Douglas’s horse Pandora’s Maya was a well supported runner being 3/3 in the betting and was showing $7.30 for a win and $2.20 for a place at the close of the totalisator.
4. The race was televised throughout New Zealand and Australia with betting also being conducted in Australia on the race.
5. As a holder of a Graduation Horseman’s licence Mr Douglas’s drive fell well below the required standard.
6. During the race Mr Douglas had ample opportunity to adopt other tactics throughout the race which he failed to do.
7. The manner in which Pandora’s Maya was driven meant the horse’s chances of winning or even finishing in a dividend bearing placing were totally distinguished.
8. The public perception regarding the driving of a horse in this manner has a detrimental impact on the image of Harness Racing.
9. The breach of Rule 869(3)(g) is a serious breach of the rules which is confirmed by the Judicial Committee on the day which sought an adjournment due to serious nature of the breach.
10. Mr Douglas has no previous breaches of this rule or any other serious rule breaches.
11. Mr Douglas was very honest and frank when spoken to by Racing Integrity Unit Stewards and readily admitted the breach at the earliest opportunity.
12. The Racing Integrity Unit requests a penalty which acts as a deterrent for Mr. Douglas or any other licence holder to drive in this way in the future.
13. Rules 1003(1)(a),(b) and (c) contain the relevant penalty provisions for the breach of Rule 869(3)(g).
14. The Racing Integrity Unit believes the most relevant cases to this is the HRNZ V MW McK dated February 2010. Mr. McK was involved with a speed duel with Ms NA C and he was suspended from after racing on the 6th of February 2010 up to and including the 2nd of March 2010. This equated to 6 race meetings for Mr. McKendry, a leading North Island driver who usually had a near full book of drives. The associated breach of the rules against NA C went to Appeals Tribunal. NA C appealed the decision of the committee on the day and also the severity of her penalty. The appeals Tribunal dismissed her appeal regarding the breach of the rule however her penalty was decreased to a 3 day driving suspension plus $600.00 fine.
15. Due to Mr. Douglas’s limited drives on race day and the seriousness of the charge the Racing Integrity Unit would be seeking a suspension of Mr. Douglas’s Graduation Horseman’s Licence for a minimum period of three months for the Breach of the Rule on this occasion.
16. The Racing Integrity Unit did not seek costs in relation to this hearing.
Mr. Douglas’s Submissions:
1. Mr Douglas requested the Committee to take into account when fixing penalty that he had been open and honest throughout the hearing.
2. That he admitted the breach at the earliest possible opportunity.
3. That he had endured considerable expense in travelling to Invercargill for the hearing and has lost a days income $800-$900 from his job as a farrier.
4. He was training team of up to eight horses and driving his team when appropriate. A suspension would incur considerable financial loss from driving fee’s.
Penalty:
Mr Douglas was suspended from the conclusion of racing on Tuesday 19th September 2011 up to and including the completion of racing on 29th November 2011 (effectively 10 weeks).
The Committee in fixing penalty gave some concession to Mr Douglas for his early admittance of the breach, and for his forthright open and honest demeanour throughout the hearing. Consideration was also given to the expense Mr Douglas had incurred in travelling to Invercargill and his loss of income.
________________ __________________
N. D. Skelt J.M Phelan
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 11/10/2011
Publish Date: 11/10/2011
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: 99cdaf09d6926e61931c622e482a124e
informantnumber: 68885
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 11/10/2011
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v JV Douglas - 19 September 2011 - Decision dated 30 September 2011
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Stipendiary Steward C. J. Allison
Defendant: Mr J.V. Douglas- Graduation Horseman
Information No: 68885
Meeting: Gore Harness Racing Club
Date: 28 August 2011
Venue: Gore
Race No. 5: Kubala Seeds Gore Fillies & Mares Mobile Pace
Rule No: 869(3)(g)
Judicial Committee: Chairman - N. D. Skelt - Committee Member – J.M Phelan
Plea: Admitted
Also Present: Mr M. R. Davidson (Registrar), Racing Investigator Mr R. D. Scott (Observer)
Charge:
[1] This matter was heard at Invercargill on 19 September 2011. The information was filed on the day of the race meeting, but as it was deemed to be serious it was adjourned to be heard as non race day matter.
[2] Following the running of Race 5, the Kubala Seeds Gore Fillies & Mares Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr C. J. Allison against Graduation Horseman Mr J.V. Douglas, the driver of “Pandora’s Maya” (2), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(g) in that he drove his horse in a manner that was capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning the race.
[3] The charge reads as follows.
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(g) in that Mr Douglas drove his horse “Pandora’s Maya” in a manner that was capable of diminishing it’s chances of winning by duelling for the lead through this race.”
[4] Rule 869(3)(g) reads as follows.
“(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(g) in any manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning.”
[5] Mr Douglas had indicated on the Information that he did admit the breach of the Rule and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Douglas also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
Facts:
[6] During this hearing video coverage of the race was shown on many occasions to illustrate the evidence given by Mr Allison and Mr Douglas. In order to best understand the evidence it is necessary to set out in full what the video coverage shows.
[7] This was a 2200 metre mobile start race for fillies and mares only. The main players were “Motu Miss Lilli” (2) which started from 2 on the front line; “Pandora’s Maya” (7) which started from 7 on the front line, and “Temporary Use” (12) which started from 2 on the second line. After the start, and by the winning post on the first occasion, “Motu Miss Lilli” had gone to the lead, and “Pandora’s Maya” was able to cross over and sit outside that horse. “Temporary Use”, which had drawn the second line directly behind “Motu Miss Lilli”, was able to follow that horse through and into the trail.
[8] The order of these first three horses remained the same, and by the end of the first 400 – 500 metres it was noticeable that these three horses had started to open up a gap on the rest of the field. With a lap (1000 metres) to run there was a considerable gap between the first three and the rest of the field, this gap estimated to be 30 metres. By the time the 800 metre mark was reached this gap had been reduced to about 10 metres, and from that point on the three leaders were overtaken. At the end of the race “Motu Mis Lilli” finished 7th; “Pandora’s Maya” 6th, and “Temporary Use” 3rd. “Pandora’s Maya” finished about 9 ½ lengths from the winner of this race.
[9] “Pandora’s Maya” was having is third race day start, having been placed in both its race day starts, and it was 3/3 in the betting.
The Evidence:
[10] Mr Allison gave evidence that this charge related to the drivers of both “Motu Miss Lilli” and “Pandora’s Maya” being unwilling to give up the lead. By doing this the drivers had driven at an unsustainable pace and therefore diminished the chances of their horses. Mr Allison produced the official race timings for all nine races on this day. It showed that the final 800 metres of this race took 62.2 seconds, and was the slowest of the day by 2.3 seconds.
[11] There were three other 2200 metre mobile starts on this day (a maiden, a 1 win and a 2 win) and the times for the first 1400 metres of these races were (respectively) 1-48.0 seconds; 1-51.3 seconds, and 1-49.5 seconds. By comparison the lead time in this race was 1-44.0 seconds.
[12] Mr Douglas gave evidence that shortly after coming alongside “Motu Miss Lilli” he asked Mr Higgs if he could go to the front, but Mr Higgs refused saying that he would be “pressing forward”. Not much was said after this, but Mr Douglas said that he pressurised Mr Higgs again for the lead, but he wouldn’t let him take it. Mr Douglas said that with a lap to go he got well in front, but not enough to cross to the lead. Shortly after this he “relented” but by this time it was too late.
[13] When asked about the options available to him Mr Douglas said he could have eased but decided not to.
Reasons for Decision:
[14] Rule 869(3)(g) states that it is a breach of the Rules of Harness Racing for a horseman to drive in a manner which is capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning. It is not necessary for the Informant to prove that the manner of driving did in fact diminish the horse’s chances.
[15] After reviewing the evidence and the video coverage we were satisfied that this incident was a duel for the lead over most of the race. It could be clearly seen that neither driver was prepared to give up the lead, and just as clear that the horses were being driven at an unsustainable speed, and that neither driver was prepared to take available options to end that duelling.
[16] We have also taken particular note of the evidence of Mr Douglas. He was quite clear in his evidence that he wanted to lead. Mr Douglas continued to try for the lead until about the 800 metre mark, and Mr Higgs never wavered from his determination to keep the lead. Both drivers had “options” available to avoid this situation, but neither of them did so.
[17] Mr Allison referred to the Appeals Tribunal’s decision in N. A. C v. HRNZ (2010), and that case in turn referred to the Appeals Tribunal’s decision in HRNZ v. J. and C. (2000). Although the charge in the J. & C. case was brought under Rule 868(2), it related to an alleged speed duel, as in the present case. The factors identified as being relevant in the J. & C. case were as follows.
- The distance of the race.
- The stage of the race where the duelling occurred.
- The distance over which the duelling occurred.
- The distance which the horses in question were ahead of the rest of the field.
- The speed at which the horses were travelling in order to maintain or take the lead, and in this regard sectional times for the race are relevant.
