NZ Metro TC – 1 October 2010 – R 10

hearingid: a1ec10a4f5e19edcbfc600f7eabfd2ef

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 01/10/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 1 October 2010 - R 10

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr N. R. Escott, Chief Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  Mr S. P. Walkinshaw – Open Horseman

Information No:  69353

Meeting:  New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club    

Date:  1 October 2010

Venue:  Addington Raceway                                      

Race No. 10:  Treetech Specialist Treecare Mobile Pace

Rule No:  869(7A)(c)

Judicial Committee:  J. M. Phelan, Chairman - R. G. McKenzie, Committee Member

Plea:  Not Admitted

Facts:

Following the running of Race 10, the Treetech Specialist Treecare Mobile Pace, an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Open Horseman Mr S. P. Walkinshaw alleging a breach of Rule 869(7A)(c) in that he forced “Mr Chrome” (3) over the marker line.

The charge reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(7A)(c) in that S. P. Walkinshaw (Alchemy) when progressing to the lead with approx. 1400m to run forced Mr Chrome (M. P. Jones) to strike track markers and protrude inside the marker line.”

Rules 869(7A)(c) reads as follows.

”(7A)  Every horseman who moves inwards shall ensure:

(a) ….

(b) ….

(c) that the movement does not cause any other horseman, horse or sulky to contact any track marker or protrude inside the marker line.

It shall be a defence to a breach of this sub-rule if the horseman establishes that the breach was attributable to the behaviour of his own horse or any other horse or horseman in the race.”

Facts:

Mr Walkinshaw had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted, and this was confirmed at the hearing.  Mr Walkinshaw also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

Mr M. P. Jones, the driver of “Mr Chrome” (3) gave evidence that with about 1400  metres to run Mr Walkinshaw was going to the lead, and that during this move he was forced over some track markers.  Video coverage was shown to illustrate that the sulky wheel of “Mr Chrome” went inside three track markers.

Mr Walkinshaw put it to Mr Jones that there was sufficient room inside his horse (“Alchemy”) for him to have avoided going inside the track markers.  Mr Jones disagreed.

Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren gave evidence that he viewed this incident from the top of the home straight.  He said that Mr Jones did not have enough room to avoid going inside the marker line.

Mr Walkinshaw’s defence to this charge was that Mr Jones did in fact have sufficient room inside his sulky to avoid going inside the marker line.

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.

Decision:

After carefully reviewing the evidence and the video coverage we were satisfied that Mr Walkinshaw did force Mr Jones over the marker line when going to the lead.  There was clear evidence of this from Mr Jones, Mr Ydgren and the video coverage.  We were satisfied that the charge had been proved.

On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that a full written decision would be provided later and we gave the following oral decision.

“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence we are satisfied that with about 1400 metres to run “Mr Chrome”, driven by Mr M. P. Jones, went inside three track markers.

We are satisfied Mr Jones was forced inside these markers by Mr Walkinshaw, and the video coverage and the evidence of Mr Jones and Stipendiary Steward Mr Ydgren is quite clear.  We find the charge proved.”

Submissions on Penalty:

In relation to penalty Mr Escott advised that Mr Walkinshaw had not previously breached this Rule.  He said that this was a Premier Race Meeting and recommended a fine of $400-00.  It was also established that the Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of a fine of $300-00 and/or a one week suspension for a breach of this Rule.

Mr Walkinshaw had no submissions to make with regards to penalty.

We adjourned to consider the matter of an appropriate penalty.

Reasons:

On looking at previous penalties imposed for similar breaches of this Rule we found that fines ranged up to $300-00.  Although this was a Premier Race Meeting the race itself was for a stake of $15,000-00, and we did not consider that the stake payable or the status of this particular race was sufficient to require that a higher penalty be imposed.

On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that full reasons would be given later, and that Mr Walkinshaw was fined the sum of $300-00.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869(7A)(c)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 4ca19f4a1b9ce0e7729af40c043f1ce2

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R 10

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 354c1f5a1a655d391ffbc53fa22fe8ae

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 01/10/2010

meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 1 October 2010

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: nz-metro-tc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair: tom

meet_pm1: tom

meet_pm2: tom

name: NZ Metro TC