Stratford TC – 5 March 2006 – Race 1

hearingid: 801c335e9219a6e56402a8eaa234ea4f

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 05/03/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Stratford TC - 5 March 2006 - Race 1

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

The Information alleges that L Fleming by his actions and/or lack of vigour failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures over the latter stages of the race to ensure that ?Landoras Dream? was given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible finishing place.

Mr Fleming did not admit the breach and was present at the hearing.

 The Information alleges that L Fleming by his actions and/or lack of vigour failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures over the latter stages of the race to ensure that ?Landoras Dream? was given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible finishing place.

 The rule namely 868 (2) was read, Mr Fleming acknowledged he understood same.  The Chairman advised those present that due to the serious nature of the charge it would be better heard at a later date, when Mr Fleming could be represented.

 Mr Fleming said he would only agree to a ?Non Raceday Hearing? if the Chairman could assure him it would be heard in Taranaki, he was not prepared to travel to a hearing.

 The Stipendiary Stewards and the Chairman could not give any guarantee that a ?Non Raceday Hearing? would be heard in Taranaki so Mr Fleming wanted it heard there and then.

 The Chairman stressed a ?Non Raceday Hearing? would be better for Mr Fleming as he could have Legal Representation, he (Mr Fleming) said he did not want to employ a solicitor and wanted to proceed.

 The Chairman then doubly checked with Mr Fleming that he had signed the Information after it had been fully explained to him and that he had been told his rights.  Mr Fleming said he had understood and had been told his rights.

 Head-on and Side-on films of the alleged incident were then shown and interpreted by the Stipendiary Stewards.  Mr Fleming had no questions of them or their interpretation of the films.  He did however ask Mr Pickford the Registrar if he had driven the horse in similar fashion today as had at workouts in Hawera last week.  Mr Pickford acknowledged that was correct.

 He (Mr Fleming) was referring to driving the horse without a whip and quietly.

 Mr Taumanu then showed the Chairman the official photo finish photo (in colour) which showed :

1)      The margin between second and third officially a head, and

2)      Mr Fleming's seating position in the sulky

 It was Mr Taumanu's view that Mr Fleming was sitting back against the horse.

 Mr Fleming asked for a copy of the photo finish, the Chairman asked the Stipendiary Stewards to organise same and have available for him.

 Mr Fleming when asked, did not wish to call any witnesses and said the only witness he would want would be his son Kevin but he could not find him so asked could the hearing proceed.

 Mr Taumanu then reiterated the rule and stated that this charge was of a serious nature and that the integrity of racing must be protected and that every horse racing must be given every possible chance to gain the highest placing.

 Mr Fleming for his part said he had driven the horse without a whip and has sat quietly to insure the horse did not break.

 The Chairman then asked both parties if they had anything further to add, they did not.

 He then asked Mr Fleming in particular if he was happy that he had a fair hearing, Mr Fleming acknowledged he had.

 Prior to arriving at a decision the Chairman took into account the following:

1)         The films shown and interpreted to him.

2)         The Photo Finish Photo

3)         The margin ?Landoras Dream? was beaten for 2^nd.

 Also the explanation and comments from Mr Fleming and the Registrar.

 Having carefully considered all of the above it was his view that Mr Fleming had not driven ?Landoras Dream? in a way which would have given the horse full opportunity to obtain a higher placing.  The breach he therefore found proven.

 As for penalty Mr Taumanu said that the charge was a serious one and warranted a term of suspension of up to 6 months.

 Mr Fleming said he would prefer a suspension to a fine.

 The Chairman asked for Mr Fleming's record, there was not one because he had not had a charge within the last 12 months.

 When arriving at a penalty the Chairman was of the view that the term of suspension must reflect the serious nature of the breach and serve as a reminder to others that punters, owners and trainers alike must always be seen to get a fair run for their investment, and that the integrity of Harness Racing is maintained.  He therefore suspended Mr Fleming from the conclusion of Racing today until midnight on the 5^th July 2006, in effect 4 months.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: f879c1815e181f7c7757e0c3a7a3e37b

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 1

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 24d7cd41562aa4c33e35fd46ecdaaa86

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 05/03/2006

meet_title: Stratford TC - 5 March 2006

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: stratford-tc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Stratford TC