NZ Metro TC – 29 January 2008 – Race 2

hearingid: 3696d8e9dd62cfedea545900d8b45484

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 29/01/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 29 January 2008 - Race 2

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

DECISION AND REASONS:

Following the running of Race 2, the PGG Wrightson NZ Yearling Sales Pace 2000m, an information was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Ydgren against Mr D. J. Dunn the driver of “Get Off My Cloud” (6) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(b). The charge reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) in that D. J. Dunn drove carelessly when striking the sulky wheel of Gimme The Ball (I. R. Cameron) causing his own horse to fall.”

Rule 869(3)(b) reads as follows.

“No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly.”

Mr Dunn had indicated on the information that he did not admit the breach

of this rule, and he confirmed this at the hearing. Both Mr Dunn and Mr Butt confirmed that they understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.

          Stipendiary Steward Mrs Williams used video coverage to show that with about 400 metres to run Mr Cameron, driving “Gimme The Ball” (7), was tiring, taking Mr Dunn, who was driving “Get Off My Cloud” (6), back.  Mrs Williams showed that on entering the straight Mr Dunn was still following Mr Cameron who was keeping his horse straight.  Mrs Williams pointed out that Mr Dunn’s horse’s front legs were in line with Mr Cameron’s outside wheel, and that contact was made and Mr Dunn’s horse broke and fell.  It was also Mrs Williams’ evidence that there was no room for Mr Dunn to move to the outside of Mr Cameron.

          Mr Dunn gave evidence and he agreed that there was contact as described.  Mr Dunn disputed that he had been the cause of the contact, and he used video coverage to show where he believed Mr Cameron’s horse had moved outwards slightly.  Mr Dunn emphasised that this movement was slight, but enough to make contact with his horse’s legs.

          After hearing the evidence I adjourned to consider my decision.  I saw the video coverage of this incident, from various angles, on numerous occasions.  I saw nothing to persuade me that there was any outwards movement by Mr Cameron’s horse, and I was satisfied that Mr Cameron kept his horse straight after it began to tire.  It was also clear to me that that Mr Dunn was making no effort to restrain his horse in order to prevent contact with Mr Cameron’s horse.

          I was satisfied that Mr Dunn had a responsibility to ensure that he did not make contact with the horse in front of him, and that by running into the sulky wheel of Mr Cameron’s horse his standard of driving fell well below that of a reasonably prudent horseman.

          On returning to the Enquiry Room I advised the parties that a full written decision would be given later, and I gave the following oral decision.

“Having heard the evidence and having seen the video coverage of the incident I am satisfied that inside the final 200 metres of the race Mr Dunn’s horse struck the sulky wheel of the horse in front of him, broke, and fell.

The Stipendiary Steward’s case is that Mr Cameron’s horse was tiring from about the 400 metre mark, and Mr Dunn was being taken back by that horse.  It was also the Stipendiary Steward’s case that Mr Cameron was keeping a straight line, and that Mr Dunn allowed his horse to strike the wheel of Mr Cameron’s horse.

Mr Dunn’s case was that a gap was appearing outside Mr Cameron, and that he was intending to angle out and into that gap.  It was also Mr Dunn’s evidence that Mr Cameron’s horse moved out slightly and struck his horse’s leg, and this caused the incident.

I reject the evidence of Mr Dunn that Mr Cameron’s horse caused this incident by moving out slightly.  I am also satisfied that, as an experienced driver, Mr Dunn was required to ensure that he did not allow his horse to strike the horse in front of him.  Mr Dunn was careless and I find the charge proved.”

Penalty: 

Mr Ydgren advised that Mr Dunn had no previous convictions within the last 12 months for careless driving, but that he had received two warnings during that period.  I made it clear that any penalty imposed would not be greater because of the warnings.

Mr Ydgren also made submissions that the consequences of Mr Dunn’s careless driving were that his horse had fallen and received injuries.  Mr Dunn’s horse had also lost its chance in the race.  It was also raised that “Get Off My Cloud” had been claimed in this race, and that the new owner had ended up taking ownership of an injured horse.  Mr Ydgren recommended a fine of $400-00.

Mr Dunn made submissions and said that he would prefer a fine to a suspension, and that he thought that a fine of $400-00 was too much. He also made submissions that his horse was unlikely to have figured in the finish at the time of this incident, as it was too far back.  I agree with Mr Dunn that at the time of the incident he was very unlikely to have finished in a dividend bearing or stake bearing place.

I adjourned to consider the question of penalty.  I accepted that this was a very poor piece of driving by Mr Dunn, and that as a result his horse had fallen and been injured. I was also satisfied that in terms of seriousness it was at the higher end of the scale.  I do not accept that the injury to a claimed horse should be seen as an aggravating factor, although I agree that carelessness causing injury to a horse is. 

I also looked at previous penalties for careless driving at non-premier meetings, and found that the range was between $200-00 and $500-00.  On returning to the Enquiry Room I gave the following decision on penalty.

“I take into account Mr Dunn that your record is that you’ve got no previous convictions in the last 12 months.  That’s to your credit.

On the other hand your driving was very poor and resulted in your horse falling.  I find that this breach is at the higher end of the scale.  I have looked at previous penalties for non-premier meetings and find a range of between

$200-00 and $500-00 for this sort of breach.  Now, as I have said, I consider this to be at the higher end of the scale, and I am satisfied that the fine of $400-00 recommended by the Stipendiary Stewards is fair and appropriate and you will be  fined the sum of $400-00.”

J.  M. Phelan

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.3.b

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 24affe2b2762e9319261c19a9e0def2f

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 2

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: e64edb6e618ed8e9cb2680b55569b49c

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 29/01/2008

meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 29 January 2008

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: nz-metro-tc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: NZ Metro TC