NZ Metro TC 23 May 2013 – R 2
ID: JCA14572
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 23 May 2013
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
KHales
Race Date:
2013/05/23
Race Number:
R2
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
Penalty:
Mr Stratford’s Advanced Amateur Driver’s licence is suspended for a period of 4 months from after the conclusion of racing on Friday, 24 May 2013, up to and including 24 September 2013. In addition, Mr Stratford is fined the sum of $750.00.
Charge:
Incompetent driving (amended from dangerous driving)
Facts:
Following the running of Race 2, Bishopdale & Bush Inn TAB’s NZ Amateur Drivers Championship (Heat 1) Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, against Licensed Advanced Amateur Horseman, Mr M J Stratford, alleging that, as the driver of FIREBREAK in the race, he drove dangerously by steering his horse outwards when in a gallop contacting and checking TUSCALOOSA (J Kriechbaumer).
Mr Stratford was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
At the outset of the hearing, the seriousness of the charge was explained to Mr Stratford and he was offered by the Committee the opportunity of having the hearing of the charge adjourned to enable him more time to prepare a defence to the charge and/or to obtain assistance or legal advice. After a discussion, Mr Stratford elected to have the charge heard on the racenight and the hearing proceeded accordingly.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(d) incompetently
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Renault had Stipendiary Steward, Mr N M Ydgren show video replays of the incident shortly after the start of the 2600 metres mobile start race. He pointed out the positions of the two horses, FIREBREAK and TUSCALOOSA. Just past the winning post, FIREBREAK went into a gallop. Mr Stratford, in “a conscious and quite deliberate act”, then quite discernibly pulled on his right rein, dictating his horse wider and making contact with TUSCALOOSA, which was racing on its outside, with other runners also receiving some interference in attempting to avoid the skirmish. The “tug” on the right rein was “quite demonstrable”, Mr Ydgren submitted.
Mr Ydgren pointed out from the video replays, that there was “a lot of clear racing room” to Mr Stratford’s inside. Stewards would expect a driver, in this situation, to make an effort to take his horse to the inside where sufficient room did exist to avoid causing interference to any other runner.
Mr Kriechbaumer said that his horse had been travelling “quite nicely” when he heard some “yelling and screaming”. He could see that the horse to his inside, which was about a half length behind him, had gone into a gallop with its head pointing inwards. The head was then pointing outwards and he was then “in strife”, Mr Kriechbaumer said. His inside sulky wheel went under the belly of Mr Stratford’s horse – it was “quite dangerous”, he said. At the time, he did not know what the yelling was about. The contact was “very hard” and almost knocked his horse off its feet, he said. It happened too quickly for him to be able to take any evasive action.
Mr Stratford asked whether Mr Kriechbaumer whether he could have moved out to make room for him. Mr Kriechbaumer replied that he held his line as he could see that there was enough room inside Mr Stratford for him to pull into. He said that he believed that this is what Mr Stratford should have done.
Mr Renault, in summing up, submitted that Mr Stratford, clearly, had no other runner inside him when his horse galloped. He should have made a greater effort to go to the inside to avoid any horses around him. He had no regard for the safety of others, especially those outside him. He submitted that Mr Stratford had made an intentional move outwards and in doing so has taken the line of and contacted Mr Kriechbaumer.
At the request of the Committee, Mr Renault read Rule 870 (1) which set out the obligations of a driver of a horse which breaks from its gait in a race.
Where any horse breaks from its gait in any race its horseman shall immediately take all reasonable steps to return it to its proper gait and where clearance exists immediately take such horse clear of the field.
The hearing was then adjourned as another race was about to start. Upon resumption of the hearing, the Committee announced that it proposed to exercise its power under Rule 1111 (4) to amend the information by substituting a charge of incompetent driving under Rule 869(3)(a) for the charge of dangerous driving alleged in the information. In the Committee’s view, a charge of incompetent driving was more appropriate than a charge of dangerous driving, based on the evidence adduced by the Stewards.
Mr Stratford was then asked whether he admitted the information as amended. He stated that he denied the substituted charge of incompetent driving. With the consent of the parties, the Committee agreed to accept the evidence already given as applying to the amended information. The hearing then continued.
Mr Stratford said that the horse had a Murphy blind and a boring pole, so it obviously had “steering issues”. In the preliminary, the horse shied and ran out on three occasions, he said. He then referred to the video replay. He had drawn position 1 on the second row (the Committee noted that FIREBREAK was the only horse in the second row). He conceded that there was a gap on his inside. He had moved down slightly and pointed out that the horse’s head had “gone round a wee bit”. As soon as he tried to pull on it, the horse ran out and galloped, he said. The gallop was so strong that the horse continued to gallop. He submitted that there was no way that he could get the horse to go to the inside.
Mr Stratford submitted that it was not obvious that he went to pull the horse out – there was no reason that he would want to do that. It was the New Zealand Championship and he was out to get points in the competition. He had tried to “reef” the horse’s mouth in the hope of settling him down. The horse took exception to that and would not settle but, rather, kept galloping for some distance and continued to run out, heading to the outside fence. It was “uncontrollable”, he submitted. It was not a nice horse to drive.
He had not driven incompetently, Mr Stratford submitted. It was the horse’s fault what happened. He took all the action he could, he said. He had reefed the horse’s mouth as a “desperation thing” to attempt to keep the horse straight. Mr Stratford acknowledged that he was aware of the obligations of a driver under Rule 870 (1).
Mr Renault then cross-examined Mr Stratford. Mr Stratford agreed that his horse was running outwards. When the horse broke he felt he could control it. The horse was “very gradually” moving out and he felt he had to do something. He conceded that he had done a “reefing action” on the right rein but disputed that he had “pulled” on it.
Reasons for Decision:
Mr Stratford has been charged with driving dangerously in Race 2 in that he steered his horse FIREBREAK, outwards when in a gallop contacting and checking TUSCALOOSA, driven by Mr Kriechbaumer, causing that horse to gallop and lose all chance. The charge of dangerous driving was amended by the Committee to one of incompetent driving at the conclusion of the Stewards’ evidence.
The Committee has carefully listened to the evidence of both parties and has carefully viewed replays of the incident which took place some 300 metres after the start of Race 2. The video replays available were from several different angles.
The Committee finds that FIREBREAK, driven by Mr Stratford, was racing away from the pylons approaching the turn out of the home straight with TUSCALOOSA racing to the outside and in front of FIREBREAK. At that point, FIREBREAK went off stride. Mr Stratford said that he attempted to steer the horse to the inside, where there was sufficient room, but that the horse raced uncontrollably and, despite his efforts, the horse ran out and continued to do so and, in the process, made contact with TUSCALOOSA causing severe interference to that runner and inconveniencing at least one other runner.
What was significant, in the Committee’s view, was that Mr Stratford could clearly be seen to pull firmly on the right rein after his horse galloped. Mr Stratford’s explanation for that was that he was trying to correct the horse by “reefing on its mouth”. The Committee does not accept that explanation. The Committee finds that Mr Stratford, instead of opting to either maintain a straight line or to steer his horse to the inside where there was room to do so, attempted to steer the horse to the outside of the field.
We do not believe that these were the actions of a reasonably competent horseman. Mr Stratford took the wrong course of action when his horse galloped. He took an option that was not available to him – that is to say, to steer to the middle or outside of the track where room did not exist. The Committee finds that Mr Stratford, viewed objectively, did not exercise the appropriate standard of care.
We find that he drove incompetently and, therefore, we find the charged proved.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Renault stated that Mr Stratford was one of the more experienced amateur drivers. He drives in every amateur drivers’ race that is run. He has a clear record.
Mr Renault referred to the Penalty Guide which, he said, provides a starting point for a breach of the Rule of 80 drives or a $4,000 fine. Charges under the particular Rule are rare. Mr Stratford was entitled to no credit for admitting the breach. The breach was “mid-range”, Mr Renault submitted. He had caused severe interference to TUSCALOOSA.
Mr Stratford said that amateur drivers in the South Island have 2 totalisator drives per month. He is driving in Round 2 of the Championship on 24 May, where he is confirmed for 2 drives. He submitted that a fair penalty would be “one or two drives” – 1 month’s suspension. He confirmed that he was in a position to pay a fine and submitted that the Committee consider a fine rather than a suspension or, possibly, a combination of the two.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Penalty Guide recommends a starting point for penalty for incompetent driving of 80 drives or a fine of $4,000. It is not a simple exercise applying this in the case of an amateur driver because of the limited opportunities for amateur drivers and because, by definition, he does not receive driving fees or percentages.
The principal aggravating factor is that the chances of another runner were totally extinguished and other runners were affected to varying degrees. It was fortuitous that the consequences were not more serious – Mr Kriechbaumer said that his horse was nearly knocked down. Furthermore, the Committee assesses the degree of incompetence in the mid-high range, more serious than as submitted by Mr Renault. Another aggravating factor was that the race was Heat 1 in the New Zealand Amateur Drivers’ Championship and, while the stake for the race was only $6,000, the Championship is the national showpiece for amateur drivers. It follows that it is of no little importance as far as the competitors are concerned and Mr Kriechbaumer was deprived of the opportunity to score more than minimal points in the race.
Taking all factors into account, the Committee assessed that the appropriate number of drives to be considered for a suspension was in the region of 20-25 but we were able to shorten the period, which would otherwise have been in the vicinity of 10-12 months, by imposing a combined penalty of a suspension together with a fine. Mr Stratford indicated that he favoured a combined penalty over a long term of suspension.
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: 947c0f531db5c53b80c15363d5a224f4
informantnumber: A1982
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 26/05/2013
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 23 May 2013 - R 2
charge:
Incompetent driving (amended from dangerous driving)
facts:
Following the running of Race 2, Bishopdale & Bush Inn TAB’s NZ Amateur Drivers Championship (Heat 1) Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, against Licensed Advanced Amateur Horseman, Mr M J Stratford, alleging that, as the driver of FIREBREAK in the race, he drove dangerously by steering his horse outwards when in a gallop contacting and checking TUSCALOOSA (J Kriechbaumer).
Mr Stratford was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
At the outset of the hearing, the seriousness of the charge was explained to Mr Stratford and he was offered by the Committee the opportunity of having the hearing of the charge adjourned to enable him more time to prepare a defence to the charge and/or to obtain assistance or legal advice. After a discussion, Mr Stratford elected to have the charge heard on the racenight and the hearing proceeded accordingly.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(d) incompetently
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Renault had Stipendiary Steward, Mr N M Ydgren show video replays of the incident shortly after the start of the 2600 metres mobile start race. He pointed out the positions of the two horses, FIREBREAK and TUSCALOOSA. Just past the winning post, FIREBREAK went into a gallop. Mr Stratford, in “a conscious and quite deliberate act”, then quite discernibly pulled on his right rein, dictating his horse wider and making contact with TUSCALOOSA, which was racing on its outside, with other runners also receiving some interference in attempting to avoid the skirmish. The “tug” on the right rein was “quite demonstrable”, Mr Ydgren submitted.
Mr Ydgren pointed out from the video replays, that there was “a lot of clear racing room” to Mr Stratford’s inside. Stewards would expect a driver, in this situation, to make an effort to take his horse to the inside where sufficient room did exist to avoid causing interference to any other runner.
Mr Kriechbaumer said that his horse had been travelling “quite nicely” when he heard some “yelling and screaming”. He could see that the horse to his inside, which was about a half length behind him, had gone into a gallop with its head pointing inwards. The head was then pointing outwards and he was then “in strife”, Mr Kriechbaumer said. His inside sulky wheel went under the belly of Mr Stratford’s horse – it was “quite dangerous”, he said. At the time, he did not know what the yelling was about. The contact was “very hard” and almost knocked his horse off its feet, he said. It happened too quickly for him to be able to take any evasive action.
Mr Stratford asked whether Mr Kriechbaumer whether he could have moved out to make room for him. Mr Kriechbaumer replied that he held his line as he could see that there was enough room inside Mr Stratford for him to pull into. He said that he believed that this is what Mr Stratford should have done.
Mr Renault, in summing up, submitted that Mr Stratford, clearly, had no other runner inside him when his horse galloped. He should have made a greater effort to go to the inside to avoid any horses around him. He had no regard for the safety of others, especially those outside him. He submitted that Mr Stratford had made an intentional move outwards and in doing so has taken the line of and contacted Mr Kriechbaumer.
At the request of the Committee, Mr Renault read Rule 870 (1) which set out the obligations of a driver of a horse which breaks from its gait in a race.
Where any horse breaks from its gait in any race its horseman shall immediately take all reasonable steps to return it to its proper gait and where clearance exists immediately take such horse clear of the field.
The hearing was then adjourned as another race was about to start. Upon resumption of the hearing, the Committee announced that it proposed to exercise its power under Rule 1111 (4) to amend the information by substituting a charge of incompetent driving under Rule 869(3)(a) for the charge of dangerous driving alleged in the information. In the Committee’s view, a charge of incompetent driving was more appropriate than a charge of dangerous driving, based on the evidence adduced by the Stewards.
Mr Stratford was then asked whether he admitted the information as amended. He stated that he denied the substituted charge of incompetent driving. With the consent of the parties, the Committee agreed to accept the evidence already given as applying to the amended information. The hearing then continued.
Mr Stratford said that the horse had a Murphy blind and a boring pole, so it obviously had “steering issues”. In the preliminary, the horse shied and ran out on three occasions, he said. He then referred to the video replay. He had drawn position 1 on the second row (the Committee noted that FIREBREAK was the only horse in the second row). He conceded that there was a gap on his inside. He had moved down slightly and pointed out that the horse’s head had “gone round a wee bit”. As soon as he tried to pull on it, the horse ran out and galloped, he said. The gallop was so strong that the horse continued to gallop. He submitted that there was no way that he could get the horse to go to the inside.
Mr Stratford submitted that it was not obvious that he went to pull the horse out – there was no reason that he would want to do that. It was the New Zealand Championship and he was out to get points in the competition. He had tried to “reef” the horse’s mouth in the hope of settling him down. The horse took exception to that and would not settle but, rather, kept galloping for some distance and continued to run out, heading to the outside fence. It was “uncontrollable”, he submitted. It was not a nice horse to drive.
He had not driven incompetently, Mr Stratford submitted. It was the horse’s fault what happened. He took all the action he could, he said. He had reefed the horse’s mouth as a “desperation thing” to attempt to keep the horse straight. Mr Stratford acknowledged that he was aware of the obligations of a driver under Rule 870 (1).
Mr Renault then cross-examined Mr Stratford. Mr Stratford agreed that his horse was running outwards. When the horse broke he felt he could control it. The horse was “very gradually” moving out and he felt he had to do something. He conceded that he had done a “reefing action” on the right rein but disputed that he had “pulled” on it.
reasonsfordecision:
Mr Stratford has been charged with driving dangerously in Race 2 in that he steered his horse FIREBREAK, outwards when in a gallop contacting and checking TUSCALOOSA, driven by Mr Kriechbaumer, causing that horse to gallop and lose all chance. The charge of dangerous driving was amended by the Committee to one of incompetent driving at the conclusion of the Stewards’ evidence.
The Committee has carefully listened to the evidence of both parties and has carefully viewed replays of the incident which took place some 300 metres after the start of Race 2. The video replays available were from several different angles.
The Committee finds that FIREBREAK, driven by Mr Stratford, was racing away from the pylons approaching the turn out of the home straight with TUSCALOOSA racing to the outside and in front of FIREBREAK. At that point, FIREBREAK went off stride. Mr Stratford said that he attempted to steer the horse to the inside, where there was sufficient room, but that the horse raced uncontrollably and, despite his efforts, the horse ran out and continued to do so and, in the process, made contact with TUSCALOOSA causing severe interference to that runner and inconveniencing at least one other runner.
What was significant, in the Committee’s view, was that Mr Stratford could clearly be seen to pull firmly on the right rein after his horse galloped. Mr Stratford’s explanation for that was that he was trying to correct the horse by “reefing on its mouth”. The Committee does not accept that explanation. The Committee finds that Mr Stratford, instead of opting to either maintain a straight line or to steer his horse to the inside where there was room to do so, attempted to steer the horse to the outside of the field.
We do not believe that these were the actions of a reasonably competent horseman. Mr Stratford took the wrong course of action when his horse galloped. He took an option that was not available to him – that is to say, to steer to the middle or outside of the track where room did not exist. The Committee finds that Mr Stratford, viewed objectively, did not exercise the appropriate standard of care.
We find that he drove incompetently and, therefore, we find the charged proved.
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Renault stated that Mr Stratford was one of the more experienced amateur drivers. He drives in every amateur drivers’ race that is run. He has a clear record.
Mr Renault referred to the Penalty Guide which, he said, provides a starting point for a breach of the Rule of 80 drives or a $4,000 fine. Charges under the particular Rule are rare. Mr Stratford was entitled to no credit for admitting the breach. The breach was “mid-range”, Mr Renault submitted. He had caused severe interference to TUSCALOOSA.
Mr Stratford said that amateur drivers in the South Island have 2 totalisator drives per month. He is driving in Round 2 of the Championship on 24 May, where he is confirmed for 2 drives. He submitted that a fair penalty would be “one or two drives” – 1 month’s suspension. He confirmed that he was in a position to pay a fine and submitted that the Committee consider a fine rather than a suspension or, possibly, a combination of the two.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Penalty Guide recommends a starting point for penalty for incompetent driving of 80 drives or a fine of $4,000. It is not a simple exercise applying this in the case of an amateur driver because of the limited opportunities for amateur drivers and because, by definition, he does not receive driving fees or percentages.
The principal aggravating factor is that the chances of another runner were totally extinguished and other runners were affected to varying degrees. It was fortuitous that the consequences were not more serious – Mr Kriechbaumer said that his horse was nearly knocked down. Furthermore, the Committee assesses the degree of incompetence in the mid-high range, more serious than as submitted by Mr Renault. Another aggravating factor was that the race was Heat 1 in the New Zealand Amateur Drivers’ Championship and, while the stake for the race was only $6,000, the Championship is the national showpiece for amateur drivers. It follows that it is of no little importance as far as the competitors are concerned and Mr Kriechbaumer was deprived of the opportunity to score more than minimal points in the race.
Taking all factors into account, the Committee assessed that the appropriate number of drives to be considered for a suspension was in the region of 20-25 but we were able to shorten the period, which would otherwise have been in the vicinity of 10-12 months, by imposing a combined penalty of a suspension together with a fine. Mr Stratford indicated that he favoured a combined penalty over a long term of suspension.
penalty:
Mr Stratford’s Advanced Amateur Driver’s licence is suspended for a period of 4 months from after the conclusion of racing on Friday, 24 May 2013, up to and including 24 September 2013. In addition, Mr Stratford is fined the sum of $750.00.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 869(3)(a)
Informant: S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: M J Stratford, Licensed Advanced Amateur Driver
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 2551cb4ae8703df6116bc56843f61431
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 68765a5655283fabf21022404e588b38
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 23/05/2013
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 23 May 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: KHales
meet_pm2: none
name: NZ Metro TC