Rangiora HRC 23 July 2017 – R 3 (heard 30 July 2017 at Oamaru) – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA18768
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND MR TODD QUATE
Junior Horseman
Respondent
Information: A9762
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr P Knowles, Member
Appearing: Mr S Renault, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant
The Respondent in person, with the assistance of Mr M Williamson, Open Horseman
Date of hearing: 30 July 2017
Date of written decision: 8 August 2017
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] An Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr Renault, against Junior Horseman, Mr Quate, alleging a breach of r 868(2) in that on 23 July 2017 at a race meeting conducted by the Rangiora Harness Racing Club at Rangiora in race 3 he did not improve his position near the 300 metres when possible to do so and in choosing that action he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure his horse was given every opportunity to obtain the best possible finishing position.
[2] Rule 868(2) reads:
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.
[3] The charge was heard as a Non Raceday hearing at the Oamaru Harness Racing Club’s meeting at Oamaru on 30 July 2017.
Informant’s case
[4] Mr Quate is a junior horseman. On 23 July 2017, he was the driver of the horse FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ in Race 3, the KAIAPOI CLAIMERS MOBILE PACE at the Rangiora Harness Racing Club meeting held at Rangiora.
[5] FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ is trained by Ms Amber Hoffman and in the race finished 3rd of 8, beaten 1.5 lengths from the winner ALEXY. The horse closed as the second favourite for the race and was paying $3.70 to win and $1.40 for a place.
[6] After questioning Mr Quate regarding the manner he had handled FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ during this race, the RIU filed an information with the JCA alleging that Mr Quate was in breach of r 868(2).
[7] Mr Renault submitted that r 868(2) is aimed at ensuring the integrity of Harness Racing is protected. A driver has two main obligations. They are to drive his or her horse in a manner that is both reasonable and permissible in order to gain the best possible finishing place, as an investor is entitled to have a driver do his best to gain a return from that investment. He referred to HRNZ v H (2005) where it was said:
“The Rule requires both a demonstration of tactics which can, by objective standards, be said to be both reasonable and permissible. Those have to be tactics which can be seen by not only the Stipendiary Stewards, but also those present at the racetrack, and in particular the betting public, to be tactics which are designed to give the horse every chance to finish in the best possible position that it can. The informant does not have to prove any deliberate intent not to win the race. There may be circumstances in which a driver’s manner of driving may amount merely to a permissible error of tactics, but where that error of tactics amounts to bad judgement that results in disadvantage to his horse, then such manner of driving falls within the terms of the rule.”
[8] Mr Renault demonstrated the alleged breach on the videos. He stated that from the mobile, FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was restrained from barrier 7 in a field of eight to trail ALEXY (Ms J Young) in the 1-out and 4-back position. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ travelled in this position for the majority of the race, until the horse briefly shifted inwards near the 200 metres when it was held up for clear running. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ, whilst still being held up for clear running, was then shifted outwards back into a three wide position to trail ALEXY for some distance in the middle stages of the home straight. Once securing clear running nearing the 100 metres, Mr Quate was able to urge FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ under discernible pressure with the reins, and he applied the whip on approximately 2 occasions over the concluding stages.
[9] The overall time of the race was 2.25.2; the mile rate was 1.56.8, last 800m in 58.3 and the final 400m in 29.8.
[10] Mr Renault stated that the Stewards’ concern with Mr Quate’s drive was that when rounding the final bend, particularly between the 500 and 250 metres, the opportunity existed for Mr Quate to shift the gelding outwards into a three-wide position. Passing the 500 metres, FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ trailed ALEXY, as it had done through the early and middle stages of the race, and appeared to be full of running when regard was had to the manner in which Mr Quate was positioned in the sulky.
[11] Mr Renault submitted that the opportunity to shift FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ 3-wide was an obtainable and reasonable option for Mr Quate until near the 250 metres when he was unable to do so after BEVAN’S CULLEN, driven by Mr Orange, improved to its outside and gained the advantage over FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ. As a result of Mr Quate’s decision not to shift outwards at this stage of the race, FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was held up for some distance. The Stewards did not believe it was acceptable in these circumstances that Mr Quate had elected to follow the body of the field and allow the horse to run home anticipating through chance that clear running would become available.
[12] Mr Quate did not satisfy the Stewards that he had allowed his horse to display its full credentials. At the stage of the race in question Mr Quate had a decision to make, either to shift outwards and ensure his runner was granted a full and unobstructed run to the line or remain in his position and rely solely on luck to have any chance of extending his runner. Mr Quate chose the latter and in doing so had an adverse effect on the punters and the connections of the horse. This was not a split second decision where events were unfolding quickly and he was not able to make a reason-based judgement call. Mr Quate’s decision had taken place over a considerable time and it was a conscious decision to remain in that position. It might not have been Mr Quate’s preferred option but there could be no argument that it was certainly the option that was in his best interests to ensure FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was given full opportunity to obtain the best possible finishing position. Mr Quate had failed in his requirement to give his runner the opportunity to do so.
[13] When questioned by Stewards as to any instructions given by Ms Hoffman, Mr Quate said, “Amber instructed me to drive the horse with a sit and hold it up for as long as possible as it only has a 150 metre sprint”.
[14] Mr Renault stated that Mr Quate had sat back in the field and drove the horse for luck. However, at some stage a driver must take advantage of the economical run his horse has enjoyed and do something with it. The predominant thought going through a driver’s head at this stage of the race must be ‘how can I find clear running’. At this final stage of the race any horse that is travelling well must be put into clear running. There is no acceptable alternative to ensure the integrity of harness racing is maintained. At such an important stage of the race when ‘the whips are cracking’, drivers must be seen to be doing their best to give their horses their chance, not holding their horse up for further luck.
[15] The Stewards questioned Mr Quate’s statement that the horse only possesses a sprint of 150 metres. Mr Renault showed the Judicial Committee the horse’s start immediately prior to this race. This was race 8 at the Forbury Park Trotting Club’s meeting on 15 July where Mr Quate again was the driver of the horse. The horse was positioned back in the field near the 600 metres. Mr Quate then angled the horse wider from the 600 metres to improve. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ raced in a four wide position leaving the bend and the horse then extended throughout the straight finishing in fourth placing.
[16] Mr Renault emphasised that the Stewards did not demand when FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was shifted wider that the horse was immediately asked to find full speed. Mr Quate should have taken his horse one position wider, steadied or balanced his runner and made sure that the position was his. In so doing, he would have guaranteed himself a clear run to the line, and would be in sole charge of his placing at that time. He would have been granted clear and ample running to ask the horse to do its best and he would have fulfilled his obligations under the rules.
[17] Mr Renault emphasised that Mr Quate would have caused BEVAN’S CULLEN, (one of his main competitors) to be taken wider and over extra ground. BEVAN’S CULLEN was 1/3 in the betting and Mr Quate should have been aware of who his main opposition was in the race. Taking BEVAN’S CULLEN wider would have simultaneously advantaged his own chances whilst diminishing the chances of one of his main rivals. It was a manoeuvre that Mr Quate should have executed. Instead he waited and lost the opportunity.
[18] Mr Renault demonstrated on the video that between the 500 and the 250 metres the respondent could have shifted 3 wide. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was under a hold on the bend and appeared to be full of running. He believed FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was held up for a run because the respondent continued to follow the body of the field. Mr Quate had activated the gear on FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ half way down the straight.
[19] Mr Renault continued by stating that whilst driving instructions are essential to the performance of a driver on behalf of the connections, it should never be the intent of the driver not to fulfil his obligations within the Rules of Harness Racing by not deviating from his instructions when it was either reasonable, permissible or necessary. In this regard, he drew this Committee’s attention to the case of Ruggari and Turnbull, a decision of the Harness Racing Appeals Tribunal on 29 September 2004, where Judge Thorley said, “whilst the evidence of any such driving instruction is relevant and plays an evidentiary part in the consideration of whatever charge is at stake, the existence of any such driving instruction does not detract from the obligation which the rule places directly on the driver”.
[20] Mr Renault also asked the Committee to bear in mind a quote from Haylen J where he said in a ruling in S dated 20 May 2009:
“Perhaps to throw my own interpretation into the mix I might view it this way – that the sort of culpable action that is required to amount to a breach of this rule might be such that in normal circumstances a reasonable and knowledgeable harness racing spectator might be expected to exclaim with words to the effect “what on earth is he doing” or “my goodness look at that” or some such exclamation.”
[21] Mr Renault submitted that racing in general relies on betting turnover and therefore it was important to maintain the confidence of the betting public. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was a favoured runner in the race and there may have been a substantial amount of money lost on the horse for investors. Mr Quate was required to demonstrate tactics during the race, which were both reasonable and permissible. He said: “Mr Quate’s drive in this race displayed bad judgement, lack of attention and negligence in the relevant stage of the race.” There had to come a point after enjoying such an advantageous run, as FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ had in this event, that a horseman must take it upon himself to act, however Mr Quate had failed to do so.
[22] Mr Quate had the opportunity to shift his horse wider on the track for some 250 metres, which in turn would have eliminated the occurrence of bad luck and in addition would have forced the favourite BEVAN’S CULLEN to cover extra ground. However, Mr Quate had elected to remain in his position. Mr Renault alleged that Mr Quate had solely followed instructions given by the trainer. This was not an acceptable defence. Drivers were expected to make decisions in races that were reasonable in the circumstances, particularly coming into a crucial stage of the race. Stewards did not believe Mr Quate had displayed these expectations and the tactics he had adopted were unreasonable.
[23] The RIU accepted that r 868(2) did not seek to punish mere errors of judgement during the running of a race but rather it required that the driver's conduct to be culpable in the sense that, objectively judged, it was found to be blameworthy. Mr Quate was required to leave no doubt in viewers’ minds that the horse had had every question asked of it, and in this instance, the RIU believed Mr Quate had failed to do so.
[24] The obligations, which this particular rule imposes, were to be shouldered by all drivers for the entirety of all races in which they were engaged. This was to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that the horse was given full opportunity to win or finish in the best possible place. In this instance, Mr Renault said, Mr Quate had allowed himself to fall short of these obligations.
Respondent’s case
[25] Mr Williamson submitted that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ had got a run 100 metres out and had not made ground. He emphasised the race had been run at speed and the last quarter was slow. He believed the respondent had done the right thing by sitting and waiting for a run. Mr Quate had been following the winner.
[26] Mr Williamson did not believe FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have finished first or second if FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ had come out, as the horse would have “walked home”. He said FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ had got to the other two horses 50 metres out and did not make ground from that point.
[27] Mr Williamson said he had driven FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ once recently. The horse could not sustain its speed. He thought it was a mental rather than a physical thing. He believed to come out on the bend would have been way too early and that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would not have beaten ALEXY, as the horse would have been weak at the line. Nevertheless, Mr Williamson said had he been driving FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ, he would have come out in order not to be in the room on a charge under this rule. He said even if it was not the best move having regard to the fact he believed FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was a weak horse, he would still have done so for the public eye.
[28] Mr Williamson stated he believed Mr Quate was unlucky. Not shifting out looked the wrong thing to do, but he believed the failure to do so did not affect the result, although he acknowledged FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have been outside ALEXY and inside BEVAN’S CULLEN. He believed FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have sprinted with them for a start but would not have been there for the last 100 metres.
[29] Mr Williamson said in relation to the Forbury Park run that at around the 150 metres FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ had folded up and had not continued to run away from the field. It had just run past beaten runners and had not carried on with its run.
[30] Mr Quate said he did not come out as he thought he was best to sit and wait for the last run. He emphasised he had not followed a horse that was stopping but had been behind the winner. He agreed had he come out, Mr Orange would have had to run wider on the track. But he thought if he came out FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have folded. He agreed he had come out for a run at Forbury at the 650 metres but the horse had never made ground on the horses in front.
[31] Mr Quate said he had got a gap late in the run home and the horse had never made ground in the last 75 metres as FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was not good enough.
Summing up
[32] Mr Renault summed up by stating that the respondent’s action in not coming out was unreasonable. Mr Williamson had acknowledged that had he been driving FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ, he would have come out and put the horse in the race. This move would have taken luck out of the run and would have forced the favourite wider on the track and made it work harder. There was no reason why Mr Quate could not have held FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ up and gone for the horse later. He believed the respondent had over-relied on his employer’s instructions. When the race unfolded there had to be a Plan B as well as a Plan A.
[33] Mr Williamson reminded this Committee that Mr Quate was a junior driver, driving the horse for his employer. He knew the horse as he worked it every day. If there had been error by Mr Quate, which was for this Committee to decide, he should just be warned, as he did not believe it had cost anything (we take this to mean a better placing for FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ).
Decision
[34] The question is whether or not the respondent took “all reasonable and permissible measures” from the 500 to the 250 metres “to ensure that his horse was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place”.
[35] This Committee is divided on this matter, with one member being satisfied that the rule has been breached and the other not being so satisfied.
[36] This decision will be delivered in two parts. First the Member of this Committee’s view and then the Chairman’s.
The Member
[37] Having watched the videos and heard from Mr Williamson and Mr Quate it is the Member’s view that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ does not have a great finish. It runs on but the horse is a battler. In this regard, it is significant that both horsemen who have driven the horse state that it has a short sprint. Mr Quate works for Ms Hoffman and he knows the horse well. So he is in a very good position to comment on the horse’s abilities.
[38] It is accepted that driving instructions are not a defence to this or any other charge. At some point horsemen have to make their own decision based on the circumstances they find themselves in.
[39] The main issue the Member has with this charge is that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ finished third. Had the horse been blocked for a run or held up, and finished midfield, then the outcome would be different.
[40] The RIU’s case is that the respondent should have shifted out between the 500 to 300 metres mark. The member is concerned that Mr Renault did not offer any other hard evidence to support his claim that the respondent’s drive was unreasonable other than to say Mr Quate drove for luck.
[41] The Member does not accept Mr Renault’s claim that had Mr Quate shifted outwards when able, he would have been two wide. In his view FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have been at least five wide on the turn into the home straight.
[42] The Member also does not accept Mr Renault’s submission that Mr Quate could have shifted out and then sat there without improving until entering the home straight. There is no advantage to pulling out from a trailing position and sitting outside another horse. This increases the distance the horse needs to travel. Mr Quate was better off staying where he was and saving ground, which he did.
[43] The Member’s decision is influenced by the fact that even with the run he had FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ came to the end of its run 75 to 50 metres short of the post. In his view had the horse gone wide anytime between the 500 metres to the 300 metres it would have battled at least 200 metres to 150 metres out from the finish. The Member does not accept Mr Renault’s submission that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have pushed BEVAN’S CULLEN wider and beaten it home. BEVAN’S CULLEN was finishing stronger at the end of the race and FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would not have beaten that horse.
[44] The Member does not believe FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was held up for a run. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was under a hold when trailing ALEXY, but when that runner moved forward to challenge for the lead, the respondent was chasing FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ up with the rein and the horse could not keep up. Mr Quate also stated that he knew the two inside runners were weakening and he would get a run, which he did.
[45] Both Mr Williamson and Mr Quate agree that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ is not strong if taken into the race too early. Mr Williamson stated had he driven FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ he would have shifted outwards when the opportunity arose. He said he would have employed this tactic, not to better the horse’s chances of finishing in a better position, but solely to avoid being charged by the Stewards for not doing so. This is despite stating in his opinion, that given the horse’s racing history and after analysing the video, he doubted FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have finished any better than 3rd placing if taken wide from the 250m mark. Mr Renault has pursued a charge under r 868 (2) based on his opinion on how Mr Quate should have driven his horse, with no factual evidence to support it. He has relied heavily on opinions from various decisions to back up his claims that Mr Quate is in breach of the rule.
[46] The Member concludes that just because Mr Quate chose tactics that were different to Mr Renault’s tactical opinion does not constitute a breach of the rule. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ finished in third position due to the tactics adopted by the respondent. In doing so Mr Quate showed good judgement and drove within the scope of the rule. The Member would thus dismiss the charge.
The Chairman
[47] The Chairman is of the view that the opportunity to shift wider on the track was clearly presented to the respondent over a distance of some 200 metres of the race shortly after the 500 metres mark. Mr Quate made no effort to shift wider on the track at this time but rather continued to trail ALEXY. His employer’s instructions were to take cover and to hold the horse up for a final run. The respondent’s plan was simply to follow these instructions, which he did to the letter.
