NZ Metro TC 10 August 2012 – R 6
ID: JCA15119
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 10 August 2012
Meet Chair:
KHales
Meet Committee Member 1:
SChing
Race Date:
2012/08/10
Race Number:
R6
Decision:
Taking an overview of all of the evidence, including that heard in the protest hearing, we are satisfied that in terms of the appropriate standard of proof that the charge has been proved.
Penalty:
Mr May is fined $300.
Charge:
The information reads:
"You continued to allow your horse to shift outwards when not sufficiently clear to do so which caused significant interference to both "Silver Pocket" and "Advance Anvil".
Facts:
As a result of an incident in race 6 whereby interference was caused to "Silver Pocket" and "Advance Anvil" a charge of careless driving was preferred against Mr May.
Both Mr May and Mr McIntyre agreed that the relevant parts of the evidence that were heard in the protest hearing could be adopted and to form part of the evidence for this hearing.
The concern was that having pushed Ms Lester out that he continued on his outwards movement and caused interference to both horses. Mr McIntyre said that even though there had been some outwards movement from horses inside Mr May, that at the material time, the actions of those horses had no bearing on the incident.
Mr McIntyre said that it could be clearly seen that Mr May having achieved the gap that became available, that it could be seen by his posture that he pulled the ear plugs and used the whip, continuing in the process, to drive on the line of Ms Lester. Mr McIntyre said that it was the Stipendiary Stewards' view that Mr May's first duty was to focus on keeping his horse straight. He pointed to the fact that Ms Lester had a horse immediately to her outside. He said that he had a clear and unobstructed run to the post but instead continued on his outward movement.
Mr May said that there was plenty of room for Ms Lester to move out, and that the incident "would never had happened" if a professional driver was involved. He said that it was only her second race night drive. Mr May maintained the view that he held in the protest hearing that the horses on his inside played a significant role in the whole incident. He maintained that he was not at fault. He said that his horse's head was pointing to the inside and that the horse caused the movement.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr May held his view that Ms Lester's inexperience was the cause of her contact with the outside wheel of his sulky and that it would never have happened had an experienced driver been involved.
Mr McIntyre did not take the opportunity to sum up as he believed that all of the evidence was well traversed.
Reasons for Decision:
The facts surrounding this charge arise from a point with about 150 metres to run. Mr May's horse was a favoured runner. He was looking for racing room. He found a gap and was able to take advantage of it. However, in the process, and after obtaining the gap, which presented him with a clear run for the line, his outward movement continued. "Silver Pocket's" near fore leg struck the outside wheel of Mr May's sulky, it stumbled and broke from its gait. At the time Mr May was busy pulling his horse's ear plugs, chasing it up with the whip and possibly trying to turn his horse's head inwards. He was driving with some vigour at that point.
We found in the protest hearing that Mr May was entitled to push Ms Lester out, but only if he could do so with safety. Mr May conceded that his horse was lugging out, but that fact, in our view placed a higher standard of care on Mr May, to make sure that he drove in a straight line. Mr May referred to horses on his inside drifting out, but we find as a fact, that the outward movement of those horses had finished at the time that the interference was caused, and that the actions of those horses therefore had no bearing on the incident that we are dealing with.
Even though Ms Lester could have moved outwards a little, as perhaps a more experienced horseman might have done, the fact of the matter was that Ms Lester was entitled to the ownership of the racing line that she was on. Mr May drifted across on to that line. He was not clear of her. We note that Ms Lester was having her second race night drive, but her inexperience, particularly in terms of what Mr May said she did in the back straight, we do not consider relevant to the charge against Mr May.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr McIntyre advised the hearing that in the 2011-2012 season Mr May had 749 drives and had only been charged on one occasion during that season, and was fined $200 on that occasion. However, the Stipendiary Stewards considered that the degree of carelessness was in the medium range bracket and submitted that a fine of between $300 and $350 should be imposed.
Mr May had no submissions to make on penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
We note that the Stipendiary Stewards consider that the standard of carelessness was in the medium range bracket. Another horse was nearly brought down and the consequences could have been quite serious.
We note that the Penalty Guide provides for a fine of $300 or a suspension of 8 drives.
However, we have to take into account Mr May's excellent driving record - it cannot be described in any other way. Thus, having taking as a starting point a fine of $300, uplifting it to $350 because of the degree of seriousness and then giving Mr May credit for his driving record, the end result is a fine of $300.
