NZ Metro TC – 6 February 2010 – Race 10
ID: JCA18241
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 6 February 2010
Race Date:
2010/02/06
Race Number:
Race 10
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68076
--Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club Date: 6 February 2010
--Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch Race No: 10
--Rule(s): 869 (3) (b)
--Judicial Committee: Chairman: R G McKenzie, Panel Member: J M Phelan
--Plea: Not Admitted
--Appearing:
--Informant: N R Escott, Chief Stipendiary Steward
--Defendant: C J Markham, Licensed Open Driver
--DECISION AND REASONS:
Following the running of Race 10, Nutri-Zing Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr C J Markham, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (b) in that Mr Markham, as the driver of THE TIN MAN in the Race, “drove carelessly when striking the wheel of SUMMER MAN (T S Chmiel) with approximately 350 metres to run”.
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68076
--Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club Date: 6 February 2010
--Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch Race No: 10
--Rule(s): 869 (3) (b)
--Judicial Committee: Chairman: R G McKenzie, Panel Member: J M Phelan
--Plea: Not Admitted
--Appearing:
--Informant: N R Escott, Chief Stipendiary Steward
--Defendant: C J Markham, Licensed Open Driver
--DECISION AND REASONS:
Following the running of Race 10, Nutri-Zing Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr C J Markham, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (b) in that Mr Markham, as the driver of THE TIN MAN in the Race, “drove carelessly when striking the wheel of SUMMER MAN (T S Chmiel) with approximately 350 metres to run”.
Mr Markham was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he did not admit the breach.
--Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
Mr Escott said that it was alleged that THE TIN MAN had put his foot into the back of the sulky of SUMMER MAN which resulted in that horse being pulled back and also caused THE TIN MAN to gallop.
--Mrs K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward, showed video replays of the incident with approximately 350 metres to run. She pointed out MOMENT OF TRUTH (R T May) leading the 3-wide line being followed by SUMMER MAN who was followed, 3-back, by THE TIN MAN. She alleged that Mr Markham had a good hold on the horse and his hands were up high. The horse was racing keenly but not hanging or giving Mr Markham any undue difficulty. She then showed THE TIN MAN’s near front hoof go up on the wheel of SUMMER MAN and continuing before becoming “disengaged” as a result of which THE TIN MAN broke and the runner following it lost approximately 2 lengths. Mr Chmiel could be seen to turn his head. Mrs Williams alleged that Mr Chmiel’s horse had not come back on Mr Markham in any way – it was racing immediately on the back of MOMENT OF TRUTH.
--Mr Markham used the video replays. He alleged that there was “a slight easing” of the pace in the 3-wide line. He pointed out that the nose of SUMMER MAN came into contact with the helmet of Mr May and came back as a result, just as he, Mr Markham, was angling out. The movement was “not very much at all” but his horse was “on the bit and full of running”. Mr Chmiel had been tapping his horse up. THE TIN MAN was travelling exceptionally well and Mr Markham thought he would win at that point. He had not yet activated any of the horse’s gear.
--Mr Escott alleged that any slackening of the pace was minimal and, in any event, some slackening of the pace was common in most races. Mr Markham was unable to prevent his horse contacting the sulky of SUMMER MAN in front of him. This impeded the progress of SUMMER MAN. It was careless driving but at the lower end of the scale, Mr Escott said. It was an error of judgment on Mr Markham’s part.
--The Committee found that Mr Markham on THE TIN MAN was travelling well, 3-back in the 3-wide line behind SUMMER MAN (T S Chmiel), which in turn was following MOMENT OF TRUTH (R T May). At that point, Mr Markham alleged, the nose of SUMMER MAN struck the helmet of Mr May driving MOMENT OF TRUTH. This contact could be seen on the video replay and, according to Mr Markham, SUMMER MAN came back on him just as he was angling THE TIN MAN out for a run.
--The Committee did not accept that it was any movement by SUMMER MAN that caused THE TIN MAN to get its near front leg entangled in the sulky wheel of SUMMER MAN for a few strides and then go off stride. The Committee found that, rather, this was the result of an error of judgment on Mr Markham’s part in not leaving himself sufficient clearance when angling THE TIN MAN out for a run.
--The Committee was therefore satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr Markham drove carelessly in allowing his horse to strike the wheel and, therefore, the charge was found proved.
--In relation to penalty, Mr Escott stated that Mr Markham had a clear record of careless driving and referred to the fact that the Race was on a premier day for a stake of $20,000. He recommended a fine of $400 or a suspension for a period of 3 weeks.
--Mr Markham informed the Committee that he had a preference for a fine over a suspension. He referred to Mr Escott’s comment that the carelessness was at the lower end of the scale and asked the Committee to have regard to that. It was an error of judgment rather than a careless drive, he submitted.
--In arriving at penalty, the Committee took into account, as a mitigating factor, Mr Markham’s good record. It also took into account that the degree of carelessness was at the lower end of the scale and, in this regard, it agreed with Mr Escott’s assessment. It was a simple error of judgment on Mr Markham’s part. While the race was on a premier raceday, it was for a stake of $20,000 and was not one of the premier events on the card. The Committee also took into account that THE TIN MAN, which had been travelling well, lost its chance in the Race with a consequential impact on the betting public that had supported the horse.
--Taking those matters into account, and having regard to Mr Markham’s preference for a fine, the Committee was satisfied that the breach could be dealt with by way of a fine and Mr Markham was fined the sum of $300.
--R G McKenzie J M Phelan and S C Ching
CHAIR Committee Members
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: 0007f5439f1630f1cb1936c768a49dde
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 06/02/2010
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 6 February 2010 - Race 10
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68076
--Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club Date: 6 February 2010
--Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch Race No: 10
--Rule(s): 869 (3) (b)
--Judicial Committee: Chairman: R G McKenzie, Panel Member: J M Phelan
--Plea: Not Admitted
--Appearing:
--Informant: N R Escott, Chief Stipendiary Steward
--Defendant: C J Markham, Licensed Open Driver
--DECISION AND REASONS:
Following the running of Race 10, Nutri-Zing Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr C J Markham, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (b) in that Mr Markham, as the driver of THE TIN MAN in the Race, “drove carelessly when striking the wheel of SUMMER MAN (T S Chmiel) with approximately 350 metres to run”.
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 68076
--Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club Date: 6 February 2010
--Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch Race No: 10
--Rule(s): 869 (3) (b)
--Judicial Committee: Chairman: R G McKenzie, Panel Member: J M Phelan
--Plea: Not Admitted
--Appearing:
--Informant: N R Escott, Chief Stipendiary Steward
--Defendant: C J Markham, Licensed Open Driver
--DECISION AND REASONS:
Following the running of Race 10, Nutri-Zing Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr C J Markham, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (b) in that Mr Markham, as the driver of THE TIN MAN in the Race, “drove carelessly when striking the wheel of SUMMER MAN (T S Chmiel) with approximately 350 metres to run”.
Mr Markham was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he did not admit the breach.
--Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
Mr Escott said that it was alleged that THE TIN MAN had put his foot into the back of the sulky of SUMMER MAN which resulted in that horse being pulled back and also caused THE TIN MAN to gallop.
--Mrs K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward, showed video replays of the incident with approximately 350 metres to run. She pointed out MOMENT OF TRUTH (R T May) leading the 3-wide line being followed by SUMMER MAN who was followed, 3-back, by THE TIN MAN. She alleged that Mr Markham had a good hold on the horse and his hands were up high. The horse was racing keenly but not hanging or giving Mr Markham any undue difficulty. She then showed THE TIN MAN’s near front hoof go up on the wheel of SUMMER MAN and continuing before becoming “disengaged” as a result of which THE TIN MAN broke and the runner following it lost approximately 2 lengths. Mr Chmiel could be seen to turn his head. Mrs Williams alleged that Mr Chmiel’s horse had not come back on Mr Markham in any way – it was racing immediately on the back of MOMENT OF TRUTH.
--Mr Markham used the video replays. He alleged that there was “a slight easing” of the pace in the 3-wide line. He pointed out that the nose of SUMMER MAN came into contact with the helmet of Mr May and came back as a result, just as he, Mr Markham, was angling out. The movement was “not very much at all” but his horse was “on the bit and full of running”. Mr Chmiel had been tapping his horse up. THE TIN MAN was travelling exceptionally well and Mr Markham thought he would win at that point. He had not yet activated any of the horse’s gear.
--Mr Escott alleged that any slackening of the pace was minimal and, in any event, some slackening of the pace was common in most races. Mr Markham was unable to prevent his horse contacting the sulky of SUMMER MAN in front of him. This impeded the progress of SUMMER MAN. It was careless driving but at the lower end of the scale, Mr Escott said. It was an error of judgment on Mr Markham’s part.
--The Committee found that Mr Markham on THE TIN MAN was travelling well, 3-back in the 3-wide line behind SUMMER MAN (T S Chmiel), which in turn was following MOMENT OF TRUTH (R T May). At that point, Mr Markham alleged, the nose of SUMMER MAN struck the helmet of Mr May driving MOMENT OF TRUTH. This contact could be seen on the video replay and, according to Mr Markham, SUMMER MAN came back on him just as he was angling THE TIN MAN out for a run.
--The Committee did not accept that it was any movement by SUMMER MAN that caused THE TIN MAN to get its near front leg entangled in the sulky wheel of SUMMER MAN for a few strides and then go off stride. The Committee found that, rather, this was the result of an error of judgment on Mr Markham’s part in not leaving himself sufficient clearance when angling THE TIN MAN out for a run.
--The Committee was therefore satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr Markham drove carelessly in allowing his horse to strike the wheel and, therefore, the charge was found proved.
--In relation to penalty, Mr Escott stated that Mr Markham had a clear record of careless driving and referred to the fact that the Race was on a premier day for a stake of $20,000. He recommended a fine of $400 or a suspension for a period of 3 weeks.
--Mr Markham informed the Committee that he had a preference for a fine over a suspension. He referred to Mr Escott’s comment that the carelessness was at the lower end of the scale and asked the Committee to have regard to that. It was an error of judgment rather than a careless drive, he submitted.
--In arriving at penalty, the Committee took into account, as a mitigating factor, Mr Markham’s good record. It also took into account that the degree of carelessness was at the lower end of the scale and, in this regard, it agreed with Mr Escott’s assessment. It was a simple error of judgment on Mr Markham’s part. While the race was on a premier raceday, it was for a stake of $20,000 and was not one of the premier events on the card. The Committee also took into account that THE TIN MAN, which had been travelling well, lost its chance in the Race with a consequential impact on the betting public that had supported the horse.
--Taking those matters into account, and having regard to Mr Markham’s preference for a fine, the Committee was satisfied that the breach could be dealt with by way of a fine and Mr Markham was fined the sum of $300.
--R G McKenzie J M Phelan and S C Ching
CHAIR Committee Members
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869.3.b
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d87d77988c5fe22745c02e7df05c97ab
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 8862ae4aec9fe529b335f4d963a9cbf1
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 06/02/2010
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 6 February 2010
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: NZ Metro TC