[48] Significantly, had the respondent shifted wider on the track, this would have shifted Mr Orange, driving the favoured horse BEVAN’S CULLEN, wider. It may well be that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have had to run home 4 wide but in that case Mr Orange would have been 5 wide.
[49] Mr Quate has emphasised he was driving to instructions and that he knew the abilities of the horse. However, Mr Renault is correct when he says when opportunities arise in a race to depart from these instructions to improve the position of the horse and to improve its chances of winning the race, if these steps are reasonable and permissible they should be taken.
[50] The Chairman has questioned whether this was simply a bad judgement call by the respondent in the heat of the race. But it is telling that this opportunity to shift was present for some 200 metres and was spurned by Mr Quate, who just sat back and continued to trail ALEXY. This was not a split second decision.
[51] Mr Williamson, when assisting Mr Quate, has said that he would have shifted outwards had he been driving FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ. He stated this would have been to avoid being charged by the Stewards or, in other words, to ensure he would not have been in breach of r 868(2). Significantly, and indeed most telling, is the fact that Mr Williamson has driven FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ and is thus aware of the horse’s ability, and yet he would have made the decision to comply with the rules and take the unimpeded run that had presented itself.
[52] Furthermore, Mr Williamson said he would have been aware of the adverse public perception of his drive had he not shifted out. It is the Chairman’s view that Mr Quate’s failure to come out was more than a permissible error of tactics and resulted to a situation, to use Haylen J’s words in S, that a knowledgeable harness racing spectator might exclaim with words to the effect “what on earth is he [in this case Mr Quate] doing”.
[53] The Chairman also refers in this regard to the decision in H, noted previously, where it was said that the tactics adopted by a driver have to be able to be seen by not only the Stipendiary Stewards, but also those present at the racetrack, and in particular the betting public, to be tactics which are designed to give the horse every chance to finish in the best possible position that it can. The Chairman is of the view that Mr Quate’s manner of driving was an example of the situation in which the error of tactics has amounted to a bad judgement that has resulted in disadvantage to the horse and, as such, the manner of Mr Quate’s driving falls within the terms of the rule.
[54] Mr Quate had the opportunity to put FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ into the race on the bend when he could have simply shifted the horse wider on the track and then asked the horse for its effort in the home straight when the horse would have had an unimpeded run to the line.
[55] Mr Quate has emphasised that the horses he chose to follow were horses that were running on rather than those that were coming back to the field. However, FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was held up for a run for some distance in the straight. When ALEXY surged to the lead the respondent took time to activate the gear before taking the run that had then opened up to the inside of ALEXY. By this time ALEXY was already some distance in front of FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ.
[56] When the run came for FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ late in the straight, the horse ran on in a sustained fashion. It made ground on ALEXY and BEVAN’S CULLEN, although BEVAN’S CULLEN does appear to be stronger at the line than FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ.
[57] Both Mr Quate and Mr Williamson have emphasised that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ does not have a long sprint and this was a reason for Mr Quate not to take the opportunity to shift wider on the track. This Committee viewed FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ’s previous start at Forbury Park. The Chairman has observed that the horse mounted a long run to the outside of the field towards the finish in that race. The result was that the horse finished 4th some distance from 3rd. It was a sustained run from the rear of the field and the horse ran past a number of runners. Significantly, had Mr Quate shifted out when the opportunity presented for some 200 metres in the race before us, the horse would not have been required to undertake a run of such magnitude as the one at Forbury.
[58] The Chairman is satisfied that the opportunity was present to shift FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ outwards at the 500 metres and this persisted for some 250 metres until BEVAN’S CULLEN moved up to be outside FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ. Had Mr Quate shifted outwards any run that might have eventuated for BEVAN’S CULLEN, which finished second, would have had to be wider on the track. As it was, Mr Orange obtained the run to the outside of ALEXY that could have been taken by FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ. Whether BEVAN’S CULLEN would still have finished ahead of FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ does not need to be determined for the purpose of finding this charge proved. Ultimately, the issue is whether Mr Quate in deciding not to shift out and take the run is in breach of the rule. His failure to move, as noted, was as a consequence of his following his employer’s instructions and his belief that his horse was not good enough to shift outwards and take the clear run when rounding the bend and running up the home straight.
[59] The Chairman believes that Mr Renault was correct when he submitted that Mr Quate has sat back and relied on luck, waiting until a run presented itself. Had Mr Quate shifted out he would have got an unimpeded run to the line and may have surged towards the lead at the same time as or before ALEXY, rather than being held up until eventually obtaining a run to that horse’s inside. Whether FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have finished ahead of ALEXY and BEVAN’S CULLEN is of course not known, but in these circumstances Mr Quate would have driven in accordance with the rules, having given the horse every opportunity to win the race. Significantly and more to the point, he would have taken all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure, if good enough on the day, that the horse did do so.
[60] Thus, the Chairman would find that the respondent in failing to shift wider on the track and take an unimpeded run to the winning post is in breach of r 868(2) in that he has failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best finishing position for FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ.
Result
[61] The onus is on the informant to satisfy this Judicial Committee. The Chairman does not have any additional voting rights. His or her role is to preside and run the hearing on matters of procedure. The decision is a matter of substance. If the two members of the Committee are not satisfied, the information is not proved. As a consequence, the charge is dismissed.
Dated at Dunedin this 8th day of August 2017.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Decision Date: 23/07/2017
Publish Date: 23/07/2017
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: 22ba9fc5b6982efa6a6195c4c74586a3
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 23/07/2017
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Rangiora HRC 23 July 2017 - R 3 (heard 30 July 2017 at Oamaru) - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND MR TODD QUATE
Junior Horseman
Respondent
Information: A9762
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr P Knowles, Member
Appearing: Mr S Renault, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant
The Respondent in person, with the assistance of Mr M Williamson, Open Horseman
Date of hearing: 30 July 2017
Date of written decision: 8 August 2017
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] An Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr Renault, against Junior Horseman, Mr Quate, alleging a breach of r 868(2) in that on 23 July 2017 at a race meeting conducted by the Rangiora Harness Racing Club at Rangiora in race 3 he did not improve his position near the 300 metres when possible to do so and in choosing that action he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure his horse was given every opportunity to obtain the best possible finishing position.
[2] Rule 868(2) reads:
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.
[3] The charge was heard as a Non Raceday hearing at the Oamaru Harness Racing Club’s meeting at Oamaru on 30 July 2017.
Informant’s case
[4] Mr Quate is a junior horseman. On 23 July 2017, he was the driver of the horse FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ in Race 3, the KAIAPOI CLAIMERS MOBILE PACE at the Rangiora Harness Racing Club meeting held at Rangiora.
[5] FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ is trained by Ms Amber Hoffman and in the race finished 3rd of 8, beaten 1.5 lengths from the winner ALEXY. The horse closed as the second favourite for the race and was paying $3.70 to win and $1.40 for a place.
[6] After questioning Mr Quate regarding the manner he had handled FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ during this race, the RIU filed an information with the JCA alleging that Mr Quate was in breach of r 868(2).
[7] Mr Renault submitted that r 868(2) is aimed at ensuring the integrity of Harness Racing is protected. A driver has two main obligations. They are to drive his or her horse in a manner that is both reasonable and permissible in order to gain the best possible finishing place, as an investor is entitled to have a driver do his best to gain a return from that investment. He referred to HRNZ v H (2005) where it was said:
“The Rule requires both a demonstration of tactics which can, by objective standards, be said to be both reasonable and permissible. Those have to be tactics which can be seen by not only the Stipendiary Stewards, but also those present at the racetrack, and in particular the betting public, to be tactics which are designed to give the horse every chance to finish in the best possible position that it can. The informant does not have to prove any deliberate intent not to win the race. There may be circumstances in which a driver’s manner of driving may amount merely to a permissible error of tactics, but where that error of tactics amounts to bad judgement that results in disadvantage to his horse, then such manner of driving falls within the terms of the rule.”
[8] Mr Renault demonstrated the alleged breach on the videos. He stated that from the mobile, FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was restrained from barrier 7 in a field of eight to trail ALEXY (Ms J Young) in the 1-out and 4-back position. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ travelled in this position for the majority of the race, until the horse briefly shifted inwards near the 200 metres when it was held up for clear running. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ, whilst still being held up for clear running, was then shifted outwards back into a three wide position to trail ALEXY for some distance in the middle stages of the home straight. Once securing clear running nearing the 100 metres, Mr Quate was able to urge FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ under discernible pressure with the reins, and he applied the whip on approximately 2 occasions over the concluding stages.
[9] The overall time of the race was 2.25.2; the mile rate was 1.56.8, last 800m in 58.3 and the final 400m in 29.8.
[10] Mr Renault stated that the Stewards’ concern with Mr Quate’s drive was that when rounding the final bend, particularly between the 500 and 250 metres, the opportunity existed for Mr Quate to shift the gelding outwards into a three-wide position. Passing the 500 metres, FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ trailed ALEXY, as it had done through the early and middle stages of the race, and appeared to be full of running when regard was had to the manner in which Mr Quate was positioned in the sulky.
[11] Mr Renault submitted that the opportunity to shift FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ 3-wide was an obtainable and reasonable option for Mr Quate until near the 250 metres when he was unable to do so after BEVAN’S CULLEN, driven by Mr Orange, improved to its outside and gained the advantage over FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ. As a result of Mr Quate’s decision not to shift outwards at this stage of the race, FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was held up for some distance. The Stewards did not believe it was acceptable in these circumstances that Mr Quate had elected to follow the body of the field and allow the horse to run home anticipating through chance that clear running would become available.
[12] Mr Quate did not satisfy the Stewards that he had allowed his horse to display its full credentials. At the stage of the race in question Mr Quate had a decision to make, either to shift outwards and ensure his runner was granted a full and unobstructed run to the line or remain in his position and rely solely on luck to have any chance of extending his runner. Mr Quate chose the latter and in doing so had an adverse effect on the punters and the connections of the horse. This was not a split second decision where events were unfolding quickly and he was not able to make a reason-based judgement call. Mr Quate’s decision had taken place over a considerable time and it was a conscious decision to remain in that position. It might not have been Mr Quate’s preferred option but there could be no argument that it was certainly the option that was in his best interests to ensure FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was given full opportunity to obtain the best possible finishing position. Mr Quate had failed in his requirement to give his runner the opportunity to do so.
[13] When questioned by Stewards as to any instructions given by Ms Hoffman, Mr Quate said, “Amber instructed me to drive the horse with a sit and hold it up for as long as possible as it only has a 150 metre sprint”.
[14] Mr Renault stated that Mr Quate had sat back in the field and drove the horse for luck. However, at some stage a driver must take advantage of the economical run his horse has enjoyed and do something with it. The predominant thought going through a driver’s head at this stage of the race must be ‘how can I find clear running’. At this final stage of the race any horse that is travelling well must be put into clear running. There is no acceptable alternative to ensure the integrity of harness racing is maintained. At such an important stage of the race when ‘the whips are cracking’, drivers must be seen to be doing their best to give their horses their chance, not holding their horse up for further luck.
