NZ Metro TC 10 February 2012 – R 9
ID: JCA17570
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 10 February 2012
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
JMillar
Race Date:
2012/02/10
Race Number:
R9
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
Penalty:
Mr McNally was fined the sum of $200.
Charge:
Improper driving.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 9, Anthony Shearer Limited Pink Batts Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr A L Ray, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr S R McNally, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (f) by Mr McNally, in that, as the driver of SEPPL in the race, he drove improperly in that he “drove his horse into the passing lane to improve his position when not entitled to do so”.
Mr McNally was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman shall in any race drive:
(f) improperly.
Mr Ray also referred to Clause 3 of the Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations which provides:
Except after entering the home straight for the last time in any race, no horse may use the expanded inside lane in an attempt to pass any other horse or horses or improve its position. Any horse which does so may be disqualified, or relegated under Rule 869 (8) and the horseman shall be in breach of Rule 869 (3) (f).
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Ray had Stipendiary Steward, Mr S W Wallis, show the start of the 2600 metres standing start race on video replays. Mr McNally, driving SEPPL, had drawn on the inside of the 10 metres runners. DRAGON’S DEN (R G Anderson) had drawn the inside of the front line. When the field was released, Mr Wallis alleged, DRAGON’S DEN had trotted away. Mr McNally had angled his horse down to the inside of DRAGON’S DEN and was clearly in the expanded inside line. If there had been no passing lane at the starting point, Mr McNally would not have been able to get up on the inside, Mr Wallis submitted, with DRAGON’S DEN having made a slow beginning.
Mr Ray said that, although DRAGON’S DEN had eventually galloped, Mr McNally had by that time committed himself to and was well established in that position in the passing lane and had improved his position.
Mr McNally stated that SEPPL has a tendency to “step to the outside” when the tapes are released, so he always lines up facing to the inside prior to the start. He pointed this out on the head-on video replay. He said that he was aware of the Clause in the Regulations (see above). He had gone to the inside when the field was released. He was driving a fast beginner and, knowing the “history” of DRAGON’S DEN, he was watching that horse trotting roughly. Had it not galloped, he knew that he was not entitled to go on its inside but, when it galloped, he decided to stay to the inside of it. Had it not galloped, he would have had to restrain and settle on the back of DRAGON’S DEN, he said.
Mr Ray submitted that Mr McNally was not entitled to put himself in the passing lane anticipating that something might happen, such as DRAGON’S DEN breaking. The Stewards could not condone horses entering the passing lane in anticipation of another horse or horses breaking, he said.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee was satisfied that Mr McNally’s actions were clearly in breach of the provisions of Clause 3 of the Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations which prohibits use of the expanded inside lane to pass another runner or improve position except in the run home. In some respects, it was unfortunate for Mr McNally that his horse had begun so quickly from its 10 metres behind starting point. However, it was apparent that, from the moment that the tapes were released, he was heading for the passing lane to the inside of DRAGON’S DEN. The Committee does not consider that the breaking of DRAGON’S DEN had any relevance to what happened. Mr McNally had already entered the passing lane and was established on the inside of DRAGON’S DEN when that runner broke.
Thereafter, he was able to easily get past DRAGON’S DEN while still clearly down in the passing lane, and improve his position. Mr McNally clearly gained an advantage in doing so but it did not, at the end of the race, aid him in finishing in a dividend or stakes-bearing placing. In any event, gaining an advantage is not an element of the charge.
Clause 3 of the Regulations deems such conduct to be improper driving and, therefore, the Committee was satisfied that, because Mr McNally’s actions were prohibited by Clause 3, he had driven improperly.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Ray stated that the Penalty Guide provides for “significant penalties” for improper driving ($1,000 or 20 drives), which were not warranted in Mr McNally’s case. He submitted that the Regulations required that he be charged with improper driving in the circumstances.
Mr McNally had a clear record.
Mr Ray submitted that a minimum financial penalty, in the vicinity of $200, was appropriate. He said that this case was at the very bottom on a scale of improper driving.
Mr McNally did not wish to say anything in relation to penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee agreed with Mr Ray that the Penalty Guide’s recommendations were not appropriate in the present case. It is probably fair to say that the Guide contemplates that the circumstances of a case of improper driving will be more serious than in the present case. This breach was in the nature of a technical one and almost trivial given that Mr McNally’s actions had no consequences to his horse or to any other runner. Having said that, we would add that the charge was quite properly brought by the Stipendiary Stewards, as it needs to be made clear to horsemen that it is not permissible to do what Mr McNally had done on this occasion. However, we repeat, it was not a serious breach.
Mr Ray submitted for a fine of in the vicinity of $200. The Committee regards a fine of $200 as the absolute minimum penalty for a charge of improper driving. The Committee decided that a fine of $200 should be imposed, which reflected the Committee’s assessment of the seriousness of the particular breach.
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: f36517773973dc0885fc914839eb60be
informantnumber: A5496
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 02/02/2012
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 10 February 2012 - R 9
charge:
Improper driving.
facts:
Following the running of Race 9, Anthony Shearer Limited Pink Batts Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr A L Ray, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr S R McNally, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (f) by Mr McNally, in that, as the driver of SEPPL in the race, he drove improperly in that he “drove his horse into the passing lane to improve his position when not entitled to do so”.
Mr McNally was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman shall in any race drive:
(f) improperly.
Mr Ray also referred to Clause 3 of the Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations which provides:
Except after entering the home straight for the last time in any race, no horse may use the expanded inside lane in an attempt to pass any other horse or horses or improve its position. Any horse which does so may be disqualified, or relegated under Rule 869 (8) and the horseman shall be in breach of Rule 869 (3) (f).
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Ray had Stipendiary Steward, Mr S W Wallis, show the start of the 2600 metres standing start race on video replays. Mr McNally, driving SEPPL, had drawn on the inside of the 10 metres runners. DRAGON’S DEN (R G Anderson) had drawn the inside of the front line. When the field was released, Mr Wallis alleged, DRAGON’S DEN had trotted away. Mr McNally had angled his horse down to the inside of DRAGON’S DEN and was clearly in the expanded inside line. If there had been no passing lane at the starting point, Mr McNally would not have been able to get up on the inside, Mr Wallis submitted, with DRAGON’S DEN having made a slow beginning.
Mr Ray said that, although DRAGON’S DEN had eventually galloped, Mr McNally had by that time committed himself to and was well established in that position in the passing lane and had improved his position.
Mr McNally stated that SEPPL has a tendency to “step to the outside” when the tapes are released, so he always lines up facing to the inside prior to the start. He pointed this out on the head-on video replay. He said that he was aware of the Clause in the Regulations (see above). He had gone to the inside when the field was released. He was driving a fast beginner and, knowing the “history” of DRAGON’S DEN, he was watching that horse trotting roughly. Had it not galloped, he knew that he was not entitled to go on its inside but, when it galloped, he decided to stay to the inside of it. Had it not galloped, he would have had to restrain and settle on the back of DRAGON’S DEN, he said.
Mr Ray submitted that Mr McNally was not entitled to put himself in the passing lane anticipating that something might happen, such as DRAGON’S DEN breaking. The Stewards could not condone horses entering the passing lane in anticipation of another horse or horses breaking, he said.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee was satisfied that Mr McNally’s actions were clearly in breach of the provisions of Clause 3 of the Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations which prohibits use of the expanded inside lane to pass another runner or improve position except in the run home. In some respects, it was unfortunate for Mr McNally that his horse had begun so quickly from its 10 metres behind starting point. However, it was apparent that, from the moment that the tapes were released, he was heading for the passing lane to the inside of DRAGON’S DEN. The Committee does not consider that the breaking of DRAGON’S DEN had any relevance to what happened. Mr McNally had already entered the passing lane and was established on the inside of DRAGON’S DEN when that runner broke.
Thereafter, he was able to easily get past DRAGON’S DEN while still clearly down in the passing lane, and improve his position. Mr McNally clearly gained an advantage in doing so but it did not, at the end of the race, aid him in finishing in a dividend or stakes-bearing placing. In any event, gaining an advantage is not an element of the charge.
Clause 3 of the Regulations deems such conduct to be improper driving and, therefore, the Committee was satisfied that, because Mr McNally’s actions were prohibited by Clause 3, he had driven improperly.
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Ray stated that the Penalty Guide provides for “significant penalties” for improper driving ($1,000 or 20 drives), which were not warranted in Mr McNally’s case. He submitted that the Regulations required that he be charged with improper driving in the circumstances.
Mr McNally had a clear record.
Mr Ray submitted that a minimum financial penalty, in the vicinity of $200, was appropriate. He said that this case was at the very bottom on a scale of improper driving.
Mr McNally did not wish to say anything in relation to penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee agreed with Mr Ray that the Penalty Guide’s recommendations were not appropriate in the present case. It is probably fair to say that the Guide contemplates that the circumstances of a case of improper driving will be more serious than in the present case. This breach was in the nature of a technical one and almost trivial given that Mr McNally’s actions had no consequences to his horse or to any other runner. Having said that, we would add that the charge was quite properly brought by the Stipendiary Stewards, as it needs to be made clear to horsemen that it is not permissible to do what Mr McNally had done on this occasion. However, we repeat, it was not a serious breach.
Mr Ray submitted for a fine of in the vicinity of $200. The Committee regards a fine of $200 as the absolute minimum penalty for a charge of improper driving. The Committee decided that a fine of $200 should be imposed, which reflected the Committee’s assessment of the seriousness of the particular breach.
penalty:
Mr McNally was fined the sum of $200.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(f)
Informant: A L Ray - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: S R McNally - Licensed Open Horseman
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 83b2ab552431d8a7cfdaf658386d507e
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 7575e6c0d56944d74a8a377c051ad511
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 10/02/2012
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 10 February 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: JMillar
meet_pm2: none
name: NZ Metro TC