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: 6b5e335bbfafa8a5f7eb223133cf7545
informantnumber: A5274
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 26/07/2012
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 10 August 2012 - R 6
charge:
The information reads:
"You continued to allow your horse to shift outwards when not sufficiently clear to do so which caused significant interference to both "Silver Pocket" and "Advance Anvil".
facts:
As a result of an incident in race 6 whereby interference was caused to "Silver Pocket" and "Advance Anvil" a charge of careless driving was preferred against Mr May.
Both Mr May and Mr McIntyre agreed that the relevant parts of the evidence that were heard in the protest hearing could be adopted and to form part of the evidence for this hearing.
The concern was that having pushed Ms Lester out that he continued on his outwards movement and caused interference to both horses. Mr McIntyre said that even though there had been some outwards movement from horses inside Mr May, that at the material time, the actions of those horses had no bearing on the incident.
Mr McIntyre said that it could be clearly seen that Mr May having achieved the gap that became available, that it could be seen by his posture that he pulled the ear plugs and used the whip, continuing in the process, to drive on the line of Ms Lester. Mr McIntyre said that it was the Stipendiary Stewards' view that Mr May's first duty was to focus on keeping his horse straight. He pointed to the fact that Ms Lester had a horse immediately to her outside. He said that he had a clear and unobstructed run to the post but instead continued on his outward movement.
Mr May said that there was plenty of room for Ms Lester to move out, and that the incident "would never had happened" if a professional driver was involved. He said that it was only her second race night drive. Mr May maintained the view that he held in the protest hearing that the horses on his inside played a significant role in the whole incident. He maintained that he was not at fault. He said that his horse's head was pointing to the inside and that the horse caused the movement.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr May held his view that Ms Lester's inexperience was the cause of her contact with the outside wheel of his sulky and that it would never have happened had an experienced driver been involved.
Mr McIntyre did not take the opportunity to sum up as he believed that all of the evidence was well traversed.
reasonsfordecision:
The facts surrounding this charge arise from a point with about 150 metres to run. Mr May's horse was a favoured runner. He was looking for racing room. He found a gap and was able to take advantage of it. However, in the process, and after obtaining the gap, which presented him with a clear run for the line, his outward movement continued. "Silver Pocket's" near fore leg struck the outside wheel of Mr May's sulky, it stumbled and broke from its gait. At the time Mr May was busy pulling his horse's ear plugs, chasing it up with the whip and possibly trying to turn his horse's head inwards. He was driving with some vigour at that point.
We found in the protest hearing that Mr May was entitled to push Ms Lester out, but only if he could do so with safety. Mr May conceded that his horse was lugging out, but that fact, in our view placed a higher standard of care on Mr May, to make sure that he drove in a straight line. Mr May referred to horses on his inside drifting out, but we find as a fact, that the outward movement of those horses had finished at the time that the interference was caused, and that the actions of those horses therefore had no bearing on the incident that we are dealing with.
Even though Ms Lester could have moved outwards a little, as perhaps a more experienced horseman might have done, the fact of the matter was that Ms Lester was entitled to the ownership of the racing line that she was on. Mr May drifted across on to that line. He was not clear of her. We note that Ms Lester was having her second race night drive, but her inexperience, particularly in terms of what Mr May said she did in the back straight, we do not consider relevant to the charge against Mr May.
Decision:
Taking an overview of all of the evidence, including that heard in the protest hearing, we are satisfied that in terms of the appropriate standard of proof that the charge has been proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr McIntyre advised the hearing that in the 2011-2012 season Mr May had 749 drives and had only been charged on one occasion during that season, and was fined $200 on that occasion. However, the Stipendiary Stewards considered that the degree of carelessness was in the medium range bracket and submitted that a fine of between $300 and $350 should be imposed.
Mr May had no submissions to make on penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
We note that the Stipendiary Stewards consider that the standard of carelessness was in the medium range bracket. Another horse was nearly brought down and the consequences could have been quite serious.
We note that the Penalty Guide provides for a fine of $300 or a suspension of 8 drives.
However, we have to take into account Mr May's excellent driving record - it cannot be described in any other way. Thus, having taking as a starting point a fine of $300, uplifting it to $350 because of the degree of seriousness and then giving Mr May credit for his driving record, the end result is a fine of $300.
penalty:
Mr May is fined $300.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 869 (3)(b)
Informant: Mr N McIntyre - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: R May - Open Horseman
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d896d7898f1248da92bcbd38502a66c9
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 1a798d1445112df1a5f482df85ef7cbc
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 10/08/2012
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 10 August 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: KHales
meet_pm1: SChing
meet_pm2: none
name: NZ Metro TC