- The energy expended in having to maintain or reach the lead, in this regard the relevance is did the driver have to urge the horse merely by shaking the reins or did the driver resort to use of whip, pulling ear plugs etc.
[18] To apply these factors to the present case, most of them are present. The duelling went on for most of the race; at one stage the horses were 30 metres in front of the rest of the field, and the sectional times were considerably faster than for other races run that day.
Decision:
The Committee was satisfied a clear breach of the rule had occurred and as a result the charge is proven.
Clearly Mr. Douglas has made a poor decision and an error of judgement badly misjudging the pace of the race. He has not at any point made any attempt to take any other action, when he had many opportunities to do so.
In this instance the standard of driving was well below what is acceptable, with the horse Pandora’s Maya chances of winning the race or finishing in a dividend or stake bearing place being in our opinion diminished.
Submissions on penalty :
Stipendiary Steward Mr Allison asked the Committee to consider the following points on submissions on penalty.
1. Mr Douglas is currently licensed with a public trainers licence and a Graduation Horseman’s Licence. He has been licensed in the Harness Racing industry since 1990.
2. Mr Douglas had a total of eight drives for the current season on the day of the breach of the rule. Mr Douglas had a total of 11 drives for all of the previous season and 15 drives two seasons ago.
3. Mr Douglas’s horse Pandora’s Maya was a well supported runner being 3/3 in the betting and was showing $7.30 for a win and $2.20 for a place at the close of the totalisator.
4. The race was televised throughout New Zealand and Australia with betting also being conducted in Australia on the race.
5. As a holder of a Graduation Horseman’s licence Mr Douglas’s drive fell well below the required standard.
6. During the race Mr Douglas had ample opportunity to adopt other tactics throughout the race which he failed to do.
7. The manner in which Pandora’s Maya was driven meant the horse’s chances of winning or even finishing in a dividend bearing placing were totally distinguished.
8. The public perception regarding the driving of a horse in this manner has a detrimental impact on the image of Harness Racing.
9. The breach of Rule 869(3)(g) is a serious breach of the rules which is confirmed by the Judicial Committee on the day which sought an adjournment due to serious nature of the breach.
10. Mr Douglas has no previous breaches of this rule or any other serious rule breaches.
11. Mr Douglas was very honest and frank when spoken to by Racing Integrity Unit Stewards and readily admitted the breach at the earliest opportunity.
12. The Racing Integrity Unit requests a penalty which acts as a deterrent for Mr. Douglas or any other licence holder to drive in this way in the future.
13. Rules 1003(1)(a),(b) and (c) contain the relevant penalty provisions for the breach of Rule 869(3)(g).
14. The Racing Integrity Unit believes the most relevant cases to this is the HRNZ V MW McK dated February 2010. Mr. McK was involved with a speed duel with Ms NA C and he was suspended from after racing on the 6th of February 2010 up to and including the 2nd of March 2010. This equated to 6 race meetings for Mr. McKendry, a leading North Island driver who usually had a near full book of drives. The associated breach of the rules against NA C went to Appeals Tribunal. NA C appealed the decision of the committee on the day and also the severity of her penalty. The appeals Tribunal dismissed her appeal regarding the breach of the rule however her penalty was decreased to a 3 day driving suspension plus $600.00 fine.
15. Due to Mr. Douglas’s limited drives on race day and the seriousness of the charge the Racing Integrity Unit would be seeking a suspension of Mr. Douglas’s Graduation Horseman’s Licence for a minimum period of three months for the Breach of the Rule on this occasion.
16. The Racing Integrity Unit did not seek costs in relation to this hearing.
Mr. Douglas’s Submissions:
1. Mr Douglas requested the Committee to take into account when fixing penalty that he had been open and honest throughout the hearing.
2. That he admitted the breach at the earliest possible opportunity.
3. That he had endured considerable expense in travelling to Invercargill for the hearing and has lost a days income $800-$900 from his job as a farrier.
4. He was training team of up to eight horses and driving his team when appropriate. A suspension would incur considerable financial loss from driving fee’s.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
Mr Douglas was suspended from the conclusion of racing on Tuesday 19th September 2011 up to and including the completion of racing on 29th November 2011 (effectively 10 weeks).
The Committee in fixing penalty gave some concession to Mr Douglas for his early admittance of the breach, and for his forthright open and honest demeanour throughout the hearing. Consideration was also given to the expense Mr Douglas had incurred in travelling to Invercargill and his loss of income.
________________ __________________
N. D. Skelt J.M Phelan
Chairman Committee Member
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 869(3)(g)
Informant: CJ Allison - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent: Mr JV Douglas - Graduation 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: