Timaru HRC 15 December 2011 – R 1 (heard 31 December 2011 at Rangiora)

hearingid: 793ba0946e648f5a8f6e44b51b8e9d60

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 15/12/2011

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Timaru HRC 15 December 2011 - R 1 (heard 31 December 2011 at Rangiora)

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Raceday Judicial Committee Decision:
Rule:  864(2)(b)
Judicial Committee:  JPhelan, Chairman - KG Hales , Committee Member
Information Number:  A5331
Defendant:  Mr B. A. Zampese – Licensed Trainer

Informant: Mr N. G. McIntyre – Stipendiary Steward

Also Present:  Mr B. Wilson – Club Farrier
Plea:  Not Admitted
Charge:
Alleged shoes in poor condition.

Evidence:
This matter was heard at the Rangiora Harness Racing Club’s race meeting at Rangiora on 31 December 2011.

Following the running of Race 1, the Lion Beverages Mobile Pace, Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre filed an information against Licensed Trainer Mr B. A. Zampese alleging a breach of Rule 864(2)(b). It was alleged that Mr Zampese, the trainer of “Spunky’s Dream” (3), was presented to race in shoes that were not in good order and condition.

The charge reads as follows:

“I the above named inforant allege that the above named Respondent committed a breach of Rule 864(2)(b) (in that) you presented “Spunky’s Dream” in shoes which were in poor condition leading to them having to be removed at the start.”

Rule 864(2)(b) reads as follows.

“(2) Every horseman, owner, trainer and assistant thereof of a horse shall with regard to that horse ensure that:-
(b) any gear, appliance or device used or to be used in a race is of good quality and in good order and condition;”

Mr Zampese had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Zampese also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

Submissions For Decision:
Mr Ydgren gave evidence that prior to this race “Spunky’s Dream” lost a shoe. There was not enough time to have the horse re-plated, and the other front shoe was removed by the Club’s Farrier just prior to the race. When the missing shoe was inspected it was found to be very worn, and not in good condition. The two shoes were produced for inspection at the hearing.

Mr B. Wilson, who was the Club Farrier on this day, gave evidence that he removed the other shoe before the race, as there was not enough time to re-plate the horse. He said the shoe which had come off was in very poor condition and that the nails on one side were satisfactory, but were in such poor and worn condition on the other side that the shoe had probably just “popped off”.

Mr Zampese said that he believed that the shoe had come off during the preliminaries, and this had probably occurred because his horse had stepped on it. Mr Zampese did not accept that the shoe was in poor condition.

Our inspection of the shoe showed that it was very worn on one side. Nails were still present on the unworn side, but on the worn side it was clear to us that the nails would have been so worn as to be incapable of holding the shoe in place.

We adjourned to consider our decision.

Reasons For Decision:
We were satisfied from the evidence that the shoe in question was in a very worn state, and that the nails keeping it in place had worn to such an extent that they did not fulfil their function. We were satisfied that the charge had been proved.

Decision:
On resuming the hearing we advised the parties of our reasons (as set out above) and that the charge was found to be proved.

Submissions on Penalty:
In relation to penalty Mr Ydgren advised that a breach of Rule 864(2)(b) was usually dealt with under the Minor Infringement System. However, in this case Mr Zampese had denied the charge, and under the provisions of Rule 1105A(3)(b) it was necessary to file an Information on this occasion.

Mr Ydgren made submissions that the Minor Infringement System provided for a fine of $200-0 in this case. Mr Zampese had not previously breached this Rule, and in a recent similar case (also defended) a fine of $200-00 had been imposed. Mr Ydgren submitted that a fine of $200-00 should be imposed in this case.
Reasons for Decision on Penalty:

In considering the matter of an appropriate penalty we took into account that this was Mr Zampese’s first breach of this Rule, and we also took into account that the Minor Infringement System provides for a fine of $200-00. It was also relevant that in a similar recent case a fine of $200-00 had been imposed.

We decided that a fine of $200-00 would be imposed in this case.

Penalty:
Mr Zampese was fined the sum of $200-00.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 864(2)(b)

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: