Stratford HRC 13 February 2011 – R 1
ID: JCA17219
Meet Title:
Stratford TC - 13 February 2011
Meet Chair:
ISmith
Meet Committee Member 1:
TUtikere
Race Date:
2011/02/13
Race Number:
R 1
Decision:
The committee found the charge proved.
Penalty:
Mr Abernethy is suspended from the close of racing on 13 February 2011 up to and including 3 March 2011. The committee in addition to the suspension also impose a monetary penalty of $3000.
Charge:
Following the running of Race 1, Information 69417 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr T Taumanu under Rule 869 (3)(a). The information stated that:
Jay Abernethy drove incompetently when he allowed his horse ‘Major Seelster’ to pace for approximately 1800 metres of this trotting race.
Mr Abernethy confirmed his admission of the breach, and wished to attend the hearing.
Mr Taumanu read the rule. Rule 869 “No horseman in any race shall…(3)(a) drive incompetently.”
Mr Abernethy confirmed he understood the rule.
Facts:
Using the films of the 2600m Trot, Mr Taumanu pointed out to the committee, the horse driven by Mr Abernethy. He used the films to demonstrate that Mr Abernethy’s horse, ‘Major Seelster’, paced for approximately 1800m of the race, identifying that it was in its incorrect gait during this time. Mr Taumanu indicated that he was amazed that Mr Abernethy allowed his horse to continue in its incorrect gait for such a lengthy distance. It was visible that ‘Major Seelster’ had started pacing from barrier rise.
Mr Taumanu also used the films to demonstrate the difference in movement between a horse pacing, where its legs move together on each side, compared with the actions of other horses in the field who were trotting. Mr Taumanu indicated to the committee that Mr Abernethy’s drive was pacing “free-legged”, and that it is the driver’s obligation to correct the horse into its correct gait and to get it trotting again, and competing in the race. It was Mr Taumanu’s comment that the film clearly demonstrated that Mr Abernethy did not do this. The film indicates Mr Abernethy looking down to his left during the race, realising something is not right. Mr Taumanu commented that at no time did Mr Abernethy take a hold of his horse, or attempt to steady it and get it back into its correct gait. ‘Major Seelster’ continued to pace for approximately 1800m, something that would not be expected from a top, young, professional driver with much ability. Mr Taumanu submitted that it was difficult for him to reconcile how Mr Abernethy could allow this to happen. Mr Taumanu stated that the horse was allowed to pace by Mr Abernethy, which was unfortunate.
Also using the available films, Mr Muirhead pointed out that Mr Abernethy’s horse was at the rear of the field and continued to pace. He stated that usually when a driver notices that their horse is pacing they restrain their drive and attempt to get it back into its correct gait, even if this requires the driver to pull the horse up to a stand. It was clear from the films that at no stage did Mr Abernethy take such action. Mr Muirhead also commented that when bunching up in the back straight, ‘Major Seelster’ races up alongside Mr Ferguson, and at this point Mr Ferguson tells Mr Abernethy that he is in the wrong gait. Mr Muirhead pointed out on the films, the point where Mr Ferguson and Mr Abernethy are talking to each other, and this is with approximately 800m of the race left to run. At this point Mr Abernethy restrains his horse out of the field. Mr Muirhead indicated that 1800m of the race has been run when Mr Abernethy finally realises he is required to take some action. Mr Muirhead commented that he found this very surprising due to Mr Abernethy’s skill level.
Mr Taumanu read the definition of incompetent driving as: failing to show the requisite skill and ability for the task of driving a horse competitively or safely in a race.
He also advised that it was one of the more serious charges that could be laid. Mr Muirhead also added that there was another charge of failing to correct a horse’s gait, but that the incompetent driving charge was far more serious.
Mr Abernethy was then given the opportunity to address the committee, using the film or verbally if he wished to. He advised that the horse was a 3 year old and had previously raced as a 2 year old pacer, with this being his fifth trotting start. He also advised that the horse had a wide action in behind, and also had bandages on. Mr Abernethy stated that he could not tell if he was pacing, and it was not until he got up next to another driver during the race who asked him if he was trotting or pacing. Mr Abernethy replied that he could not tell if this was the case. He also advised the committee that ‘Major Seelster’ had paced away whilst racing previously, but previously he was pulled up and brought back into its correct gait.
Mr Taumanu confirmed with Mr Abernethy that a pacer’s rear action, from a driver’s perspective, is of a ‘rolling’ nature and more fluid. This is as opposed to a trotter’s action which is one of being an ‘up and down’ rear action. Mr Abernethy said the difficulty was that with his horse’s wide action being of a swinging nature, it made it difficult for him to notice that his horse was in an incorrect gait.
At this point the hearing was adjourned so that Mr Abernethy could undertake a driving commitment in a race.
When the hearing resumed, the Chairman asked Mr Abernethy, that after hearing the Stipendiary Stewards’ interpretation of the films and incident in question, if he understood the degree of the charge and that it was a charge that was not brought very often. Mr Abernethy confirmed that he understood the charge he was facing.
In response to a question from the committee about Mr Abernethy’s status as an experienced driver, Mr Taumanu advised that Mr Abernethy was a regular driver, who often has 6-7 drives per night at times. Mr Taumanu also confirmed that Mr Abernethy was a very experienced, dedicated and astute driver who, in his opinion, has made a very serious error.
Mr Muirhead advised that Mr Abernethy has had 2402 lifetime drives, 227 lifetime wins and 219 drives to date this season.
Mr Abernethy advised that he had no further submissions to make about the incident concerned.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Taumanu was invited to make submissions on penalty. Mr Taumanu advised the committee that he did not want to appear as belittling what was a very serious charge, but believed it would be totally unfair for Mr Abernethy to be suspended during the Auckland Cup Carnival and Interdominions. These are big meetings in the near future. Mr Taumanu submitted a period of suspension up until 3rd March and a fine of $2000.
The Stipendiary Stewards submitted that if suspended for the Auckland Cup Carnival and Interdominions, it would be likely that Mr Abernethy would forgo a similar amount of money in the vicinity of $2000 due to such a suspension. Mr Taumanu advised that the stewards did not want to submit a precedent in this regard, but did feel that due to Mr Abernethy’s good record, having only an excessive whip charge and the need to modify his whip action on his record, it would be unfair to suspend Mr Abernethy for these bigger meetings.
Mr Taumanu was asked by the committee to comment on reasons for the difference between his submission of a lesser period of suspension than the 3 month mid-point identified in the JCA Penalty Guide, balanced with a monetary penalty. Mr Taumanu advised that the submission of a lesser period of suspension and a monetary penalty was to enable Mr Abernethy to drive in the Auckland Cup and Interdominions, and that a monetary penalty of $2000 would be somewhat similar to what Mr Abernathy may gain for driving over this period. Mr Taumanu also confirmed to the committee that this is a charge that is very rarely laid. Mr Taumanu and Mr Muirhead were both of the view that their penalty submission was very, very fair to Mr Abernethy.
Mr Abernethy was invited to make submissions on penalty. He made a very strong plea for the opportunity to drive at the Auckland Cup Carnival and the Interdominions. He also stated that he had no objections to the period of suspension and a $2000 fine as submitted by the stipendiary stewards. In response to a question for the committee, Mr Abernethy advised that he was comfortable with a monetary penalty in addition to a period of suspension. He also acknowledged that the submissions from the stipendiary stewards were guidelines only, and that the Judicial Committee determined the final penalty. When questioned on immediate driving engagements Mr Abernethy stated he had nothing committed as of this evening
The stipendiary stewards also commented that whilst this incident was identified on this occasion by the stewards, if an incident where a horse pacing in a trotting race was allowed to happen again and it was not treated seriously, it would be difficult to deal with. The stipendiary stewards were of the view that this sort of conduct needs to be ‘stamped out’. Further, it was Mr Muirhead’s view that as soon as a horseman is aware that his horse is pacing, they should be easing the horse back, and correcting its gait.
All parties agreed that they had no further submissions to make, and felt they had received a fair hearing. The committee adjourned to consider penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
The committee reviewed the film of the incident referred to and listened carefully to the submissions of both parties. In mitigation, the committee considered Mr Abernethy’s early admission of the breach and his excellent driving record which indicated one excessive whip charge in the current season.
The committee also considered aggravating features, which related to the travelling of a distance of approximately 1800 metres in an incorrect gait, to which a skilled horseman such as Mr Abernethy was unable to give an adequate explanation as to why. The committee found it very hard to believe that someone of Mr Abernethy’s ability and experience could continue to drive for such a distance believing he was in the correct gait.
In determining the quantum of penalty, the committee considered with great angst in determining an appropriate outcome, whilst at the same time not setting a precedent. The committee also considered the submissions of the stipendiary stewards, which related to a period of suspension and a $2000 fine. The committee also sought to impose a penalty which it considered a balance between fairness and serving as a reasonable deterrent.
It was the committee’s view that due to the timing of upcoming key fixtures in the Harness Racing calendar, the consequences of a period of suspension of the length as indicated in the JCA Penalty Guide would far outweigh the offence committed, and would not be a fair consequence for Mr Abernethy. Whilst no other horse was directly affected throughout the distance of 1800 metres travelled, it is very clear that the betting public were affected. The committee believes a suspension plus a monetary penalty is more appropriate to serve as a fair deterrent in this circumstance.
In coming to a determination on monetary penalty, the committee have considered the impending severity of a lengthy period of suspension upon Mr Abernethy. The committee also acknowledge Mr Abernethy’s willingness and capacity to pay a monetary penalty, and his awareness of the ability of the committee to impose a penalty at a level above or below the amount submitted by the stipendiary stewards. Therefore, the level of monetary penalty is to recognise a reduced period of suspension that the committee will impose. On balance, the penalty needs to reflect a desire to protect the integrity of the racing industry and maintain public confidence in drivers being professional and displaying the requisite skill and ability that the public expect. Mr Abernethy has never faced a charge of incompetent driving in the past. This appears to be a one-off drive to which he cannot adequately explain the reasons why he drove in an incompetent manner for such a prolonged distance.
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: eb818dccc0696f834ba45f7856cfe9c9
informantnumber: 69417
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 09/02/2011
hearing_title: Stratford HRC 13 February 2011 - R 1
charge:
Following the running of Race 1, Information 69417 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr T Taumanu under Rule 869 (3)(a). The information stated that:
Jay Abernethy drove incompetently when he allowed his horse ‘Major Seelster’ to pace for approximately 1800 metres of this trotting race.
Mr Abernethy confirmed his admission of the breach, and wished to attend the hearing.
Mr Taumanu read the rule. Rule 869 “No horseman in any race shall…(3)(a) drive incompetently.”
Mr Abernethy confirmed he understood the rule.
facts:
Using the films of the 2600m Trot, Mr Taumanu pointed out to the committee, the horse driven by Mr Abernethy. He used the films to demonstrate that Mr Abernethy’s horse, ‘Major Seelster’, paced for approximately 1800m of the race, identifying that it was in its incorrect gait during this time. Mr Taumanu indicated that he was amazed that Mr Abernethy allowed his horse to continue in its incorrect gait for such a lengthy distance. It was visible that ‘Major Seelster’ had started pacing from barrier rise.
Mr Taumanu also used the films to demonstrate the difference in movement between a horse pacing, where its legs move together on each side, compared with the actions of other horses in the field who were trotting. Mr Taumanu indicated to the committee that Mr Abernethy’s drive was pacing “free-legged”, and that it is the driver’s obligation to correct the horse into its correct gait and to get it trotting again, and competing in the race. It was Mr Taumanu’s comment that the film clearly demonstrated that Mr Abernethy did not do this. The film indicates Mr Abernethy looking down to his left during the race, realising something is not right. Mr Taumanu commented that at no time did Mr Abernethy take a hold of his horse, or attempt to steady it and get it back into its correct gait. ‘Major Seelster’ continued to pace for approximately 1800m, something that would not be expected from a top, young, professional driver with much ability. Mr Taumanu submitted that it was difficult for him to reconcile how Mr Abernethy could allow this to happen. Mr Taumanu stated that the horse was allowed to pace by Mr Abernethy, which was unfortunate.
Also using the available films, Mr Muirhead pointed out that Mr Abernethy’s horse was at the rear of the field and continued to pace. He stated that usually when a driver notices that their horse is pacing they restrain their drive and attempt to get it back into its correct gait, even if this requires the driver to pull the horse up to a stand. It was clear from the films that at no stage did Mr Abernethy take such action. Mr Muirhead also commented that when bunching up in the back straight, ‘Major Seelster’ races up alongside Mr Ferguson, and at this point Mr Ferguson tells Mr Abernethy that he is in the wrong gait. Mr Muirhead pointed out on the films, the point where Mr Ferguson and Mr Abernethy are talking to each other, and this is with approximately 800m of the race left to run. At this point Mr Abernethy restrains his horse out of the field. Mr Muirhead indicated that 1800m of the race has been run when Mr Abernethy finally realises he is required to take some action. Mr Muirhead commented that he found this very surprising due to Mr Abernethy’s skill level.
Mr Taumanu read the definition of incompetent driving as: failing to show the requisite skill and ability for the task of driving a horse competitively or safely in a race.
He also advised that it was one of the more serious charges that could be laid. Mr Muirhead also added that there was another charge of failing to correct a horse’s gait, but that the incompetent driving charge was far more serious.
Mr Abernethy was then given the opportunity to address the committee, using the film or verbally if he wished to. He advised that the horse was a 3 year old and had previously raced as a 2 year old pacer, with this being his fifth trotting start. He also advised that the horse had a wide action in behind, and also had bandages on. Mr Abernethy stated that he could not tell if he was pacing, and it was not until he got up next to another driver during the race who asked him if he was trotting or pacing. Mr Abernethy replied that he could not tell if this was the case. He also advised the committee that ‘Major Seelster’ had paced away whilst racing previously, but previously he was pulled up and brought back into its correct gait.
Mr Taumanu confirmed with Mr Abernethy that a pacer’s rear action, from a driver’s perspective, is of a ‘rolling’ nature and more fluid. This is as opposed to a trotter’s action which is one of being an ‘up and down’ rear action. Mr Abernethy said the difficulty was that with his horse’s wide action being of a swinging nature, it made it difficult for him to notice that his horse was in an incorrect gait.
At this point the hearing was adjourned so that Mr Abernethy could undertake a driving commitment in a race.
When the hearing resumed, the Chairman asked Mr Abernethy, that after hearing the Stipendiary Stewards’ interpretation of the films and incident in question, if he understood the degree of the charge and that it was a charge that was not brought very often. Mr Abernethy confirmed that he understood the charge he was facing.
In response to a question from the committee about Mr Abernethy’s status as an experienced driver, Mr Taumanu advised that Mr Abernethy was a regular driver, who often has 6-7 drives per night at times. Mr Taumanu also confirmed that Mr Abernethy was a very experienced, dedicated and astute driver who, in his opinion, has made a very serious error.
Mr Muirhead advised that Mr Abernethy has had 2402 lifetime drives, 227 lifetime wins and 219 drives to date this season.
Mr Abernethy advised that he had no further submissions to make about the incident concerned.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
The committee found the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Taumanu was invited to make submissions on penalty. Mr Taumanu advised the committee that he did not want to appear as belittling what was a very serious charge, but believed it would be totally unfair for Mr Abernethy to be suspended during the Auckland Cup Carnival and Interdominions. These are big meetings in the near future. Mr Taumanu submitted a period of suspension up until 3rd March and a fine of $2000.
The Stipendiary Stewards submitted that if suspended for the Auckland Cup Carnival and Interdominions, it would be likely that Mr Abernethy would forgo a similar amount of money in the vicinity of $2000 due to such a suspension. Mr Taumanu advised that the stewards did not want to submit a precedent in this regard, but did feel that due to Mr Abernethy’s good record, having only an excessive whip charge and the need to modify his whip action on his record, it would be unfair to suspend Mr Abernethy for these bigger meetings.
Mr Taumanu was asked by the committee to comment on reasons for the difference between his submission of a lesser period of suspension than the 3 month mid-point identified in the JCA Penalty Guide, balanced with a monetary penalty. Mr Taumanu advised that the submission of a lesser period of suspension and a monetary penalty was to enable Mr Abernethy to drive in the Auckland Cup and Interdominions, and that a monetary penalty of $2000 would be somewhat similar to what Mr Abernathy may gain for driving over this period. Mr Taumanu also confirmed to the committee that this is a charge that is very rarely laid. Mr Taumanu and Mr Muirhead were both of the view that their penalty submission was very, very fair to Mr Abernethy.
Mr Abernethy was invited to make submissions on penalty. He made a very strong plea for the opportunity to drive at the Auckland Cup Carnival and the Interdominions. He also stated that he had no objections to the period of suspension and a $2000 fine as submitted by the stipendiary stewards. In response to a question for the committee, Mr Abernethy advised that he was comfortable with a monetary penalty in addition to a period of suspension. He also acknowledged that the submissions from the stipendiary stewards were guidelines only, and that the Judicial Committee determined the final penalty. When questioned on immediate driving engagements Mr Abernethy stated he had nothing committed as of this evening
The stipendiary stewards also commented that whilst this incident was identified on this occasion by the stewards, if an incident where a horse pacing in a trotting race was allowed to happen again and it was not treated seriously, it would be difficult to deal with. The stipendiary stewards were of the view that this sort of conduct needs to be ‘stamped out’. Further, it was Mr Muirhead’s view that as soon as a horseman is aware that his horse is pacing, they should be easing the horse back, and correcting its gait.
All parties agreed that they had no further submissions to make, and felt they had received a fair hearing. The committee adjourned to consider penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
The committee reviewed the film of the incident referred to and listened carefully to the submissions of both parties. In mitigation, the committee considered Mr Abernethy’s early admission of the breach and his excellent driving record which indicated one excessive whip charge in the current season.
The committee also considered aggravating features, which related to the travelling of a distance of approximately 1800 metres in an incorrect gait, to which a skilled horseman such as Mr Abernethy was unable to give an adequate explanation as to why. The committee found it very hard to believe that someone of Mr Abernethy’s ability and experience could continue to drive for such a distance believing he was in the correct gait.
In determining the quantum of penalty, the committee considered with great angst in determining an appropriate outcome, whilst at the same time not setting a precedent. The committee also considered the submissions of the stipendiary stewards, which related to a period of suspension and a $2000 fine. The committee also sought to impose a penalty which it considered a balance between fairness and serving as a reasonable deterrent.
It was the committee’s view that due to the timing of upcoming key fixtures in the Harness Racing calendar, the consequences of a period of suspension of the length as indicated in the JCA Penalty Guide would far outweigh the offence committed, and would not be a fair consequence for Mr Abernethy. Whilst no other horse was directly affected throughout the distance of 1800 metres travelled, it is very clear that the betting public were affected. The committee believes a suspension plus a monetary penalty is more appropriate to serve as a fair deterrent in this circumstance.
In coming to a determination on monetary penalty, the committee have considered the impending severity of a lengthy period of suspension upon Mr Abernethy. The committee also acknowledge Mr Abernethy’s willingness and capacity to pay a monetary penalty, and his awareness of the ability of the committee to impose a penalty at a level above or below the amount submitted by the stipendiary stewards. Therefore, the level of monetary penalty is to recognise a reduced period of suspension that the committee will impose. On balance, the penalty needs to reflect a desire to protect the integrity of the racing industry and maintain public confidence in drivers being professional and displaying the requisite skill and ability that the public expect. Mr Abernethy has never faced a charge of incompetent driving in the past. This appears to be a one-off drive to which he cannot adequately explain the reasons why he drove in an incompetent manner for such a prolonged distance.
penalty:
Mr Abernethy is suspended from the close of racing on 13 February 2011 up to and including 3 March 2011. The committee in addition to the suspension also impose a monetary penalty of $3000.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(a)
Informant: Mr T Taumanu - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: J Abernethy
Otherperson: J Muirhead - Stipendary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: ad734324d68ed76fceed7a379df3f595
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: c904db9bda59f8a09b09f160c3367b5b
meet_expapproval: approved
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 13/02/2011
meet_title: Stratford TC - 13 February 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "MemberRole": "Panel member 1 ", "MemberID": "TUtikere", "Member": "", "OtherExpenses": "0", "KMs": "400", "Total": "248.0", "kmprice": 248.0, "Approved": "on"}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: stratford-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: ISmith
meet_pm1: TUtikere
meet_pm2: none
name: Stratford TC