NZ Metro TC – 14 July 2006 – Race 10

hearingid: 64a563f86db43aedb5f2147bdd4deece

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 14/07/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 14 July 2006 - Race 10

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 10, Neutrogena Norwegian Formula Pace, an information was filed by Licensed Open Driver, Mr D J Williamson, requesting a ruling by the Commitee

Following the running of Race 10, Neutrogena Norwegian Formula Pace, an information was filed by Licensed Open Driver, Mr D J Williamson, requesting a ruling by the Commitee as follows:

Mr Williamson was the driver and also the trainer of RESALUTION BAY in Race 10. He had lodged a complaint with the Stipendiary Stewards following the race to the effect that the starter should be charged but the Stipendiary Stewards indicated that they did not intend to bring any such charge. The Stipendiary Stewards consented to the matter being dealt with by way of a request for a ruling by Mr Williamson to the Judicial Committee.

Present at the hearing of the information, in addition to the Stipendiary Stewards, were Mr Williamson, the starter Mr J P Mulcay and the starter's assistant, Mr S Cameron.

The Chairman, at the commencement of the hearing, informed the hearing that the function of the Committee in this matter was not to hear a charge but rather to hear submissions from Mr Williamson, Mr Mulcay and the Stipendiary Stewards to enable it to rule whether the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards not to bring a charge against Mr Mulcay in relation to the start of the race was wrong.

Mr Williamson was invited to make submissions to the Committee in support of his contention that Mr Mulcay should be charged. Mr Williamson said that he felt he was denied a fair start when the starter and his assistant failed in their duty to ensure that he could, firstly, turn around and, secondly, safely walk up into his position before the start was dispatched. He pointed out that his horse was the only horse drawn to start on the second row. Mr Williamson further said that the front row horses had been allowed to walk around in the second row during the walkaround. This was the cause of the problem, he said. The starter's assistant told him he was required to start behind the horse drawn 2 on the front line. As the front row horses began to walk in and as Mr Williamson was turning round, the front row horses on the second row were walking in in front of him. He had to stop to let them get in, he said. The starter was not looking at him, Mr Williamson alleged, or he would have seen that Mr Williamson was impeded by the front row horses coming in in front of him. At this point, Mr Williamson claimed, he was told by the starter's assistant to hurry up. By this time, Mr Williamson had turned around but was unable to drive his horse into the back of the front row horses which would happen if the starter did not let the field go. He had no choice but to just walk up, he claimed. He contended that the starter should have seen that he had the right to walk up safely. He was unable to "hurry up" until he had turned around. As a consequence, Mr Williamson claimed that his horse was denied a fair start through no fault on his part. Mr Williamson demonstrated his argument by using the video replay.

Starter, Mr Mulcay, stated that as the horses paraded around he called out to Mr Williamson. He did not acknowledge and may not have heard. Mr Mulcay had told him he was to start at No.2 on the second row in view of the pole horse asking permission to go out in the second row before coming up and taking its position. This had earlier been discussed with Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Escott. It has been the procedure for the last 4 years, Mr Mulcay said, that the two outside horses are always "put out the back" to walk round so that they can come up and not impede the other horses on the front. In other words, there is only a circle of 8 not 10. This system has worked very satisfactorily, Mr Mulcay said. He called out to Mr Williamson to come in at No.2. He than called this out to his assistant, Mr Cameron. Mr Williamson's horse was the only one on the second row and it was up to him to drive his horse in such a manner that, when he is called up, he is up into his position. Mr Mulcay denied that Mr Williamson had been impeded by the two outside horses. He asserted that they came in behind Mr Williamson and took up their places. Mr Williamson proceeded to turn round again and was told by the starter's assistant to hurry up. The ten horses on the front row were entitled to stand there for a reasonable amount of time ? why should they be asked to wait for one horse that is not prepared to get up and take up its position, Mr Mulcay said. The other horses came up inside Mr Williamson and took up their positions. Once they were in line, the start was dispatched. Mr Williamson had been "fiddling around" before deciding to turn in when he was told. He came up, was facing the starter in the correct manner and was actually "jogging up". At that point, Mr Mulcay said, he let the field go. Mr Mulcay said he was of the

opinion that Mr Williamson was not impeded because it was his responsibility as a professional horseman to be in place and drive his horse, not to hold up the rest of the field.

In response, Mr Williamson stated that he did not know when the field was going to be dispatched. He said he had not heard Mr Mulcay yelling to him. It would have only required Mr Mulcay to wait another two seconds. Mr Williamson further claimed that, at no point prior to the dispatch, was every horse standing.

Mr Escott stated that the incident had been "fairly well aired". He said that, as far as the Stipendiary Stewards were concerned, they had heard the statements of both parties and had decided not to prefer charges. The purpose of the request by Mr Willamson was to determine whether an information should be filed.

Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:

"We have, obviously, listened carefully to what everybody has had to say and we have looked at the videos. The situation, as we see it, is that the Stipendiary Stewards have a discretion in any particular instance as to whether or not they will bring a charge against a driver, a trainer, a starter, whoever. On race night the only people who can bring charges are Stipendiary Stewards. Now, the Stipendiary Stewards have looked at this, they have obviously had discussions with all of you before we came into the room tonight. They have decided to exercise their discretion not to bring a charge, in this case, against the starter, Mr Mulcay. There is nothing that we have seen or heard that persuades us to interfere with the exercise of the Stipendiary Stewards' discretion in this case. So, it is our ruling that the application by Mr Williamson to have the Stipendiary Stewards' decision reviewed with a view to their bringing a charge, that application is dismissed. We are satisfied that the Stipendiary Stewards have exercised their discretion in a proper fashion. We are not prepared to rule that a charge should be brought in those circumstances.

R G McKenzie

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: d28e8b6c77541d8b1529b6cc44ade482

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 10

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: eef1657e95fc329646657d1fc58476be

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 14/07/2006

meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 14 July 2006

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: nz-metro-tc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: NZ Metro TC