NZ Metro TC 26 August 2011 – R 4
ID: JCA11462
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 26 August 2011
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
JMillar
Race Date:
2011/08/26
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
Penalty:
Mr Williamson’s Junior Horseman’s Licence was suspended from after the conclusion of racing on Friday, 2 September 2011 up to and including 6 September 2011 – 2 driving days. In addition, Mr Williamson was fined the sum of $300.
Charge:
Failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 4, Vero Handicap Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr N M Ydgren, against Licensed Junior Driver, Mr M W Williamson, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that Mr Williamson “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures in the run home when driving RANGATAUA RAY when electing to stay on the back of MR CHROME when there was a run on the inside”.
Mr Williamson was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach. Mr Williamson, being a Junior Driver, was assisted at the hearing of the information by Licensed Open Driver, Mr J F Curtin.
Mr Williamson was offered the opportunity by the Committee to have the hearing of the charge adjourned but elected not to do so.
Rule 868 provides as follows:
(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Ydgren said that RANGATAUA RAY had been racing 3-back on the markers approaching the home turn, following MR CHROME (M P Jones) which was trailing the leader, LIONELS MEDDLE (J R Dunn). Upon entering the home straight, MR CHROME shifted into the passing lane. Mr Ydgren said that the head-on video would show that there was a “significant and substantial gap “on the inside of MR CHROME which, the Stewards believed, Mr Williamson should have attempted to improve into.
Mr N G McIntyre, Stipendiary Steward, showed video replays of the final 300 metres of the race. He pointed out MR CHROME enter the passing lane with RANGATAUA RAY on that horse’s back. Mr Williamson had notified the Stewards after the race that he had not activated the removable earplugs. Mr Williamson had elected to stay on the back of Mr Jones despite there being a clear run to the inside.
Mr McIntyre said that LIONELS MEDDLE had shifted up the track which had allowed Mr Jones extra space into the passing lane which, in turn, had allowed space to the inside for Mr Williamson, which he had not taken.
Mr Curtin submitted that the video showed that Mr Williamson had initially come out for a run between LIONELS MEDDLE and MR CHROME but a gap did not eventuate. Mr Ydgren said that this was accepted by the Stewards.
Mr Williamson said that, when he went to take the inside run, MR CHROME’s head could be seen to turn back in and he believed that there was not a run available on the inside of that horse, although he conceded that the head-on video showed that there was a run. He submitted that the head-on angle was deceptive.
Mr Williamson asked for the rear-on video to be shown. Mr Ydgren pointed out that it was not a true rear-on. Mr Williamson submitted that Mr Jones had been looking inside and out, intending to obstruct Mr Williamson in whichever run he took. Mr Ydgren submitted, in response, that Mr Jones was required to maintain a straight course in the run home and had done so – at all times there was a clear gap to the inside for Mr Williamson to at least attempt to mount his challenge. Mr Williamson responded that he did not believe there was room and, if he had attempted a run on the inside, he would have struck or gone over pylons or struck the wheel of MR CHROME.
Mr M P Jones, Licensed Open Driver, driver of MR CHROME, gave evidence to the hearing. Mr Jones said that he had tried to deny Mr Williamson a run in the home straight. The video replays were then shown to Mr Jones. He believed that he had not left sufficient room for Mr Williamson and, had he done so, he would have “kept coming down”. He had first right to the passing lane, he said.
Mr Williamson said that it would have got tight if he tried to improve on the inside of Mr Jones. Mr Ydgren strongly disagreed, submitting that Mr Jones had not even entered the passing lane. Furthermore, Mr Jones was not entitled to change his position to block trailing runners. Mr Jones accepted that had barely gone into the passing lane.
Mr Curtin said that it was “a very tricky one”. He could see the position from both points of view, he said. From viewing the side-on replay, it appeared that there was no run available on the inside but, viewing the head-on, it was a “different kettle of fish”, Mr Curtin said. Mr Williamson was a very good driver but had convinced himself that there was not a run available and had driven accordingly, Mr Curtin said. Mr Williamson repeated that it felt as though there was not a run and Mr Jones had confirmed that, he submitted. It looked “way worse than it felt”, he said.
In conclusion, Mr Ydgren submitted that the onus was on Mr Williamson to give his horse every possible opportunity to obtain the best possible finishing position. The head-on video replay showed that, at all stages of the run home, there was clear space on the inside, and Mr Williamson should have attempted to access it. Mr Williamson maintained that he was unaware the gap was there but, after seeing the replay, had conceded that sufficient room did exist, Mr Ydgren said. That was clear from the head-on video replay, he submitted. To have taken the run would have been both reasonable and permissible. He had failed to do so and therefore fell within the Rule.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee found that, after turning for home, Mr Jones driving MR CHROME, who had been trailing the leader, entered the passing lane. Momentarily, it appeared that a gap would be available between MR CHROME and LIONELS MEDDLE, which had led into the straight. That gap did not come. However, Mr Jones in our view maintained a straight line all the way down the straight, as he was obliged to do, with Mr Williamson still on his back.
The Stipendiary Stewards’ allegation was that Mr Williamson had breached the Rule in failing to take a run on the inside of MR CHROME in the home straight. They relied almost solely on the head-on video replay of the run home and alleged that there was, at all times in the run home, a clear and sufficient run for Mr Williamson.
Mr Williamson, for his part, told the Committee that he believed that there was no such run available and submitted that the head-on video replay was deceptive. He said that, it was his belief that, had he attempted a run to the inside of Mr Jones, he would have been tightened to the extent that he would have struck pylons or struck the wheel of Mr Jones.
Mr Williamson called Mr M P Jones, driver of MR CHROME to give evidence on his behalf. Mr Jones’ evidence can best be described as unconvincing and unhelpful.
In this case, the Committee found the head-on video replay to be compelling and decisive. It clearly supported the contention of the Stipendiary Stewards that, for at least the final 180 metres of the run home, there was a clear run for RANGATAUA RAY in the passing lane and that Mr Williamson had failed to avail himself of the opportunity to take that run. Mr Williamson had made a serious error of judgement in not attempting to take the run or even, it appeared to look for a run, and he had thereby denied his horse the opportunity of finishing in a higher finishing position. In not fulfilling his obligation to look to see if there was a run, he had failed to take all reasonable and permissible opportunities and had therefore breached the Rule.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Ydgren informed the Committee that Mr Williamson, last season, had 611 drives and has had 1,349 lifetime drives. He is a very busy horseman. He has a clear record of breaches under the Rule.
Mr Ydgren referred to the Penalty Guide which recommended, as a starting point for a breach of the Rule, a 15 drives’ suspension or a fine of $750. Mr Williamson accepted Mr Ydgren’s submission that he would have, on average, 4-5 drives per meeting. The breach was not at the top end of the scale, Mr Ydgren said. He submitted that an appropriate penalty was a suspension of 2-3 days.
Mr Williamson informed the Committee that he did have driving engagements within the next 7 days and, in particular, the Island of Origin Drivers Series at Auckland on 2 September 2011, and he sought a deferment of any suspension for that period pursuant to Rule.
Mr Ydgren said that he would be opposed to a fine but would have no objection to a combined penalty of a suspension and a fine.
Mr Williamson asked the Committee to consider a fine only. He submitted that he had made an honest mistake in not thinking that there was a run, although he conceded that it looked bad. Mr Curtin said that he agreed with that.
Reasons for Penalty:
In determining penalty, the Committee took into account, as a mitigating factor, Mr Williamson’s previous good record under the Rule. The Committee assessed the offending as being mid-range. It involved a quite bad error of judgement on Mr Williamson’s part, denying a favoured runner the opportunity of finishing in a higher finishing position.
