NZ Metro TC – 10 August 2006 – Race 3

hearingid: 4ea82270fa831603e316c9f6ef56ff41

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 10/08/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 10 August 2006 - Race 3

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 3, the Capital Events Mobile Pace, an information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr R. W. Curtin, the driver of "Les Lisle" (5), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3).

Following the running of Race 3, the Capital Events Mobile Pace, an information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr R. W. Curtin, the driver of "Les Lisle" (5), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3). The charge reads as follows.

"I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 868(3) in that R. W. Curtin (Les Lisle) failed to drive his horse out to the end of the race."

Rules 868(3) read as follows.

Mr Curtin had indicated on the information that he did not admit this breach of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Curtin also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge. I advised Mr Curtin that this was a serious charge, and I gave him the option of adjourning the hearing to later date if he wanted time to prepare his defence and to obtain assistance. Mr Curtin said that he wanted the charge to be heard to "get it all over now".

Stipendiary Steward Mrs William used video coverage of the race to show that at no time during the final stages of the race did Mr Curtin lift his hands to urge the horse on. It was also shown that over the last 50 metres "Les Lisle" made ground on the winner and was beaten by a head into second place. It was clear that Mr Curtin carried a whip in his right hand, but for the length of the straight it was not used. Mr Curtin was seen to shake the reins at his horse.

Mr Escott gave evidence that when questioning Mr Curtin about this matter it had been established that he had driven "Les Lisle" in 5 of its 6 starts. Mr Curtin also agreed that he had used the whip on the horse in previous races. At its most recent start at Oamaru on 6 August 2006 (when the horse had won) he had used the whip once, after which it had 'shot clear", and he did not have to use the whip again.

Mr Curtin gave evidence that he believed his horse was doing its best. He also said that the horse had run on towards the end of the race, but that he did not believe that using his whip would have made it go any better. Mr Curtin said that he had "chased" his horse enough and that it was doing its best, and also agreed that he had not used his whip on the horse.

In summary Mr Escott's case was as follows.

--

--
• "Les Lisle" was the favourite for the race.
--
• The margin at the finish was a head.
--
• The whip was not used and the other actions taken by Mr Curtin were not acceptable so far as "driving his horse out to the end of the race" was concerned.
--
• There was a lack of vigour shown by Mr Curtin.

In his final summing up Mr Curtin repeated that he believed that his horse

was doing its best and that it had had a hard run.

I adjourned to consider my decision.

After reviewing the evidence and the video coverage I was satisfied that Mr Curtin had not driven his horse out to the end of the race as required by the Rules. In coming to this decision I took particular note of the fact that Mr Curtin carried a whip but chose not to use it in the usual way at any stage in the last 200 metres of the race. I accept that Mr Curtin shook the reins at his horse, and that he brushed his horse with the whip while doing this.

It is well established that in relation to compliance with this particular Rule the test is an objective one, and an alleged breach of this Rule is to be considered by objective standards and not by the subjective views of the driver. The Rule requires a demonstration of tactics which can, by objective standards, be said to show that a horse was driven out to the end of the race. In particular I took account of the lack of use of the whip, and that Mr Curtin showed a lack of vigour as the race came to its conclusion.

On returning to the Enquiry Room I gave the following oral decision.

"Having seen the video coverage and having heard the evidence I am satisfied that you did not use your whip over the last 200 metres of the race, and you agree with that. I am also satisfied that it would have been expected that you would have used your whip.

It seems clear that you misjudged the situation and showed little vigour in your drive. I am satisfied that you failed to drive your horse out to the end of the race as alleged and I find that the charge has been proved.?

On resuming the hearing Mr Escott recommended a suspension of Mr Curtin's

horseman's licence until after 28 September 2006, which was a period of 7 weeks and 8 race meetings.

Mr Curtin asked whether a fine could be considered, but after hearing from Mr Escott and Mr Curtin on this suggestion I was satisfied that a fine would not be an appropriate penalty in this case.

I adjourned to consider our decision on penalty.

I was satisfied that this charge is relatively serious. I was also satisfied that a breach of this particular Rule invariably jeopardises the integrity of harness racing, and this is one of the specific matters which I must have regard to when assessing penalty; see Rule 1114(2)(d). It is expected that all participants in a race will be given every possible opportunity by their drivers, and that when the race has been run all participating horses will have been fully tested.

I looked at the penalties imposed in two recent cases for a breach of this Rule, namely HRNZ v. James and HRNZ v. Woodward. In the first case Mr James was given an 11 week suspension. In the other case Mr Woodward was given a 4 week suspension and fined $1000-00. The James case was most similar to this case, but I note here that Mr James would have had fewer drives than Mr Curtin at each meeting he attended.

I was satisfied that the recommended penalty was appropriate in the circumstances, and determined that Mr Curtin would have his open horseman's licence suspended from the conclusion of racing on 9 August 2006 until after the conclusion of racing on 28 September 2006. This was a period of 7 weeks which included 8 race meetings.

On returning the Enquiry Room I advised the parties full reasons for my decision on penalty would be put in writing and given at a later date. I then gave the following oral decision.

"I have listened to the recommendations as to penalty and your evidence about that, and what I have done is I have had a look at recent previous cases where the same Rule has been found proven against two different people. The first one was C. T. Woodward and that was not that long ago. He got a four week suspension and a $1000-00 fine, and to be fair he was obviously a much more active driver than you. I think the more comparable case was one against Mr James who got 11 weeks and no fine for a breach of the same Rule. I am satisfied that the recommendation of the Stipendiary Stewards for a 7 week suspension encompassing 8 days is fair and you will be suspended up until the conclusion of racing on the 28 September."

J. M. Phelan

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 868.3, 1114.2.d

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: