Waikouaiti HRC 26 February 2018 – R 2 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA17488
Meet Title:
Waikouaiti HRC - 26 February 2018
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
PKnowles
Race Date:
2018/02/26
Race Number:
R 2
Decision:
As Mr Allen has admitted the breach, it is found to be proved.
Penalty:
Mr Allen is suspended for eight months from the conclusion of today’s meeting up to and including 26 October and is fined the sum of $500.
Facts:
Following the running of race 2, the DUFFYS SKIP HIRE/WJ (BILL) PUDDY MEMORIAL TROT, Mr Tidmarsh lodged an information alleging that Mr Allen (STILL EYRE) failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that his horse was given full opportunity to win the race when failing to improve his position in the home straight and drive his runner out.
Rule 868(2) provides: “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.”
Mr Allen was advised that this was a serious charge and it could be adjourned and heard on a non-raceday. He was adamant that it be heard today and that we accept his admission of the breach. He explained he realised he had erred and did not want the matter “hanging over [his] head”.
Mr Tidmarsh stated that up until after he passed the 300 metres Mr Allen was not able to shift as Mr Milne was ahead of him and to his outside and thus he could not come out, as he did not have an advantage. However, at the 200 metres there was a run to the inside, as the passing lane was available, or to the outside of MY EYRE, as by this time the respondent was wheel to wheel with Mr Milne and he could have shifted him wider on the track. Nonetheless, the respondent just stayed behind the leader. There were thus two clear options open to Mr Allen; he took neither.
Mr Tidmarsh said the Stewards accepted that Mr Allen was talking and yelling at the horse to encourage it. They demonstrated on the videos that he could be seen to be encouraging the horse in this fashion. However, his hands were still. The horse was under a hold. The whip was tucked under his right arm. His first movement was at the 60 metres when there was the first of three little flicks with the rein.
Mr Allen said he was Vice President of the Club and would dearly loved to have won the race. He said his last win was at Alexandra Park in 1988. Had he believed he had the opportunity to win, he would have taken it. He said he had earlier been offered the lead and had turned it down. He was reluctant to pull his horse out and go round as his horse was comfortable racing where it was. He emphasised the condition of the track was such that he was concerned had he pulled his horse out it would not have continued to trot.
He agreed with the Committee, he could have gone either way, in or out, but believed the outcome was likely to be the same, in that the horse would have broken from its gait. He was simply not confident in the gait of the horse in the prevailing track conditions. The track was very inconsistent. Some horses had only “walked down the straight”.
Mr Allen said he knew it looked it bad. He had admitted the breach for this reason. But he was the person driving the horse and was the only person who knew how the horse felt.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Tidmarsh said with respect to the respondent’s explanation for his actions that it did not appear to the Stewards that the horse is roughly gaited. The videos did not confirm that the horse was having issues with the track on the day. He said it was a serious charge and any breach of this rule was likely to have a negative impact upon the industry.
Mr Tidmarsh produced the respondent’s record. This evidenced that it was his third drive this season. He had had five last season and three the season before that. He said the fact that Mr Allen drove so infrequently made the imposition of penalty very difficult. Mr Allen explained at this point that he only drove when he could not get a senior driver or when a horse had issues.
The starting point in the JCA Penalty Guide is $1000 or 20 drives. Mr Tidmarsh assessed the breach as at the high end of mid range or high end. He stated a meaningful penalty was required. He believed this to be a fine well in excess of $1000 and that it was appropriate to give a 10-drive uplift to the starting point because, had reasonable and permissible measures been taken, STILL EYRE may have obtained first placing in the race. He emphasised the horse was not tried throughout the straight and that the track was safe for racing. The only concern the Stewards had had was with the first bend. He said there had been no issues with the horse on the first day. It had been driven by Mr M Williamson and had been well tried.
Mr Allen said his financial circumstances were such that he could not pay a large fine. He preferred a suspension. He reiterated he was never comfortable with the horse in the track conditions on the day. He asked the rhetorical question that if the horse had broken, what would the consequences have been. He added, “I would not pull a horse up at my own meeting.”
Reasons for Penalty:
With regard to the gravity of the breach, we assess it to be at the high end of mid range. In so determining, we have factored in both the adverse track conditions and the fact that there was a run available for STILL EYRE from a point some 200 metres from the winning post. The horse, which appeared to be trotting fluently and full of running, was never produced for a run. This was available either by shifting outwards and pushing Mr Milne wider on the track, or easing inwards and taking the run in the passing lane, which possibly was a preferred course of action if Mr Allen was concerned the horse might react badly to being quickly shifted out of the trail.
Mr Tidmarsh is correct when he described this as a serious breach and one that showed the industry in a poor light. Those persons who had invested on STILL EYRE never had the opportunity to see whether the horse was good enough on the day to win the race. Mr Allen just sat behind the leader with his hands still, holding on to and talking to the horse, until it reached the winning post. The only urging, which was minimal, was at the 60 metres. Mr Allen’s actions were far better suited to the horse’s participation in a workout or a trial, which of course, is his most recent regular driving experience. We can only speculate whether or not that had clouded his judgement today.
We have regard to the starting point in the JCA Penalty Guide but find because the respondent drives so infrequently it is not particularly helpful on this occasion. We have referred to penalties imposed on amateur drivers for a breach of this rule but they too are only of limited assistance, as they tend to drive more frequently than does Mr Allen. His financial position, he has told us, is such that he will have difficulty in meeting a substantial fine. Nonetheless, our response has to be one that holds Mr Allen responsible and supports and upholds the integrity of the harness racing industry. We do not overlook the respondent’s ready admission of the breach, the open and forthright manner in which he has addressed this Committee and his good driving record with respect to this rule.
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: e99a3c05624cfa5bec12d49504ba22e9
informantnumber: A10415
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Reasonable and permissible measures
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 05/03/2018
hearing_title: Waikouaiti HRC 26 February 2018 - R 2 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 2, the DUFFYS SKIP HIRE/WJ (BILL) PUDDY MEMORIAL TROT, Mr Tidmarsh lodged an information alleging that Mr Allen (STILL EYRE) failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that his horse was given full opportunity to win the race when failing to improve his position in the home straight and drive his runner out.
Rule 868(2) provides: “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.”
Mr Allen was advised that this was a serious charge and it could be adjourned and heard on a non-raceday. He was adamant that it be heard today and that we accept his admission of the breach. He explained he realised he had erred and did not want the matter “hanging over [his] head”.
Mr Tidmarsh stated that up until after he passed the 300 metres Mr Allen was not able to shift as Mr Milne was ahead of him and to his outside and thus he could not come out, as he did not have an advantage. However, at the 200 metres there was a run to the inside, as the passing lane was available, or to the outside of MY EYRE, as by this time the respondent was wheel to wheel with Mr Milne and he could have shifted him wider on the track. Nonetheless, the respondent just stayed behind the leader. There were thus two clear options open to Mr Allen; he took neither.
Mr Tidmarsh said the Stewards accepted that Mr Allen was talking and yelling at the horse to encourage it. They demonstrated on the videos that he could be seen to be encouraging the horse in this fashion. However, his hands were still. The horse was under a hold. The whip was tucked under his right arm. His first movement was at the 60 metres when there was the first of three little flicks with the rein.
Mr Allen said he was Vice President of the Club and would dearly loved to have won the race. He said his last win was at Alexandra Park in 1988. Had he believed he had the opportunity to win, he would have taken it. He said he had earlier been offered the lead and had turned it down. He was reluctant to pull his horse out and go round as his horse was comfortable racing where it was. He emphasised the condition of the track was such that he was concerned had he pulled his horse out it would not have continued to trot.
He agreed with the Committee, he could have gone either way, in or out, but believed the outcome was likely to be the same, in that the horse would have broken from its gait. He was simply not confident in the gait of the horse in the prevailing track conditions. The track was very inconsistent. Some horses had only “walked down the straight”.
Mr Allen said he knew it looked it bad. He had admitted the breach for this reason. But he was the person driving the horse and was the only person who knew how the horse felt.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
As Mr Allen has admitted the breach, it is found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Tidmarsh said with respect to the respondent’s explanation for his actions that it did not appear to the Stewards that the horse is roughly gaited. The videos did not confirm that the horse was having issues with the track on the day. He said it was a serious charge and any breach of this rule was likely to have a negative impact upon the industry.
Mr Tidmarsh produced the respondent’s record. This evidenced that it was his third drive this season. He had had five last season and three the season before that. He said the fact that Mr Allen drove so infrequently made the imposition of penalty very difficult. Mr Allen explained at this point that he only drove when he could not get a senior driver or when a horse had issues.
The starting point in the JCA Penalty Guide is $1000 or 20 drives. Mr Tidmarsh assessed the breach as at the high end of mid range or high end. He stated a meaningful penalty was required. He believed this to be a fine well in excess of $1000 and that it was appropriate to give a 10-drive uplift to the starting point because, had reasonable and permissible measures been taken, STILL EYRE may have obtained first placing in the race. He emphasised the horse was not tried throughout the straight and that the track was safe for racing. The only concern the Stewards had had was with the first bend. He said there had been no issues with the horse on the first day. It had been driven by Mr M Williamson and had been well tried.
Mr Allen said his financial circumstances were such that he could not pay a large fine. He preferred a suspension. He reiterated he was never comfortable with the horse in the track conditions on the day. He asked the rhetorical question that if the horse had broken, what would the consequences have been. He added, “I would not pull a horse up at my own meeting.”
reasonsforpenalty:
With regard to the gravity of the breach, we assess it to be at the high end of mid range. In so determining, we have factored in both the adverse track conditions and the fact that there was a run available for STILL EYRE from a point some 200 metres from the winning post. The horse, which appeared to be trotting fluently and full of running, was never produced for a run. This was available either by shifting outwards and pushing Mr Milne wider on the track, or easing inwards and taking the run in the passing lane, which possibly was a preferred course of action if Mr Allen was concerned the horse might react badly to being quickly shifted out of the trail.
Mr Tidmarsh is correct when he described this as a serious breach and one that showed the industry in a poor light. Those persons who had invested on STILL EYRE never had the opportunity to see whether the horse was good enough on the day to win the race. Mr Allen just sat behind the leader with his hands still, holding on to and talking to the horse, until it reached the winning post. The only urging, which was minimal, was at the 60 metres. Mr Allen’s actions were far better suited to the horse’s participation in a workout or a trial, which of course, is his most recent regular driving experience. We can only speculate whether or not that had clouded his judgement today.
We have regard to the starting point in the JCA Penalty Guide but find because the respondent drives so infrequently it is not particularly helpful on this occasion. We have referred to penalties imposed on amateur drivers for a breach of this rule but they too are only of limited assistance, as they tend to drive more frequently than does Mr Allen. His financial position, he has told us, is such that he will have difficulty in meeting a substantial fine. Nonetheless, our response has to be one that holds Mr Allen responsible and supports and upholds the integrity of the harness racing industry. We do not overlook the respondent’s ready admission of the breach, the open and forthright manner in which he has addressed this Committee and his good driving record with respect to this rule.
penalty:
Mr Allen is suspended for eight months from the conclusion of today’s meeting up to and including 26 October and is fined the sum of $500.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 868(2)
Informant: Mr L Tidmarsh - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr R Allen - Open Horseman
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 040ecbb3e024ceb5d36718c4d1d096cb
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 30771247e7d696874261e2cb0c30df56
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/02/2018
meet_title: Waikouaiti HRC - 26 February 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikouaiti-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: PKnowles
meet_pm2: none
name: Waikouaiti HRC