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: 209a15a62110b2c85b7e9b40a9429b76
informantnumber: 69506
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 30/08/2011
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 26 August 2011 - R 4
charge:
Failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures.
facts:
Following the running of Race 4, Vero Handicap Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr N M Ydgren, against Licensed Junior Driver, Mr M W Williamson, alleging a breach of Rule 868 (2) in that Mr Williamson “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures in the run home when driving RANGATAUA RAY when electing to stay on the back of MR CHROME when there was a run on the inside”.
Mr Williamson was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach. Mr Williamson, being a Junior Driver, was assisted at the hearing of the information by Licensed Open Driver, Mr J F Curtin.
Mr Williamson was offered the opportunity by the Committee to have the hearing of the charge adjourned but elected not to do so.
Rule 868 provides as follows:
(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Ydgren said that RANGATAUA RAY had been racing 3-back on the markers approaching the home turn, following MR CHROME (M P Jones) which was trailing the leader, LIONELS MEDDLE (J R Dunn). Upon entering the home straight, MR CHROME shifted into the passing lane. Mr Ydgren said that the head-on video would show that there was a “significant and substantial gap “on the inside of MR CHROME which, the Stewards believed, Mr Williamson should have attempted to improve into.
Mr N G McIntyre, Stipendiary Steward, showed video replays of the final 300 metres of the race. He pointed out MR CHROME enter the passing lane with RANGATAUA RAY on that horse’s back. Mr Williamson had notified the Stewards after the race that he had not activated the removable earplugs. Mr Williamson had elected to stay on the back of Mr Jones despite there being a clear run to the inside.
Mr McIntyre said that LIONELS MEDDLE had shifted up the track which had allowed Mr Jones extra space into the passing lane which, in turn, had allowed space to the inside for Mr Williamson, which he had not taken.
Mr Curtin submitted that the video showed that Mr Williamson had initially come out for a run between LIONELS MEDDLE and MR CHROME but a gap did not eventuate. Mr Ydgren said that this was accepted by the Stewards.
Mr Williamson said that, when he went to take the inside run, MR CHROME’s head could be seen to turn back in and he believed that there was not a run available on the inside of that horse, although he conceded that the head-on video showed that there was a run. He submitted that the head-on angle was deceptive.
Mr Williamson asked for the rear-on video to be shown. Mr Ydgren pointed out that it was not a true rear-on. Mr Williamson submitted that Mr Jones had been looking inside and out, intending to obstruct Mr Williamson in whichever run he took. Mr Ydgren submitted, in response, that Mr Jones was required to maintain a straight course in the run home and had done so – at all times there was a clear gap to the inside for Mr Williamson to at least attempt to mount his challenge. Mr Williamson responded that he did not believe there was room and, if he had attempted a run on the inside, he would have struck or gone over pylons or struck the wheel of MR CHROME.
Mr M P Jones, Licensed Open Driver, driver of MR CHROME, gave evidence to the hearing. Mr Jones said that he had tried to deny Mr Williamson a run in the home straight. The video replays were then shown to Mr Jones. He believed that he had not left sufficient room for Mr Williamson and, had he done so, he would have “kept coming down”. He had first right to the passing lane, he said.
Mr Williamson said that it would have got tight if he tried to improve on the inside of Mr Jones. Mr Ydgren strongly disagreed, submitting that Mr Jones had not even entered the passing lane. Furthermore, Mr Jones was not entitled to change his position to block trailing runners. Mr Jones accepted that had barely gone into the passing lane.
Mr Curtin said that it was “a very tricky one”. He could see the position from both points of view, he said. From viewing the side-on replay, it appeared that there was no run available on the inside but, viewing the head-on, it was a “different kettle of fish”, Mr Curtin said. Mr Williamson was a very good driver but had convinced himself that there was not a run available and had driven accordingly, Mr Curtin said. Mr Williamson repeated that it felt as though there was not a run and Mr Jones had confirmed that, he submitted. It looked “way worse than it felt”, he said.
In conclusion, Mr Ydgren submitted that the onus was on Mr Williamson to give his horse every possible opportunity to obtain the best possible finishing position. The head-on video replay showed that, at all stages of the run home, there was clear space on the inside, and Mr Williamson should have attempted to access it. Mr Williamson maintained that he was unaware the gap was there but, after seeing the replay, had conceded that sufficient room did exist, Mr Ydgren said. That was clear from the head-on video replay, he submitted. To have taken the run would have been both reasonable and permissible. He had failed to do so and therefore fell within the Rule.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee found that, after turning for home, Mr Jones driving MR CHROME, who had been trailing the leader, entered the passing lane. Momentarily, it appeared that a gap would be available between MR CHROME and LIONELS MEDDLE, which had led into the straight. That gap did not come. However, Mr Jones in our view maintained a straight line all the way down the straight, as he was obliged to do, with Mr Williamson still on his back.
The Stipendiary Stewards’ allegation was that Mr Williamson had breached the Rule in failing to take a run on the inside of MR CHROME in the home straight. They relied almost solely on the head-on video replay of the run home and alleged that there was, at all times in the run home, a clear and sufficient run for Mr Williamson.
Mr Williamson, for his part, told the Committee that he believed that there was no such run available and submitted that the head-on video replay was deceptive. He said that, it was his belief that, had he attempted a run to the inside of Mr Jones, he would have been tightened to the extent that he would have struck pylons or struck the wheel of Mr Jones.
Mr Williamson called Mr M P Jones, driver of MR CHROME to give evidence on his behalf. Mr Jones’ evidence can best be described as unconvincing and unhelpful.
In this case, the Committee found the head-on video replay to be compelling and decisive. It clearly supported the contention of the Stipendiary Stewards that, for at least the final 180 metres of the run home, there was a clear run for RANGATAUA RAY in the passing lane and that Mr Williamson had failed to avail himself of the opportunity to take that run. Mr Williamson had made a serious error of judgement in not attempting to take the run or even, it appeared to look for a run, and he had thereby denied his horse the opportunity of finishing in a higher finishing position. In not fulfilling his obligation to look to see if there was a run, he had failed to take all reasonable and permissible opportunities and had therefore breached the Rule.
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Ydgren informed the Committee that Mr Williamson, last season, had 611 drives and has had 1,349 lifetime drives. He is a very busy horseman. He has a clear record of breaches under the Rule.
Mr Ydgren referred to the Penalty Guide which recommended, as a starting point for a breach of the Rule, a 15 drives’ suspension or a fine of $750. Mr Williamson accepted Mr Ydgren’s submission that he would have, on average, 4-5 drives per meeting. The breach was not at the top end of the scale, Mr Ydgren said. He submitted that an appropriate penalty was a suspension of 2-3 days.
Mr Williamson informed the Committee that he did have driving engagements within the next 7 days and, in particular, the Island of Origin Drivers Series at Auckland on 2 September 2011, and he sought a deferment of any suspension for that period pursuant to Rule.
Mr Ydgren said that he would be opposed to a fine but would have no objection to a combined penalty of a suspension and a fine.
Mr Williamson asked the Committee to consider a fine only. He submitted that he had made an honest mistake in not thinking that there was a run, although he conceded that it looked bad. Mr Curtin said that he agreed with that.
reasonsforpenalty:
In determining penalty, the Committee took into account, as a mitigating factor, Mr Williamson’s previous good record under the Rule. The Committee assessed the offending as being mid-range. It involved a quite bad error of judgement on Mr Williamson’s part, denying a favoured runner the opportunity of finishing in a higher finishing position.
penalty:
Mr Williamson’s Junior Horseman’s Licence was suspended from after the conclusion of racing on Friday, 2 September 2011 up to and including 6 September 2011 – 2 driving days. In addition, Mr Williamson was fined the sum of $300.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 868 (2)
Informant: NM Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: M Williamson - Licensed Junior Driver
Otherperson: JF Curtin - Licensed Open Driver, MP Jones
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 5380b5b77ca3dd000aea1c4eeef1fb3d
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 9ff5efebf5bbaf21c8718b03e59650c7
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/08/2011
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 26 August 2011
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