[15] The Stewards questioned Mr Quate’s statement that the horse only possesses a sprint of 150 metres. Mr Renault showed the Judicial Committee the horse’s start immediately prior to this race. This was race 8 at the Forbury Park Trotting Club’s meeting on 15 July where Mr Quate again was the driver of the horse. The horse was positioned back in the field near the 600 metres. Mr Quate then angled the horse wider from the 600 metres to improve. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ raced in a four wide position leaving the bend and the horse then extended throughout the straight finishing in fourth placing.
[16] Mr Renault emphasised that the Stewards did not demand when FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was shifted wider that the horse was immediately asked to find full speed. Mr Quate should have taken his horse one position wider, steadied or balanced his runner and made sure that the position was his. In so doing, he would have guaranteed himself a clear run to the line, and would be in sole charge of his placing at that time. He would have been granted clear and ample running to ask the horse to do its best and he would have fulfilled his obligations under the rules.
[17] Mr Renault emphasised that Mr Quate would have caused BEVAN’S CULLEN, (one of his main competitors) to be taken wider and over extra ground. BEVAN’S CULLEN was 1/3 in the betting and Mr Quate should have been aware of who his main opposition was in the race. Taking BEVAN’S CULLEN wider would have simultaneously advantaged his own chances whilst diminishing the chances of one of his main rivals. It was a manoeuvre that Mr Quate should have executed. Instead he waited and lost the opportunity.
[18] Mr Renault demonstrated on the video that between the 500 and the 250 metres the respondent could have shifted 3 wide. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was under a hold on the bend and appeared to be full of running. He believed FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was held up for a run because the respondent continued to follow the body of the field. Mr Quate had activated the gear on FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ half way down the straight.
[19] Mr Renault continued by stating that whilst driving instructions are essential to the performance of a driver on behalf of the connections, it should never be the intent of the driver not to fulfil his obligations within the Rules of Harness Racing by not deviating from his instructions when it was either reasonable, permissible or necessary. In this regard, he drew this Committee’s attention to the case of Ruggari and Turnbull, a decision of the Harness Racing Appeals Tribunal on 29 September 2004, where Judge Thorley said, “whilst the evidence of any such driving instruction is relevant and plays an evidentiary part in the consideration of whatever charge is at stake, the existence of any such driving instruction does not detract from the obligation which the rule places directly on the driver”.
[20] Mr Renault also asked the Committee to bear in mind a quote from Haylen J where he said in a ruling in S dated 20 May 2009:
“Perhaps to throw my own interpretation into the mix I might view it this way – that the sort of culpable action that is required to amount to a breach of this rule might be such that in normal circumstances a reasonable and knowledgeable harness racing spectator might be expected to exclaim with words to the effect “what on earth is he doing” or “my goodness look at that” or some such exclamation.”
[21] Mr Renault submitted that racing in general relies on betting turnover and therefore it was important to maintain the confidence of the betting public. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was a favoured runner in the race and there may have been a substantial amount of money lost on the horse for investors. Mr Quate was required to demonstrate tactics during the race, which were both reasonable and permissible. He said: “Mr Quate’s drive in this race displayed bad judgement, lack of attention and negligence in the relevant stage of the race.” There had to come a point after enjoying such an advantageous run, as FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ had in this event, that a horseman must take it upon himself to act, however Mr Quate had failed to do so.
[22] Mr Quate had the opportunity to shift his horse wider on the track for some 250 metres, which in turn would have eliminated the occurrence of bad luck and in addition would have forced the favourite BEVAN’S CULLEN to cover extra ground. However, Mr Quate had elected to remain in his position. Mr Renault alleged that Mr Quate had solely followed instructions given by the trainer. This was not an acceptable defence. Drivers were expected to make decisions in races that were reasonable in the circumstances, particularly coming into a crucial stage of the race. Stewards did not believe Mr Quate had displayed these expectations and the tactics he had adopted were unreasonable.
[23] The RIU accepted that r 868(2) did not seek to punish mere errors of judgement during the running of a race but rather it required that the driver's conduct to be culpable in the sense that, objectively judged, it was found to be blameworthy. Mr Quate was required to leave no doubt in viewers’ minds that the horse had had every question asked of it, and in this instance, the RIU believed Mr Quate had failed to do so.
[24] The obligations, which this particular rule imposes, were to be shouldered by all drivers for the entirety of all races in which they were engaged. This was to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that the horse was given full opportunity to win or finish in the best possible place. In this instance, Mr Renault said, Mr Quate had allowed himself to fall short of these obligations.
Respondent’s case
[25] Mr Williamson submitted that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ had got a run 100 metres out and had not made ground. He emphasised the race had been run at speed and the last quarter was slow. He believed the respondent had done the right thing by sitting and waiting for a run. Mr Quate had been following the winner.
[26] Mr Williamson did not believe FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have finished first or second if FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ had come out, as the horse would have “walked home”. He said FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ had got to the other two horses 50 metres out and did not make ground from that point.
[27] Mr Williamson said he had driven FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ once recently. The horse could not sustain its speed. He thought it was a mental rather than a physical thing. He believed to come out on the bend would have been way too early and that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would not have beaten ALEXY, as the horse would have been weak at the line. Nevertheless, Mr Williamson said had he been driving FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ, he would have come out in order not to be in the room on a charge under this rule. He said even if it was not the best move having regard to the fact he believed FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was a weak horse, he would still have done so for the public eye.
[28] Mr Williamson stated he believed Mr Quate was unlucky. Not shifting out looked the wrong thing to do, but he believed the failure to do so did not affect the result, although he acknowledged FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have been outside ALEXY and inside BEVAN’S CULLEN. He believed FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have sprinted with them for a start but would not have been there for the last 100 metres.
[29] Mr Williamson said in relation to the Forbury Park run that at around the 150 metres FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ had folded up and had not continued to run away from the field. It had just run past beaten runners and had not carried on with its run.
[30] Mr Quate said he did not come out as he thought he was best to sit and wait for the last run. He emphasised he had not followed a horse that was stopping but had been behind the winner. He agreed had he come out, Mr Orange would have had to run wider on the track. But he thought if he came out FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have folded. He agreed he had come out for a run at Forbury at the 650 metres but the horse had never made ground on the horses in front.
[31] Mr Quate said he had got a gap late in the run home and the horse had never made ground in the last 75 metres as FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was not good enough.
Summing up
[32] Mr Renault summed up by stating that the respondent’s action in not coming out was unreasonable. Mr Williamson had acknowledged that had he been driving FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ, he would have come out and put the horse in the race. This move would have taken luck out of the run and would have forced the favourite wider on the track and made it work harder. There was no reason why Mr Quate could not have held FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ up and gone for the horse later. He believed the respondent had over-relied on his employer’s instructions. When the race unfolded there had to be a Plan B as well as a Plan A.
[33] Mr Williamson reminded this Committee that Mr Quate was a junior driver, driving the horse for his employer. He knew the horse as he worked it every day. If there had been error by Mr Quate, which was for this Committee to decide, he should just be warned, as he did not believe it had cost anything (we take this to mean a better placing for FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ).
Decision
[34] The question is whether or not the respondent took “all reasonable and permissible measures” from the 500 to the 250 metres “to ensure that his horse was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place”.
[35] This Committee is divided on this matter, with one member being satisfied that the rule has been breached and the other not being so satisfied.
[36] This decision will be delivered in two parts. First the Member of this Committee’s view and then the Chairman’s.
The Member
[37] Having watched the videos and heard from Mr Williamson and Mr Quate it is the Member’s view that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ does not have a great finish. It runs on but the horse is a battler. In this regard, it is significant that both horsemen who have driven the horse state that it has a short sprint. Mr Quate works for Ms Hoffman and he knows the horse well. So he is in a very good position to comment on the horse’s abilities.
[38] It is accepted that driving instructions are not a defence to this or any other charge. At some point horsemen have to make their own decision based on the circumstances they find themselves in.
[39] The main issue the Member has with this charge is that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ finished third. Had the horse been blocked for a run or held up, and finished midfield, then the outcome would be different.
[40] The RIU’s case is that the respondent should have shifted out between the 500 to 300 metres mark. The member is concerned that Mr Renault did not offer any other hard evidence to support his claim that the respondent’s drive was unreasonable other than to say Mr Quate drove for luck.
[41] The Member does not accept Mr Renault’s claim that had Mr Quate shifted outwards when able, he would have been two wide. In his view FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have been at least five wide on the turn into the home straight.
[42] The Member also does not accept Mr Renault’s submission that Mr Quate could have shifted out and then sat there without improving until entering the home straight. There is no advantage to pulling out from a trailing position and sitting outside another horse. This increases the distance the horse needs to travel. Mr Quate was better off staying where he was and saving ground, which he did.
[43] The Member’s decision is influenced by the fact that even with the run he had FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ came to the end of its run 75 to 50 metres short of the post. In his view had the horse gone wide anytime between the 500 metres to the 300 metres it would have battled at least 200 metres to 150 metres out from the finish. The Member does not accept Mr Renault’s submission that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have pushed BEVAN’S CULLEN wider and beaten it home. BEVAN’S CULLEN was finishing stronger at the end of the race and FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would not have beaten that horse.
[44] The Member does not believe FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was held up for a run. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was under a hold when trailing ALEXY, but when that runner moved forward to challenge for the lead, the respondent was chasing FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ up with the rein and the horse could not keep up. Mr Quate also stated that he knew the two inside runners were weakening and he would get a run, which he did.
[45] Both Mr Williamson and Mr Quate agree that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ is not strong if taken into the race too early. Mr Williamson stated had he driven FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ he would have shifted outwards when the opportunity arose. He said he would have employed this tactic, not to better the horse’s chances of finishing in a better position, but solely to avoid being charged by the Stewards for not doing so. This is despite stating in his opinion, that given the horse’s racing history and after analysing the video, he doubted FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have finished any better than 3rd placing if taken wide from the 250m mark. Mr Renault has pursued a charge under r 868 (2) based on his opinion on how Mr Quate should have driven his horse, with no factual evidence to support it. He has relied heavily on opinions from various decisions to back up his claims that Mr Quate is in breach of the rule.
[46] The Member concludes that just because Mr Quate chose tactics that were different to Mr Renault’s tactical opinion does not constitute a breach of the rule. FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ finished in third position due to the tactics adopted by the respondent. In doing so Mr Quate showed good judgement and drove within the scope of the rule. The Member would thus dismiss the charge.
The Chairman
[47] The Chairman is of the view that the opportunity to shift wider on the track was clearly presented to the respondent over a distance of some 200 metres of the race shortly after the 500 metres mark. Mr Quate made no effort to shift wider on the track at this time but rather continued to trail ALEXY. His employer’s instructions were to take cover and to hold the horse up for a final run. The respondent’s plan was simply to follow these instructions, which he did to the letter.
