Wairio TC 25 March 2017 – R 10 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA17798
Meet Title:
Wairio TC - 25 March 2017
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
PKnowles
Race Date:
2017/03/25
Race Number:
R 10
Decision:
We find the charge is not proved.
Facts:
Mr Tidmarsh, Stipendiary Steward, alleged that in race 10, the D T KING & CO MOBILE PACE, Mr B Williamson (SIX DIAMONDS) drove carelessly near the 900 metres when shifting outwards checking GRACE BURNS (Mr Suddaby), which broke.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Renault, Stipendiary Steward, demonstrated on 2 video angles that Mr Williamson was racing one out with Mr Suddaby established to his outside. The respondent shifted outwards on the track and there was contact between his cart and the hind leg of Mr Suddaby’s horse. GRACE BURNS then broke.
Mr Tidmarsh called Mr Suddaby to give evidence. He said he had no time to react to relieve the pressure and to shift wider on the track. Mr Tidmarsh questioned Mr Suddaby as to when he knew Mr Williamson was going to shift out. He said it was 50 metres before the contact. He said he had had his back legs taken out by Mr Williamson’s cart. He had had nowhere to go and there was clear contact. He said it was an abrupt movement and he was being forced wider. He had no time to ease or shift out. There was no yelling. He was prepared to move out as he could see what was happening. He said he was a neck to ½ a length behind the horse in front of him (Mr N Williamson) and he was entitled to be there.
After first stating that he had shifted out because he was fully entitled to under the Rules, Mr Williamson questioned Mr Suddaby as to why GRACE BURNS’s head was pointed inwards at the time he was coming out. He asked was this because Mr Suddaby was trying to stop him from shifting Mr Suddaby wider on the track. Mr Suddaby replied his horse’s head was inwards because it had a rein pricker to its outside and was running away from it. When questioned as to whether he had failed to keep up behind Mr N Williamson, he said he had dropped back but he was back up outside the respondent 20 to 30 metres before contact.
The Committee questioned Mr Suddaby as to whether he was chasing his horse up trying to maintain his position. He said he thought, yes, he was, but he believed he had time to get back up behind Mr N Williamson and he was not trying to hold Mr B Williamson in.
The respondent commenced his defence by demonstrating that he was racing inside Mr N Williamson. He was aware that Mr Suddaby was trying to hold the back of that horse but had not been able to do so when the pace quickened. He said the videos showed clearly, he (Mr B Williamson) was easing off the back of the horse in front and he was within his rights to come out and take the spot behind Mr N Williamson. He believed Mr Suddaby had 5 seconds to try to hold his position and he should have shifted out, as he knew Mr Williamson was going to come out. He emphasised his movement was not sharp. He believed Mr Suddaby was trying to hold a position he had no right to hold. Mr Suddaby was slapping up GRACE BURNS yet there was plenty of room for Mr Suddaby to let him come out. Instead, Mr Suddaby was pulling his horse inwards and hunting it up. He believed the angle of the head of GRACE BURNS demonstrated that Mr Suddaby was pulling on the left rein.
Mr Williamson emphasised it was not a sharp or late movement on his part when he moved out. He showed on the video that he had looked twice before he had shifted out and that there were at least 40 metres in which Mr Suddaby had time to react.
Mr B Williamson called Mr N Williamson to give evidence. Mr N Williamson confirmed he was an experienced driver. He viewed the videos and said Mr Suddaby was not trailing tightly behind him and that, as it was within the final 1000 metres, the respondent could push Mr Suddaby wider on the track. He stated he believed the respondent’s movement was a slow and consistent outwards movement and was not abrupt. He believed if it had been any slower the respondent would not have been able to move Mr Suddaby. He estimated Mr Suddaby was ½ to 1 length off the horse he was trailing and had elected to move up and keep Mr B Williamson in. He said the respondent had a clear advantage over Mr Suddaby and could therefore shift him wider on the track with safety. He demonstrated on the video that the head of Mr Suddaby’s horse was being pulled inwards and contesting the position behind him (Mr N Williamson), which he had no right under the Rules to do.
Mr Tidmarsh summed up by stating that the respondent had shifted out in such a manner that Mr Suddaby had not had time to react and thus there was contact. He believed the distance from the outwards movement to contact was 10 to 15 metres. He said the Rules provided that the movement had to be done with safety and 10 to 15 metres was not sufficient time.
Mr B Williamson replied there was sufficient time. He had moved slowly and in the knowledge that Mr Suddaby knew he was shifting out. There was at least 10 to 15 metres between movement and contact, which he estimated as being 3 to 4 strides, and 4 to 5 seconds, time wise.
Reasons for Decision:
The Rules allow Mr Williamson to come out and shift another driver wider on the track with safety in the final 1000 metres. Rule 869(7) provides: “Sub-rule (6)(b) and (c) of this rule [the “push out rules”] shall apply until 1000 metres from the finish of the race. From this point all horsemen shall be expected to make moves, with safety, to ensure the horse obtains the best possible place in the field.”
The videos show that prior to the incident Mr Suddaby was struggling to hold his position behind Mr N Williamson, as he had dropped back at least a length behind that horse. Mr B Williamson, who was racing to the inside of Mr N Williamson, was aware of this and can be seen to look to his right and thus to the outside of the track on two occasions before moving. Mr Suddaby was hunting up his horse in an attempt to regain his position behind Mr N Williamson.
Mr B Williamson says it should have been clear to Mr Suddaby for at least 40 metres that he was coming out. And Mr Suddaby has acknowledged this, stating in his evidence that he was aware some 50 metres prior to Mr Williamson moving, that the respondent was intending to do so. We do not need to determine whether Mr Suddaby was determined to hold Mr Williamson in, as Mr Williamson has alleged. The horse’s head is turned inwards at the time but Mr Suddaby has proffered a gear-related explanation for this. It is clear, however, that Mr Suddaby had room to allow Mr Williamson to shift out, as there was no horse to his outside. He does not move wider on the track when the respondent comes out. The result is contact; GRACE BURN breaks, and gallops before settling at the rear of the field.
The key issue is whether the respondent’s movement was abrupt and therefore not made with safety, as Mr Tidmarsh has alleged, and Mr Suddaby has attested. It is clear there was contact.
The video evidence is far from conclusive but the angles would appear to support the respondent’s submission that his movement was not sudden. Mr Williamson always had an advantage over Mr Suddaby when he endeavoured to shift Mr Suddaby wider. We would estimate this to be at least a neck at the time of contact and closer to ½ a length at the point of the initial movement.
It would appear to be a distance of about 15 metres over which the respondent has made his outwards move. We have had regard to Mr Suddaby’s evidence, but do so in the context that we believe he had time from when he became aware that Mr Williamson was intent on coming out (some 50 metres on his own evidence), for him to let the respondent shift him wider on the track without there being contact.
The standard of proof of the breach is the balance of probabilities. We are not satisfied after hearing from the witnesses, the parties, and viewing the video evidence that this standard has been met. We are not satisfied that the move was not made with safety. If there are any differences between drivers, we emphasise that the track is not the place for these matters to be aired.
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: eea9d4f0a93fab49945b7141cc95d3ad
informantnumber: A8598
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 28/03/2017
hearing_title: Wairio TC 25 March 2017 - R 10 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
Mr Tidmarsh, Stipendiary Steward, alleged that in race 10, the D T KING & CO MOBILE PACE, Mr B Williamson (SIX DIAMONDS) drove carelessly near the 900 metres when shifting outwards checking GRACE BURNS (Mr Suddaby), which broke.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Renault, Stipendiary Steward, demonstrated on 2 video angles that Mr Williamson was racing one out with Mr Suddaby established to his outside. The respondent shifted outwards on the track and there was contact between his cart and the hind leg of Mr Suddaby’s horse. GRACE BURNS then broke.
Mr Tidmarsh called Mr Suddaby to give evidence. He said he had no time to react to relieve the pressure and to shift wider on the track. Mr Tidmarsh questioned Mr Suddaby as to when he knew Mr Williamson was going to shift out. He said it was 50 metres before the contact. He said he had had his back legs taken out by Mr Williamson’s cart. He had had nowhere to go and there was clear contact. He said it was an abrupt movement and he was being forced wider. He had no time to ease or shift out. There was no yelling. He was prepared to move out as he could see what was happening. He said he was a neck to ½ a length behind the horse in front of him (Mr N Williamson) and he was entitled to be there.
After first stating that he had shifted out because he was fully entitled to under the Rules, Mr Williamson questioned Mr Suddaby as to why GRACE BURNS’s head was pointed inwards at the time he was coming out. He asked was this because Mr Suddaby was trying to stop him from shifting Mr Suddaby wider on the track. Mr Suddaby replied his horse’s head was inwards because it had a rein pricker to its outside and was running away from it. When questioned as to whether he had failed to keep up behind Mr N Williamson, he said he had dropped back but he was back up outside the respondent 20 to 30 metres before contact.
The Committee questioned Mr Suddaby as to whether he was chasing his horse up trying to maintain his position. He said he thought, yes, he was, but he believed he had time to get back up behind Mr N Williamson and he was not trying to hold Mr B Williamson in.
The respondent commenced his defence by demonstrating that he was racing inside Mr N Williamson. He was aware that Mr Suddaby was trying to hold the back of that horse but had not been able to do so when the pace quickened. He said the videos showed clearly, he (Mr B Williamson) was easing off the back of the horse in front and he was within his rights to come out and take the spot behind Mr N Williamson. He believed Mr Suddaby had 5 seconds to try to hold his position and he should have shifted out, as he knew Mr Williamson was going to come out. He emphasised his movement was not sharp. He believed Mr Suddaby was trying to hold a position he had no right to hold. Mr Suddaby was slapping up GRACE BURNS yet there was plenty of room for Mr Suddaby to let him come out. Instead, Mr Suddaby was pulling his horse inwards and hunting it up. He believed the angle of the head of GRACE BURNS demonstrated that Mr Suddaby was pulling on the left rein.
Mr Williamson emphasised it was not a sharp or late movement on his part when he moved out. He showed on the video that he had looked twice before he had shifted out and that there were at least 40 metres in which Mr Suddaby had time to react.
Mr B Williamson called Mr N Williamson to give evidence. Mr N Williamson confirmed he was an experienced driver. He viewed the videos and said Mr Suddaby was not trailing tightly behind him and that, as it was within the final 1000 metres, the respondent could push Mr Suddaby wider on the track. He stated he believed the respondent’s movement was a slow and consistent outwards movement and was not abrupt. He believed if it had been any slower the respondent would not have been able to move Mr Suddaby. He estimated Mr Suddaby was ½ to 1 length off the horse he was trailing and had elected to move up and keep Mr B Williamson in. He said the respondent had a clear advantage over Mr Suddaby and could therefore shift him wider on the track with safety. He demonstrated on the video that the head of Mr Suddaby’s horse was being pulled inwards and contesting the position behind him (Mr N Williamson), which he had no right under the Rules to do.
Mr Tidmarsh summed up by stating that the respondent had shifted out in such a manner that Mr Suddaby had not had time to react and thus there was contact. He believed the distance from the outwards movement to contact was 10 to 15 metres. He said the Rules provided that the movement had to be done with safety and 10 to 15 metres was not sufficient time.
Mr B Williamson replied there was sufficient time. He had moved slowly and in the knowledge that Mr Suddaby knew he was shifting out. There was at least 10 to 15 metres between movement and contact, which he estimated as being 3 to 4 strides, and 4 to 5 seconds, time wise.
reasonsfordecision:
The Rules allow Mr Williamson to come out and shift another driver wider on the track with safety in the final 1000 metres. Rule 869(7) provides: “Sub-rule (6)(b) and (c) of this rule [the “push out rules”] shall apply until 1000 metres from the finish of the race. From this point all horsemen shall be expected to make moves, with safety, to ensure the horse obtains the best possible place in the field.”
The videos show that prior to the incident Mr Suddaby was struggling to hold his position behind Mr N Williamson, as he had dropped back at least a length behind that horse. Mr B Williamson, who was racing to the inside of Mr N Williamson, was aware of this and can be seen to look to his right and thus to the outside of the track on two occasions before moving. Mr Suddaby was hunting up his horse in an attempt to regain his position behind Mr N Williamson.
Mr B Williamson says it should have been clear to Mr Suddaby for at least 40 metres that he was coming out. And Mr Suddaby has acknowledged this, stating in his evidence that he was aware some 50 metres prior to Mr Williamson moving, that the respondent was intending to do so. We do not need to determine whether Mr Suddaby was determined to hold Mr Williamson in, as Mr Williamson has alleged. The horse’s head is turned inwards at the time but Mr Suddaby has proffered a gear-related explanation for this. It is clear, however, that Mr Suddaby had room to allow Mr Williamson to shift out, as there was no horse to his outside. He does not move wider on the track when the respondent comes out. The result is contact; GRACE BURN breaks, and gallops before settling at the rear of the field.
The key issue is whether the respondent’s movement was abrupt and therefore not made with safety, as Mr Tidmarsh has alleged, and Mr Suddaby has attested. It is clear there was contact.
The video evidence is far from conclusive but the angles would appear to support the respondent’s submission that his movement was not sudden. Mr Williamson always had an advantage over Mr Suddaby when he endeavoured to shift Mr Suddaby wider. We would estimate this to be at least a neck at the time of contact and closer to ½ a length at the point of the initial movement.
It would appear to be a distance of about 15 metres over which the respondent has made his outwards move. We have had regard to Mr Suddaby’s evidence, but do so in the context that we believe he had time from when he became aware that Mr Williamson was intent on coming out (some 50 metres on his own evidence), for him to let the respondent shift him wider on the track without there being contact.
The standard of proof of the breach is the balance of probabilities. We are not satisfied after hearing from the witnesses, the parties, and viewing the video evidence that this standard has been met. We are not satisfied that the move was not made with safety. If there are any differences between drivers, we emphasise that the track is not the place for these matters to be aired.
Decision:
We find the charge is not proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr L Tidmarsh - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr B Williamson - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr Renault - Stipendiary Steward, Mr Suddaby - Open Horseman, Mr N Williamson - Open Horseman
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 927a323c00887cedd90e6b67e466bdce
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 1c95a66c276fc0720bc485f2a0917ae4
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 25/03/2017
meet_title: Wairio TC - 25 March 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wairio-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: PKnowles
meet_pm2: none
name: Wairio TC