Wairarapa HRC 4 February 2014 – R 1
ID: JCA14075
Meet Title:
Wairarapa HRC - 4 February 2014
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Race Date:
2014/02/04
Race Number:
Race 1
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
Penalty:
Mr Poutama was fined $250.
Facts:
Following Race 1 (Larnoch Stud Handicap Trot 2500m), Information A3763 was filed with the judicial committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 869(4), (6)(b) and (c), in that “Junior Horseman A Poutama breached the PUSH OUT Rule improving outward from the running line with TUINFRO forcing TWO WISHES to race wider on the track with 1100m to run.”
Rule 869(4) states: “No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress…(6) Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:- …(b) a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track; (c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.”
Mr Poutama, assisted by Mr Mangos, confirmed he understood the relevant rule, and that he did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Using the back straight and head-on films, Mr Neal identified TUINFRO racing against the running rail in third position with approximately 1200m to run. TWO WISHES (Mr K Chittenden) was racing immediately behind that runner. Mr Chittenden elected to improve his position by leaving the marker line and proceed to the outside of TUINFRO. Mr Chittenden was then forced wider on the track due to TUINFRO leaving the marker line, dictating TWO WISHES. Using the head-on film Mr Neal submitted that it was clear that Mr Chittenden was to the outside of Mr Poutama’s wheel and there was no entitlement for Mr Poutama to improve his horse at that point. Mr Neal suggested that Mr Chittenden was forced wider for a distance of 100 metres.
Mr Muirhead called Mr Chittenden as a witness. He confirmed he was the driver of TWO WISHES and that when approaching the 1200 metres, he sought to improve forward when Mr Poutama’s horse came out whilst he was alongside it, forcing him three wide. He stated that his horse’s legs were alongside the sulky wheel of TUINFRO when he was seeking to improve. He confirmed he was “dead sure” about this placement. In response to a question from Mr Mangos, Mr Chittenden stated it was not possible to move onto Mr Poutama’s back once TUINFRO had come out, due to horses located to his inside after he had been forced three wide.
Using the films, Mr Poutama submitted that he came out near the 1100 metres as he did not see Mr Chittenden’s legs outside his sulky. Mr Mangos used the side-on film to identify Mr Poutama on his way out. Mr Mangos believed the films showed that Mr Poutama was two lengths clear and that the back film gave no true indication of where TUINFRO was located. He believed Mr Chittenden’s limited horsemans’ experience had placed him in the situation he found himself in. Mr Mangos submitted that Mr Chittenden had plenty of time to drop onto Mr Poutama’s back.
In summing up, Mr Muirhead submitted that Mr Chittenden’s evidence was clear and corroborated by the films. He submitted that some of the difference of opinion between the stewards and the Respondent was related to the parallax of the films. Mr Mangos agreed with this, and had nothing further to add.
Reasons for Decision:
It was clear that Mr Poutama’s horse was located on the inside running rail near the 1100 metres, and this was not in dispute. It was also clear that Mr Chittenden’s drive remained wider on the track over a period of approximately 100 metres. The crux of the issue in contention, was not about inferior or superior horsemanship. In relation to the provisions of the rule; it was about whether the placement of Mr Chittenden’s horse, relative to Mr Poutama’s sulky wheel was before the sulky wheel. Mr Chittenden’s evidence was compelling in this regard. He stated that his horse’s legs were alongside the sulky wheel of TUINFRO. This evidence was not discredited under cross-examination and is consistent with my interpretation of the relevant films. This evidence confirms that issue of placement. Based on evidence and submissions, Mr Chittenden was established to the outside of TUINFRO, and in this situation, Mr Poutama had no entitlement to improve outwards at the point of the 1100 metres mark.
Submissions for Penalty:
In presenting Mr Poutama’s record, Mr Muirhead advised that he had no similar breaches within the last 12 months. He labelled Mr Poutama as a junior horseman who had gained a lot of experience and was representing New Zealand at the forthcoming Australasia Junior Drivers Championships. He submitted a $250 fine as appropriate on this occasion.
Mr Poutama indicated a preference for a fine rather than a suspension, and had nothing further to submit.
Reasons for Penalty:
I considered all of the submissions placed before me. It was clear that Mr Poutama is a junior driver who regularly drives at meetings across the country. His selection as the country’s representative at an upcoming Australasia Championship is a testament to his prominence and skill, however; whilst Mr Poutama does have Junior Driver status, he also has a level of experience that other junior drivers do not have.
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: 957f5eae7d3f2b7f1e1888b2a19223eb
informantnumber: A3763
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Push Out Rule
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 22/01/2014
hearing_title: Wairarapa HRC 4 February 2014 - R 1
charge:
facts:
Following Race 1 (Larnoch Stud Handicap Trot 2500m), Information A3763 was filed with the judicial committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 869(4), (6)(b) and (c), in that “Junior Horseman A Poutama breached the PUSH OUT Rule improving outward from the running line with TUINFRO forcing TWO WISHES to race wider on the track with 1100m to run.”
Rule 869(4) states: “No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress…(6) Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:- …(b) a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track; (c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.”
Mr Poutama, assisted by Mr Mangos, confirmed he understood the relevant rule, and that he did not admit the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Using the back straight and head-on films, Mr Neal identified TUINFRO racing against the running rail in third position with approximately 1200m to run. TWO WISHES (Mr K Chittenden) was racing immediately behind that runner. Mr Chittenden elected to improve his position by leaving the marker line and proceed to the outside of TUINFRO. Mr Chittenden was then forced wider on the track due to TUINFRO leaving the marker line, dictating TWO WISHES. Using the head-on film Mr Neal submitted that it was clear that Mr Chittenden was to the outside of Mr Poutama’s wheel and there was no entitlement for Mr Poutama to improve his horse at that point. Mr Neal suggested that Mr Chittenden was forced wider for a distance of 100 metres.
Mr Muirhead called Mr Chittenden as a witness. He confirmed he was the driver of TWO WISHES and that when approaching the 1200 metres, he sought to improve forward when Mr Poutama’s horse came out whilst he was alongside it, forcing him three wide. He stated that his horse’s legs were alongside the sulky wheel of TUINFRO when he was seeking to improve. He confirmed he was “dead sure” about this placement. In response to a question from Mr Mangos, Mr Chittenden stated it was not possible to move onto Mr Poutama’s back once TUINFRO had come out, due to horses located to his inside after he had been forced three wide.
Using the films, Mr Poutama submitted that he came out near the 1100 metres as he did not see Mr Chittenden’s legs outside his sulky. Mr Mangos used the side-on film to identify Mr Poutama on his way out. Mr Mangos believed the films showed that Mr Poutama was two lengths clear and that the back film gave no true indication of where TUINFRO was located. He believed Mr Chittenden’s limited horsemans’ experience had placed him in the situation he found himself in. Mr Mangos submitted that Mr Chittenden had plenty of time to drop onto Mr Poutama’s back.
In summing up, Mr Muirhead submitted that Mr Chittenden’s evidence was clear and corroborated by the films. He submitted that some of the difference of opinion between the stewards and the Respondent was related to the parallax of the films. Mr Mangos agreed with this, and had nothing further to add.
reasonsfordecision:
It was clear that Mr Poutama’s horse was located on the inside running rail near the 1100 metres, and this was not in dispute. It was also clear that Mr Chittenden’s drive remained wider on the track over a period of approximately 100 metres. The crux of the issue in contention, was not about inferior or superior horsemanship. In relation to the provisions of the rule; it was about whether the placement of Mr Chittenden’s horse, relative to Mr Poutama’s sulky wheel was before the sulky wheel. Mr Chittenden’s evidence was compelling in this regard. He stated that his horse’s legs were alongside the sulky wheel of TUINFRO. This evidence was not discredited under cross-examination and is consistent with my interpretation of the relevant films. This evidence confirms that issue of placement. Based on evidence and submissions, Mr Chittenden was established to the outside of TUINFRO, and in this situation, Mr Poutama had no entitlement to improve outwards at the point of the 1100 metres mark.
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
In presenting Mr Poutama’s record, Mr Muirhead advised that he had no similar breaches within the last 12 months. He labelled Mr Poutama as a junior horseman who had gained a lot of experience and was representing New Zealand at the forthcoming Australasia Junior Drivers Championships. He submitted a $250 fine as appropriate on this occasion.
Mr Poutama indicated a preference for a fine rather than a suspension, and had nothing further to submit.
reasonsforpenalty:
I considered all of the submissions placed before me. It was clear that Mr Poutama is a junior driver who regularly drives at meetings across the country. His selection as the country’s representative at an upcoming Australasia Championship is a testament to his prominence and skill, however; whilst Mr Poutama does have Junior Driver status, he also has a level of experience that other junior drivers do not have.
penalty:
Mr Poutama was fined $250.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 869(4), (6)(b) and (c)
Informant: Mr J Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr A Poutama - Junior Horseman
Otherperson: Mr B Mango - Senior Horseman, Mr K Chittenden - Licensed Horseman, Mr R Neal - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 251ba6657d7519450f26f0a271bb9a9b
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: 29ca9273ad658128a76206a8957c0bca
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 04/02/2014
meet_title: Wairarapa HRC - 4 February 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wairarapa-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Wairarapa HRC