[48] Significantly, had the respondent shifted wider on the track, this would have shifted Mr Orange, driving the favoured horse BEVAN’S CULLEN, wider. It may well be that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have had to run home 4 wide but in that case Mr Orange would have been 5 wide.
[49] Mr Quate has emphasised he was driving to instructions and that he knew the abilities of the horse. However, Mr Renault is correct when he says when opportunities arise in a race to depart from these instructions to improve the position of the horse and to improve its chances of winning the race, if these steps are reasonable and permissible they should be taken.
[50] The Chairman has questioned whether this was simply a bad judgement call by the respondent in the heat of the race. But it is telling that this opportunity to shift was present for some 200 metres and was spurned by Mr Quate, who just sat back and continued to trail ALEXY. This was not a split second decision.
[51] Mr Williamson, when assisting Mr Quate, has said that he would have shifted outwards had he been driving FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ. He stated this would have been to avoid being charged by the Stewards or, in other words, to ensure he would not have been in breach of r 868(2). Significantly, and indeed most telling, is the fact that Mr Williamson has driven FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ and is thus aware of the horse’s ability, and yet he would have made the decision to comply with the rules and take the unimpeded run that had presented itself.
[52] Furthermore, Mr Williamson said he would have been aware of the adverse public perception of his drive had he not shifted out. It is the Chairman’s view that Mr Quate’s failure to come out was more than a permissible error of tactics and resulted to a situation, to use Haylen J’s words in S, that a knowledgeable harness racing spectator might exclaim with words to the effect “what on earth is he [in this case Mr Quate] doing”.
[53] The Chairman also refers in this regard to the decision in H, noted previously, where it was said that the tactics adopted by a driver have to be able to be seen by not only the Stipendiary Stewards, but also those present at the racetrack, and in particular the betting public, to be tactics which are designed to give the horse every chance to finish in the best possible position that it can. The Chairman is of the view that Mr Quate’s manner of driving was an example of the situation in which the error of tactics has amounted to a bad judgement that has resulted in disadvantage to the horse and, as such, the manner of Mr Quate’s driving falls within the terms of the rule.
[54] Mr Quate had the opportunity to put FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ into the race on the bend when he could have simply shifted the horse wider on the track and then asked the horse for its effort in the home straight when the horse would have had an unimpeded run to the line.
[55] Mr Quate has emphasised that the horses he chose to follow were horses that were running on rather than those that were coming back to the field. However, FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was held up for a run for some distance in the straight. When ALEXY surged to the lead the respondent took time to activate the gear before taking the run that had then opened up to the inside of ALEXY. By this time ALEXY was already some distance in front of FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ.
[56] When the run came for FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ late in the straight, the horse ran on in a sustained fashion. It made ground on ALEXY and BEVAN’S CULLEN, although BEVAN’S CULLEN does appear to be stronger at the line than FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ.
[57] Both Mr Quate and Mr Williamson have emphasised that FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ does not have a long sprint and this was a reason for Mr Quate not to take the opportunity to shift wider on the track. This Committee viewed FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ’s previous start at Forbury Park. The Chairman has observed that the horse mounted a long run to the outside of the field towards the finish in that race. The result was that the horse finished 4th some distance from 3rd. It was a sustained run from the rear of the field and the horse ran past a number of runners. Significantly, had Mr Quate shifted out when the opportunity presented for some 200 metres in the race before us, the horse would not have been required to undertake a run of such magnitude as the one at Forbury.
[58] The Chairman is satisfied that the opportunity was present to shift FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ outwards at the 500 metres and this persisted for some 250 metres until BEVAN’S CULLEN moved up to be outside FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ. Had Mr Quate shifted outwards any run that might have eventuated for BEVAN’S CULLEN, which finished second, would have had to be wider on the track. As it was, Mr Orange obtained the run to the outside of ALEXY that could have been taken by FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ. Whether BEVAN’S CULLEN would still have finished ahead of FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ does not need to be determined for the purpose of finding this charge proved. Ultimately, the issue is whether Mr Quate in deciding not to shift out and take the run is in breach of the rule. His failure to move, as noted, was as a consequence of his following his employer’s instructions and his belief that his horse was not good enough to shift outwards and take the clear run when rounding the bend and running up the home straight.
[59] The Chairman believes that Mr Renault was correct when he submitted that Mr Quate has sat back and relied on luck, waiting until a run presented itself. Had Mr Quate shifted out he would have got an unimpeded run to the line and may have surged towards the lead at the same time as or before ALEXY, rather than being held up until eventually obtaining a run to that horse’s inside. Whether FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ would have finished ahead of ALEXY and BEVAN’S CULLEN is of course not known, but in these circumstances Mr Quate would have driven in accordance with the rules, having given the horse every opportunity to win the race. Significantly and more to the point, he would have taken all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure, if good enough on the day, that the horse did do so.
[60] Thus, the Chairman would find that the respondent in failing to shift wider on the track and take an unimpeded run to the winning post is in breach of r 868(2) in that he has failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best finishing position for FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ.
Result
[61] The onus is on the informant to satisfy this Judicial Committee. The Chairman does not have any additional voting rights. His or her role is to preside and run the hearing on matters of procedure. The decision is a matter of substance. If the two members of the Committee are not satisfied, the information is not proved. As a consequence, the charge is dismissed.
Dated at Dunedin this 8th day of August 2017.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 868(2)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid:
race_expapproval:
racecancelled:
race_noreport:
race_emailed1:
race_emailed2:
race_title:
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid:
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport:
waitingforpublication:
meet_emailed1:
meet_emailed2:
meetdate: no date provided
meet_title:
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation:
meet_racingtype:
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: