NZ Metro TC – 30 March 2007 – Race 11
ID: JCA21660
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 30 March 2007
Race Date:
2007/03/30
Race Number:
Race 11
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 11, Christchurch Casino NZ Poker Championship 14/22 April Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Mr B J (Bryan) Lilley alleging a breach of the Approved Gear Regulations
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 11, Christchurch Casino NZ Poker Championship 14/22 April Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Mr B J (Bryan) Lilley alleging a breach of the Approved Gear Regulations in that Mr Lilley, as the trainer of OUR MABEL in the Race, "failed to fit a neck strap as required and was also informed on the 23 March it would be required for the mare's next start".
----The information was filed with the Registrar on race night and adjourned sine die. The information was served on Mr Lilley at the meeting of Akaroa Trotting Club at Motukarara Raceway on Sunday, 1 April 2007, and heard at that meeting. Mr Lilley was present at the hearing of the information and admitted the breach. The charge was found proved accordingly.
----The Approved Gear Regulations provide:
--- --
- Quick Hitch Harness ? where horses have Quick Hitch sulkies attached, a neck strap must be worn to secure the reins. --
--
Mr Escott said that the requirement is a safety one and was introduced in February 2005 as, when Quick Hitch sulkies were being used, the reins were getting caught on the sulky shafts. He said that Mr Lilley was reminded of the requirement a week ago. Mr Lilley acknowledged that he had received such a warning.
----Mr Lilley stated that most of his horses do wear prickers and poles and he does not like having neck straps around their necks because it pulls prickers and poles hard onto the horse's neck. He said that he preferred his horses to "go round and do things right" than gallop behind the gate, miss the start or suffer from having a pricker hard up against their necks for 15-20 minutes. Mr Lilley said that he asked Mr Escott whether there was any exception to the requirement and was told that there was not. He said that he took it upon himself not to put a neck strap on OUR MABEL notwithstanding.
----Mr Escott stated that the problem could be overcome by the use of a conventional sulky. He expressed concern that Mr Lilley had "blatantly ignored" the directions of a Stipendiary Steward. Mr Escott recommended a fine of $200 on the basis that it was a "serious breach" of the Regulations.
----Mr Lilley submitted that a fine of that magnitude was "ridiculous" for the particular breach and submitted that a fine of $25 was appropriate.
----The Committee delivered the following oral decision in relation to penalty:
--"It is clear that there was a breach of the Regulation and you have admitted that yourself, Mr Lilley. I have noted your explanation but I have to say that I am not impressed with it. I am concerned that this breach involves a deliberate flouting of the Approved Gear Regulations. You, clearly, were aware of the requirements having been spoken to by Mr Escott in relation to your runner the previous week but, notwithstanding that warning, you have gone ahead and raced this mare on Friday night without the required neck strap. There are the two issues involved as Mr Escott has highlighted ? firstly, that you have deliberately flouted a direction of a Stipendiary Steward and, secondly, I must also be concerned that this Regulation is in place as safety measure and, if is not adhered to, the safety of horses and horsemen is compromised. So, I do take quite a serious view of the situation and I am satisfied that a fine of $200 is appropriate in the circumstances. So, you are fined the sum of $200 accordingly".
----R G McKenzie
----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: e589ceef0bddfdd78c547d74db50c865
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 30/03/2007
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 30 March 2007 - Race 11
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 11, Christchurch Casino NZ Poker Championship 14/22 April Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Mr B J (Bryan) Lilley alleging a breach of the Approved Gear Regulations
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 11, Christchurch Casino NZ Poker Championship 14/22 April Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Mr B J (Bryan) Lilley alleging a breach of the Approved Gear Regulations in that Mr Lilley, as the trainer of OUR MABEL in the Race, "failed to fit a neck strap as required and was also informed on the 23 March it would be required for the mare's next start".
----The information was filed with the Registrar on race night and adjourned sine die. The information was served on Mr Lilley at the meeting of Akaroa Trotting Club at Motukarara Raceway on Sunday, 1 April 2007, and heard at that meeting. Mr Lilley was present at the hearing of the information and admitted the breach. The charge was found proved accordingly.
----The Approved Gear Regulations provide:
--- --
- Quick Hitch Harness ? where horses have Quick Hitch sulkies attached, a neck strap must be worn to secure the reins.--
--
Mr Escott said that the requirement is a safety one and was introduced in February 2005 as, when Quick Hitch sulkies were being used, the reins were getting caught on the sulky shafts. He said that Mr Lilley was reminded of the requirement a week ago. Mr Lilley acknowledged that he had received such a warning.
----Mr Lilley stated that most of his horses do wear prickers and poles and he does not like having neck straps around their necks because it pulls prickers and poles hard onto the horse's neck. He said that he preferred his horses to "go round and do things right" than gallop behind the gate, miss the start or suffer from having a pricker hard up against their necks for 15-20 minutes. Mr Lilley said that he asked Mr Escott whether there was any exception to the requirement and was told that there was not. He said that he took it upon himself not to put a neck strap on OUR MABEL notwithstanding.
----Mr Escott stated that the problem could be overcome by the use of a conventional sulky. He expressed concern that Mr Lilley had "blatantly ignored" the directions of a Stipendiary Steward. Mr Escott recommended a fine of $200 on the basis that it was a "serious breach" of the Regulations.
----Mr Lilley submitted that a fine of that magnitude was "ridiculous" for the particular breach and submitted that a fine of $25 was appropriate.
----The Committee delivered the following oral decision in relation to penalty:
--"It is clear that there was a breach of the Regulation and you have admitted that yourself, Mr Lilley. I have noted your explanation but I have to say that I am not impressed with it. I am concerned that this breach involves a deliberate flouting of the Approved Gear Regulations. You, clearly, were aware of the requirements having been spoken to by Mr Escott in relation to your runner the previous week but, notwithstanding that warning, you have gone ahead and raced this mare on Friday night without the required neck strap. There are the two issues involved as Mr Escott has highlighted ? firstly, that you have deliberately flouted a direction of a Stipendiary Steward and, secondly, I must also be concerned that this Regulation is in place as safety measure and, if is not adhered to, the safety of horses and horsemen is compromised. So, I do take quite a serious view of the situation and I am satisfied that a fine of $200 is appropriate in the circumstances. So, you are fined the sum of $200 accordingly".
----R G McKenzie
----CHAIRMAN
----
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules:
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: c5862be7843cb9effb339f22b2d5d764
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 11
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: c52523d42884f3decdd12847af296c5c
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 30/03/2007
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 30 March 2007
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: NZ Metro TC