NZ Metro TC – 28 October 2005 – Race 3
ID: JCA22514
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 28 October 2005
Race Date:
2005/10/28
Race Number:
Race 3
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 3 at the above meeting, Chateau on the Park Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr D J Butcher, alleging that Mr Butcher, as the driver of AMBRO THE THUG in the race, failed to drive that horse out in the run home.
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 3 at the above meeting, Chateau on the Park Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr D J Butcher, alleging that Mr Butcher, as the driver of AMBRO THE THUG in the race, failed to drive that horse out in the run home.
----The information was filed during the race meeting with the Registrar, in compliance with Rule 1103(1) (a), and a copy was served that evening by being delivered to Mr Butcher personally. Mr Butcher signed the Statement by the Defendant on the information form acknowledging service of the information. The information provided that the hearing of the information was to take place on 7 November 2005. It was unable to be heard on race night as Mr Butcher had to catch an aircraft back to Auckland that evening.
----The hearing of the information took place at Addington Raceway on Monday, 7 November 2005. Mr Butcher attended the hearing and indicated that he did not admit the breach of the Rule. Mr Butcher sought leave from the Committee for Mr G C Small, trainer of AMBRO THE THUG, to be present at the hearing and leave was granted.
----Evidence was heard from the Stipendiary Stewards. Mr Butcher called Mr B Weaver, driver of SANDY?S DREAM in the race, and made submissions in relation to the allegation that he had failed to drive his horse out.
----Rule 868 (3) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing provides as follows:
--Every horseman shall drive his horse out to the end of the race if he has any reasonable chance of running first, second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth.
----After hearing all of the evidence and submissions of the parties, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:
--"The Committee has considered the evidence and submissions of both parties and we have carefully viewed the video replays of the final 400-500 metres of the race.
--It was the contention of the Stipendiary Stewards that, over the final 250 metres, Mr Butcher struck AMBRO THE THUG six times including three "flicks" in the final 50 metres and gave the horse one or two shakes with the reins, but made no other effort. The Stipendiary Stewards further submitted that Mr Butcher had made an error of judgement and had been "caught napping" by the pace at which SANDY?S DREAM had finished. It was submitted that Mr Butcher had been guilty of "bad judgement" and had shown little urgency.
--Mr Escott produced details of the betting figures on the race to demonstrate that ARMBRO THE THUG had been a hot favourite paying $1.25 for a win and $0.95 for a place at tote close.
--Mr Butcher called the driver of SANDY?S DREAM, Mr Brent Weaver, to give evidence on his behalf. Mr Weaver said that his horse had gone past AMBRO THE THUG 150 metres from the finish and had gained a half-length advantage over AMBRO THE THUG. He said that he thought he was going to win at that point. He had sprinted past AMBRO THE THUG and had that horse covered, he said. He subsequently gave SANDY?S DREAM a few more strikes with his whip to keep it going.
--Mr Butcher stated that he had taken the lead with AMBRO THE THUG with 800 metres to run and, from there, had run the last 800 metres in 57.6 seconds and the final 400 metres in 27.9 seconds. He said that he had lead into the straight having earlier pulled the earplugs. He stated that, at that stage, he believed he had the field covered. Mr Butcher said that SANDY?S DREAM had just raced past him. When he saw Mr Weaver coming, he hit his horse once and then twice more while holding the reins in one hand. He said that the horse could not go any faster ? if it could have, Mr Weaver's horse would not have got past him.
--Both parties, after a discussion, accepted that SANDY?S DREAM had headed AMBRO THE THUG about 100 metres from the finish. Mr Butcher said that, at that point, SANDY?S DREAM was beginning to stop and it was unreasonable for him to, at such a late stage, realise he had a reasonable chance of winning. He submitted that he did drive his horse out to the finish line and he always had second place easily. He further submitted that he was driving in an aggressive manner to win the race.
--Rule 868(3) has a mandatory requirement ? that is to say, a driver shall drive his horse out. "Drive" is not defined in the Rules. However, the 1998 Appeal case of Greer is of some assistance to this Committee. In that case, the Appeals Tribunal stated that:
--We find that the obligation that arises under [Rule 868(3)] requires at least some action by the driver to urge his horse on; that is, some demonstrable or discernible movement by the driver so that the driver can be seen to be "driving his horse out".
------
Turning to the evidence in this particular case, with that particular requirement in mind, the Committee has asked itself: What actions did Mr Butcher take to urge his horse on? Were there any demonstrable or discernible actions taken by him? The Committee finds, as fact, that in the entire run home Mr Butcher struck the horse no more than six times including three flicks over the final 50 metres and one or two shakes with the reins, but made no other effort. It is difficult to say whether or not Mr Butcher had been guilty of an error of judgement, but this may well have been the case. Mr Butcher, himself, acknowledged that SANDY?S DREAM had come to the end of its run towards the finish and started to come back to his horse in the final stages to the extent that the final margin between first and second at the finish was a diminishing half neck.
--It is a reasonable inference from that, in the Committee's view, that had Mr Butcher urged his horse and driven it out in the home straight to the finishing line as required by the Rule, it is fair to suggest that there was a reasonable chance that AMBRO THE THUG may have won the race.
--In coming to this view, the Committee has had regard not only to Mr Butcher's driving actions after being headed by SANDY?S DREAM but also to the lack of urgency shown by him prior to that.
--The Committee is, therefore, satisfied that Mr Butcher did not drive his horse out to the end of the race when it had a reasonable chance of running first. The reasonable chance, we believe, is to be determined by an objective test.
--Accordingly, the Committee finds the charge under Rule 868(3) proved."
----The hearing was then briefly adjourned at the request of the Stipendiary Stewards to enable them to discuss their penalty recommendation. Following resumption of the hearing, Mr Escott informed the Committee that the Stipendiary Stewards were recommending a suspension for a period of one month and a fine of $1,500. He presented details of Mr Butcher's record and referred to a period of suspension imposed on Mr Butcher in Australia in August 2004.
----Mr Butcher referred to the recent suspensions imposed on horsemen, K M James and C T Woodward jnr, for breaches of the same Rule. Mr Escott submitted that each case had to be looked at on its own.
----The Committee, in the presence of the parties, looked at the upcoming meetings at which Mr Butcher would be driving. Mr Escott produced details of Mr Butcher's drives for the 2004/2005 season. Mr Butcher had 435 drives during that season which, the Committee noted, was an average of about 8 drives per week. Mr Butcher pointed to the amount of stakes won by horses driven by him ($1.4 million) during that season.
------
--
--
--
--
Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following interim decision in relation to penalty:
--"I am only going to deliver, on behalf of the Committee today, the outcome of our penalty deliberations. The full reasons for arriving at the penalty will be available in a written decision
--which, I hope, might be available to be collected tomorrow but I won?t promise it, it may be Friday before the full written decision is available. But it is the decision of this Committee that Mr Butcher's horseman's licence will be suspended from after racing on 8 November 2005 up to and including 30 November 2005 which, we calculate, as 7 days (of which two are premier days) plus the Miracle Mile. In the circumstances, there will be no fine having regard to the likely financial effect on Mr Butcher of that period of suspension."
----REASONS FOR DECISION ON PENALTY:
--In determining penalty the Committee had regard, principally, to the following matters:
--------1. The consequential effects upon the public who financially supported AMBRO THE THUG which started a hot favourite for the race paying $1.25 to win and, it is reasonable to assume, would also have been strongly supported in trifecta, doubles and trebles bets.
----2. The need to maintain integrity and public confidence in harness racing. This is always a principal concern of Judicial Committees in imposing penalty. The Committee agrees with the Judicial Committee in the case of Higgs (2005) where it was stated:
--Harness races are based on the requirement that all contestants in a race are given every possible opportunity by their drivers and that, when the race has been run, all contestants have been fully tested and have been asked to do the best that they can. This has to be the case in order that the betting public, so important to the industry, can have confidence that they have had a run for their money when they have invested their money on the contestants in a race. Any suggestion that a horse has not been given every possible opportunity and has not been asked to do the best that it can, for whatever reason, will result in loss of public confidence in harness racing.
----That case involved a breach of Rule 868(2) but the principles are applicable, the Committee believes, to the present case.
----3. The Committee regards the failure by Mr Butcher to drive his horse out to the end of the race as serious and any penalty must reflect that. We believe that the driving tactics adopted by Mr Butcher, on this occasion, in not driving his horse out to the end of the race did not give AMBRO THE THUG every chance to win the race. It can only be speculation as to whether that horse would have won the race had Mr Butcher shown any vigour in his driving tactics. The Committee does not need to determine that. What is relevant is that he must drive the horse out in a manner, for all to see, that gives the horse a reasonable chance to win. The Committee is of the view that he did not do so.
----Clearly, a term of suspension is called for having regard to the above matters. Mr Escott recommended a period of 1 month plus a fine of $1,500. That would have involved a suspension up to and including 8 December 2005, not permitting Mr Butcher to drive at
--meetings at Auckland on 2 December and at Hawera on 8 December. However, the Committee notes that the period encompasses two premier meetings at Addington and the Miracle Mile in Sydney on 25 November in which Mr Butcher told the Committee he would be driving. The shorter term of suspension imposed by the Committee (up to and including 30 November) takes that into account.
----The Committee considers that the term of suspension imposed by it on Mr Butcher is the minimum penalty which will operate as a deterrent. The penalty should serve both to deter Mr Butcher from re-offending and, at the same time, to deter others.
----The Committee records that, in determining penalty, it has not taken into account the August 2004 breach in Australia.
----There is one further matter that the Committee needs to address and that is the submission, made by Mr Butcher, referring to the penalties imposed recently on two other horsemen for breaches of Rule 868(3). On 7 October 2005, K M James was suspended by a Judicial Committee for a period of 11 weeks. Mr Butcher submitted that this was equivalent to eight drives ? which is one meeting for himself, he said. On the same date, C T Woodward jnr received a 4-weeks suspension and a fine of $1,000. The Judicial Committee in that case, in imposing penalty, noted that Mr Woodward had about 200 drives per season.
----Whilst the Committee did consider that submission by Mr Butcher, in determining an appropriate term of suspension, it is necessary for a Judicial Committee to take all matters into account. The circumstances of each case are obviously different in terms of, amongst other things, the facts, the degree of culpability, any aggravating and/or mitigating factors and the personal circumstances of the defendant. Whilst the number of drives a particular defendant may miss during any term of suspension is a factor, it is only one factor of many that a Judicial Committee takes into account in arriving at a penalty that is appropriate in all of the circumstances of the particular case.
------
--
CHAIRMAN
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: ec00abbf2408c34ad1bc5373d70cf7c2
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 28/10/2005
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 28 October 2005 - Race 3
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 3 at the above meeting, Chateau on the Park Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr D J Butcher, alleging that Mr Butcher, as the driver of AMBRO THE THUG in the race, failed to drive that horse out in the run home.
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 3 at the above meeting, Chateau on the Park Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr D J Butcher, alleging that Mr Butcher, as the driver of AMBRO THE THUG in the race, failed to drive that horse out in the run home.
----The information was filed during the race meeting with the Registrar, in compliance with Rule 1103(1) (a), and a copy was served that evening by being delivered to Mr Butcher personally. Mr Butcher signed the Statement by the Defendant on the information form acknowledging service of the information. The information provided that the hearing of the information was to take place on 7 November 2005. It was unable to be heard on race night as Mr Butcher had to catch an aircraft back to Auckland that evening.
----The hearing of the information took place at Addington Raceway on Monday, 7 November 2005. Mr Butcher attended the hearing and indicated that he did not admit the breach of the Rule. Mr Butcher sought leave from the Committee for Mr G C Small, trainer of AMBRO THE THUG, to be present at the hearing and leave was granted.
----Evidence was heard from the Stipendiary Stewards. Mr Butcher called Mr B Weaver, driver of SANDY?S DREAM in the race, and made submissions in relation to the allegation that he had failed to drive his horse out.
----Rule 868 (3) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing provides as follows:
--Every horseman shall drive his horse out to the end of the race if he has any reasonable chance of running first, second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth.
----After hearing all of the evidence and submissions of the parties, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:
--"The Committee has considered the evidence and submissions of both parties and we have carefully viewed the video replays of the final 400-500 metres of the race.
--It was the contention of the Stipendiary Stewards that, over the final 250 metres, Mr Butcher struck AMBRO THE THUG six times including three "flicks" in the final 50 metres and gave the horse one or two shakes with the reins, but made no other effort. The Stipendiary Stewards further submitted that Mr Butcher had made an error of judgement and had been "caught napping" by the pace at which SANDY?S DREAM had finished. It was submitted that Mr Butcher had been guilty of "bad judgement" and had shown little urgency.
--Mr Escott produced details of the betting figures on the race to demonstrate that ARMBRO THE THUG had been a hot favourite paying $1.25 for a win and $0.95 for a place at tote close.
--Mr Butcher called the driver of SANDY?S DREAM, Mr Brent Weaver, to give evidence on his behalf. Mr Weaver said that his horse had gone past AMBRO THE THUG 150 metres from the finish and had gained a half-length advantage over AMBRO THE THUG. He said that he thought he was going to win at that point. He had sprinted past AMBRO THE THUG and had that horse covered, he said. He subsequently gave SANDY?S DREAM a few more strikes with his whip to keep it going.
--Mr Butcher stated that he had taken the lead with AMBRO THE THUG with 800 metres to run and, from there, had run the last 800 metres in 57.6 seconds and the final 400 metres in 27.9 seconds. He said that he had lead into the straight having earlier pulled the earplugs. He stated that, at that stage, he believed he had the field covered. Mr Butcher said that SANDY?S DREAM had just raced past him. When he saw Mr Weaver coming, he hit his horse once and then twice more while holding the reins in one hand. He said that the horse could not go any faster ? if it could have, Mr Weaver's horse would not have got past him.
--Both parties, after a discussion, accepted that SANDY?S DREAM had headed AMBRO THE THUG about 100 metres from the finish. Mr Butcher said that, at that point, SANDY?S DREAM was beginning to stop and it was unreasonable for him to, at such a late stage, realise he had a reasonable chance of winning. He submitted that he did drive his horse out to the finish line and he always had second place easily. He further submitted that he was driving in an aggressive manner to win the race.
--Rule 868(3) has a mandatory requirement ? that is to say, a driver shall drive his horse out. "Drive" is not defined in the Rules. However, the 1998 Appeal case of Greer is of some assistance to this Committee. In that case, the Appeals Tribunal stated that:
--We find that the obligation that arises under [Rule 868(3)] requires at least some action by the driver to urge his horse on; that is, some demonstrable or discernible movement by the driver so that the driver can be seen to be "driving his horse out".
------
Turning to the evidence in this particular case, with that particular requirement in mind, the Committee has asked itself: What actions did Mr Butcher take to urge his horse on? Were there any demonstrable or discernible actions taken by him? The Committee finds, as fact, that in the entire run home Mr Butcher struck the horse no more than six times including three flicks over the final 50 metres and one or two shakes with the reins, but made no other effort. It is difficult to say whether or not Mr Butcher had been guilty of an error of judgement, but this may well have been the case. Mr Butcher, himself, acknowledged that SANDY?S DREAM had come to the end of its run towards the finish and started to come back to his horse in the final stages to the extent that the final margin between first and second at the finish was a diminishing half neck.
--It is a reasonable inference from that, in the Committee's view, that had Mr Butcher urged his horse and driven it out in the home straight to the finishing line as required by the Rule, it is fair to suggest that there was a reasonable chance that AMBRO THE THUG may have won the race.
--In coming to this view, the Committee has had regard not only to Mr Butcher's driving actions after being headed by SANDY?S DREAM but also to the lack of urgency shown by him prior to that.
--The Committee is, therefore, satisfied that Mr Butcher did not drive his horse out to the end of the race when it had a reasonable chance of running first. The reasonable chance, we believe, is to be determined by an objective test.
--Accordingly, the Committee finds the charge under Rule 868(3) proved."
----The hearing was then briefly adjourned at the request of the Stipendiary Stewards to enable them to discuss their penalty recommendation. Following resumption of the hearing, Mr Escott informed the Committee that the Stipendiary Stewards were recommending a suspension for a period of one month and a fine of $1,500. He presented details of Mr Butcher's record and referred to a period of suspension imposed on Mr Butcher in Australia in August 2004.
----Mr Butcher referred to the recent suspensions imposed on horsemen, K M James and C T Woodward jnr, for breaches of the same Rule. Mr Escott submitted that each case had to be looked at on its own.
----The Committee, in the presence of the parties, looked at the upcoming meetings at which Mr Butcher would be driving. Mr Escott produced details of Mr Butcher's drives for the 2004/2005 season. Mr Butcher had 435 drives during that season which, the Committee noted, was an average of about 8 drives per week. Mr Butcher pointed to the amount of stakes won by horses driven by him ($1.4 million) during that season.
------
--
--
--
--
Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following interim decision in relation to penalty:
--"I am only going to deliver, on behalf of the Committee today, the outcome of our penalty deliberations. The full reasons for arriving at the penalty will be available in a written decision
--which, I hope, might be available to be collected tomorrow but I won?t promise it, it may be Friday before the full written decision is available. But it is the decision of this Committee that Mr Butcher's horseman's licence will be suspended from after racing on 8 November 2005 up to and including 30 November 2005 which, we calculate, as 7 days (of which two are premier days) plus the Miracle Mile. In the circumstances, there will be no fine having regard to the likely financial effect on Mr Butcher of that period of suspension."
----REASONS FOR DECISION ON PENALTY:
--In determining penalty the Committee had regard, principally, to the following matters:
--------1. The consequential effects upon the public who financially supported AMBRO THE THUG which started a hot favourite for the race paying $1.25 to win and, it is reasonable to assume, would also have been strongly supported in trifecta, doubles and trebles bets.
----2. The need to maintain integrity and public confidence in harness racing. This is always a principal concern of Judicial Committees in imposing penalty. The Committee agrees with the Judicial Committee in the case of Higgs (2005) where it was stated:
--Harness races are based on the requirement that all contestants in a race are given every possible opportunity by their drivers and that, when the race has been run, all contestants have been fully tested and have been asked to do the best that they can. This has to be the case in order that the betting public, so important to the industry, can have confidence that they have had a run for their money when they have invested their money on the contestants in a race. Any suggestion that a horse has not been given every possible opportunity and has not been asked to do the best that it can, for whatever reason, will result in loss of public confidence in harness racing.
----That case involved a breach of Rule 868(2) but the principles are applicable, the Committee believes, to the present case.
----3. The Committee regards the failure by Mr Butcher to drive his horse out to the end of the race as serious and any penalty must reflect that. We believe that the driving tactics adopted by Mr Butcher, on this occasion, in not driving his horse out to the end of the race did not give AMBRO THE THUG every chance to win the race. It can only be speculation as to whether that horse would have won the race had Mr Butcher shown any vigour in his driving tactics. The Committee does not need to determine that. What is relevant is that he must drive the horse out in a manner, for all to see, that gives the horse a reasonable chance to win. The Committee is of the view that he did not do so.
----Clearly, a term of suspension is called for having regard to the above matters. Mr Escott recommended a period of 1 month plus a fine of $1,500. That would have involved a suspension up to and including 8 December 2005, not permitting Mr Butcher to drive at
--meetings at Auckland on 2 December and at Hawera on 8 December. However, the Committee notes that the period encompasses two premier meetings at Addington and the Miracle Mile in Sydney on 25 November in which Mr Butcher told the Committee he would be driving. The shorter term of suspension imposed by the Committee (up to and including 30 November) takes that into account.
----The Committee considers that the term of suspension imposed by it on Mr Butcher is the minimum penalty which will operate as a deterrent. The penalty should serve both to deter Mr Butcher from re-offending and, at the same time, to deter others.
----The Committee records that, in determining penalty, it has not taken into account the August 2004 breach in Australia.
----There is one further matter that the Committee needs to address and that is the submission, made by Mr Butcher, referring to the penalties imposed recently on two other horsemen for breaches of Rule 868(3). On 7 October 2005, K M James was suspended by a Judicial Committee for a period of 11 weeks. Mr Butcher submitted that this was equivalent to eight drives ? which is one meeting for himself, he said. On the same date, C T Woodward jnr received a 4-weeks suspension and a fine of $1,000. The Judicial Committee in that case, in imposing penalty, noted that Mr Woodward had about 200 drives per season.
----Whilst the Committee did consider that submission by Mr Butcher, in determining an appropriate term of suspension, it is necessary for a Judicial Committee to take all matters into account. The circumstances of each case are obviously different in terms of, amongst other things, the facts, the degree of culpability, any aggravating and/or mitigating factors and the personal circumstances of the defendant. Whilst the number of drives a particular defendant may miss during any term of suspension is a factor, it is only one factor of many that a Judicial Committee takes into account in arriving at a penalty that is appropriate in all of the circumstances of the particular case.
------
--
CHAIRMAN
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 1103.1.a, 868.3, 868.2
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 7ec9b34c2bdc40cb350c909e97c7a42c
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: e1fca272f56716a854c466839d4cf197
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 28/10/2005
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 28 October 2005
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: NZ Metro TC