Westport TC 26 December 2017 – R 6 – Chair, Mr R McKenzie
ID: JCA10606
Meet Title:
Westport TC - 26 December 2017
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
GClapp
Race Date:
2017/12/26
Race Number:
R 6
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
Penalty:
The Committee accepts that Mr Markham has driving engagements on the second day of the meeting on 28 December and also at the Reefton Trotting Club’s meeting on 30 December next and grants his application for a deferment of suspension until after the latter.
Mr Markham’s Open Driver’s Licence is suspended from after the close of racing on 30 December 2017 up to and including 21 January 2018 – 5 days.
ADDENDUM
Following a defended hearing after Race 6 at the above race meeting, Mr Markham was found guilty of a charge of careless driving.
In the course of penalty submissions, with a view to a penalty of suspension being imposed, Stipendiary Steward Wallis omitted to make mention of the meeting of Rangiora HRC on 7 January 2018. Neither did Mr Markham refer to that meeting. As a consequence, that meeting was not considered by the Committee when it calculated the appropriate penalty, which it deemed to be a 5 days suspension.
The Committee is prepared to accept that the meeting of Rangiora HRC should properly have been included in its calculation of the length of the suspension.
Therefore, the 5 days suspension imposed on Mr Markham should have encompassed the following meetings - Timaru HRC (5th), Rangiora HRC (7th), Nelson HRC (12th & 14th) and Timaru HRC (17th). For the avoidance of doubt, the meeting of Oamaru HRC on 10th January was not included, as Mr Markham informed the Committee that he would not have any engagements at that meeting.
Accordingly, the Committee amends its original penalty decision. Mr Markham's Open Horseman's licence is now suspended from after racing on 30th December 2017, up to and including 17th January 2018. Mr Markham is free to drive after that latter date.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 6, Mickey Duncan Memorial Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr SW Wallis, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr CJ Markham, alleging that Mr Markham, as the driver of COPPERHEAD ROSE in the race, “drove carelessly nearing the 1300 metres when failing to concede his position resulting in GARRY’S LEGACY (D J Dunn) breaking briefly”.
Mr Markham was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive-
(b) carelessly.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Wallis had Mr S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward, point out the two runners involved. GARRY’S LEGACY, driven by Mr Dunn, was racing 3-wide towards the rear of the field with COPPERHEAD ROSE, driven by Mr Markham, on his inside. Mr Wallis then ran the replay on and pointed out Mr Dunn and Mr Markham jostling for a position which, Mr Wallis submitted, Stewards maintained Mr Dunn had secured. Then Mr Wallis switched to a head-on video angle, and he submitted that it could be seen that Mr Dunn was in the one-out line, while Mr Markham was in between the two lines of runners. It was the Stewards’ contention that Mr Markham should have conceded that position and be racing on the marker line.
Mr Wallis then referred to the Easing Down Regulations which provide:
Subject to Rule 869 (3) Careless Driving, 869 (4) Causing Interference, horsemen shall be permitted to make moves with safety, provided they are in a position to do so by having a “clear advantage” over the horse they are about to move inwards, and the horse is clear of other horses on its inside so it can be moved in and that the manoeuvre is conducted in a gradual and acceptable manner.
Any horseman who fails to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place, may be charged under Rule 869 (3) Careless Driving.
Mr Wallis submitted that Mr Dunn had succeeded in easing Mr Markham’s runner down, as it could be seen that he was racing in the one-out line and it was Mr Markham who was contesting that position, resulting in his runner being positioned between the two running lines. Shortly thereafter, Mr Dunn’s runner, still receiving pressure from the inside, broke for a short distance with Mr Markham obtaining the position that Mr Dunn had occupied, Mr Wallis said.
Mr Dunn was called by Mr Wallis to give evidence. Mr Dunn confirmed that he had raced 3-wide in the early stages of the race. He further confirmed that his horse had broken briefly with approximately 1300 metres to race. He said that prior to entering the straight, he had pushed Mr Markham down. They had been fighting for the same position for some distance and he eventually decided to take a hold of his horse and “pull out of it”, at which time it broke. He said that he believed that he had pushed Mr Markham down prior to that and was racing in the two-out line, but was receiving pressure from Mr Markham for an estimated distance of between 50 and 80 metres, he said.
Mr Markham submitted that Mr Dunn needed to have a “clear advantage” before attempting to ease him down. At no stage did Mr Dunn have such an advantage, he submitted.
Mr Dunn, in response, said that they were “pretty even”, but he had succeeded in getting into the two-out line.
Mr Markham said that he accepted that Mr Dunn had him “three-quarters of the way down” but never right down on the markers. He now accepted that perhaps he should have conceded the position but he felt that Mr Dunn had no right to push him down. He further stated that, had he conceded his position and remained 5-back on the markers, his horse would never have got up and finished 3rd. He was doing what he believed was in the best interests of the connections of the horse and what was right, he said.
In summing up, Mr Wallis submitted that it was irrelevant how Mr Dunn had managed to ease Mr Markham down. The video replays proved that he had done so. The reason that Mr Markham was only “three-quarters of the way down” was that Mr Markham was continuing to fight Mr Dunn for the position which, Stewards maintained, he was not entitled to do. Stewards had no concern as to the manner in which Mr Dunn had eased down, Mr Wallis said.
Reasons for Decision:
Mr Markham’s defence to this charge is based on his belief, which we accepted was genuine, that Mr Dunn had attempted to ease him down when, in terms of the Easing Down Regulations, he was not entitled to do so as he did not have the required “clear advantage”.
There may have been some merit in that argument, except for the fact that Mr Dunn had in the Committee’s view, rightly or wrongly, already succeeded in easing Mr Markham down prior to that section of the race out of which this charge arises.
The head-on video replay of the run down the front straight quite clearly showed that Mr Dunn was established in the two-out line while Mr Markham’s horse’s head was turned outwards while the horse raced in the “1½-out line”, for want of a better description, as Mr Markham tried to maintain a position that he had already lost.
At that point of the race, Mr Markham should have accepted that he had been fully eased down by Mr Dunn and it is clear to the Committee that he should properly have conceded his position.
As a consequence, Mr Dunn’s runner, GARRY’S LEGACY, broke briefly as a result of the pressure from Mr Markham on his inside and thereby lost its advantageous position in the field, which was then taken up by Mr Markham’s runner.
In determining this charge, the Committee believes that we are not concerned as to the manner in which Mr Dunn eased Mr Markham down in the first instance. We find that in failing to concede his position as alleged, Mr Markham drove carelessly and, accordingly, we find the charge proved.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Wallis informed the Committee that Mr Markham has a clear record under the Rule. He is a busy driver at this time of year. Last season he had 56 drives and, in the current season to date, has had 13 drives.
The starting point for a breach of the Rule is a 10 drives suspension or a $500 fine. Aggravating factors are that Mr Markham has caused Mr Dunn’s horse to gallop and thereby gained an advantage by being able to take up Mr Dunn’s position. Mr Wallis said that Stewards believed that an uplift of $100 to the starting point was appropriate for those factors, but Mr Markham was entitled to a discount for his good record.
The breach was in the mid-to-high range for the reason that it went on for so long, Mr Wallis submitted.
Mr Markham indicated that he wished to seek a deferment until after the Reefton TC meeting on 30 December next.
Mr Wallis submitted that, in the event of the Committee considering a suspension, Stewards would be seeking a suspension for in the vicinity of 10 drives, or 5 meetings.
Reasons for Penalty:
In deciding penalty, the Committee took the starting point of a $500 fine as provided in the Penalty Guide. An aggravating factor relating to the breach was that Mr Markham’s actions resulted in Mr Dunn’s runner receiving interference and breaking, thereby losing its position in the field which was taken up by Mr Markham who had been racing several places back on the markers and who was able get away from the markers at that stage, eventually finishing the race in a very close 3rd placing. It was a further aggravating factor that Mr Markham’s efforts to maintain his position persisted for over a distance of approximately 100 metres, making interference almost inevitable.
For those aggravating factors referred to, the Committee has uplifted the starting point from $500 to $600. We have taken this, in Mr Markham’s case, as being equivalent to 12 drives in the context of a suspension, which is Mr Markham’s preferred penalty.
Mr Markham is entitled to a discount for his driving record which, the Committee accepts, is a good one. This we have fixed at two drives and, thus, we have arrived at 10 drives as being an appropriate penalty. In Mr Markham’s case, we are satisfied that this amounts to five race meetings.
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: 048ff7b6492315856fc8603b4cfc1b52
informantnumber: A10208
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 29/12/2017
hearing_title: Westport TC 26 December 2017 - R 6 - Chair, Mr R McKenzie
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 6, Mickey Duncan Memorial Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr SW Wallis, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr CJ Markham, alleging that Mr Markham, as the driver of COPPERHEAD ROSE in the race, “drove carelessly nearing the 1300 metres when failing to concede his position resulting in GARRY’S LEGACY (D J Dunn) breaking briefly”.
Mr Markham was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive-
(b) carelessly.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Wallis had Mr S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward, point out the two runners involved. GARRY’S LEGACY, driven by Mr Dunn, was racing 3-wide towards the rear of the field with COPPERHEAD ROSE, driven by Mr Markham, on his inside. Mr Wallis then ran the replay on and pointed out Mr Dunn and Mr Markham jostling for a position which, Mr Wallis submitted, Stewards maintained Mr Dunn had secured. Then Mr Wallis switched to a head-on video angle, and he submitted that it could be seen that Mr Dunn was in the one-out line, while Mr Markham was in between the two lines of runners. It was the Stewards’ contention that Mr Markham should have conceded that position and be racing on the marker line.
Mr Wallis then referred to the Easing Down Regulations which provide:
Subject to Rule 869 (3) Careless Driving, 869 (4) Causing Interference, horsemen shall be permitted to make moves with safety, provided they are in a position to do so by having a “clear advantage” over the horse they are about to move inwards, and the horse is clear of other horses on its inside so it can be moved in and that the manoeuvre is conducted in a gradual and acceptable manner.
Any horseman who fails to concede when not in a position to maintain his/her place, may be charged under Rule 869 (3) Careless Driving.
Mr Wallis submitted that Mr Dunn had succeeded in easing Mr Markham’s runner down, as it could be seen that he was racing in the one-out line and it was Mr Markham who was contesting that position, resulting in his runner being positioned between the two running lines. Shortly thereafter, Mr Dunn’s runner, still receiving pressure from the inside, broke for a short distance with Mr Markham obtaining the position that Mr Dunn had occupied, Mr Wallis said.
Mr Dunn was called by Mr Wallis to give evidence. Mr Dunn confirmed that he had raced 3-wide in the early stages of the race. He further confirmed that his horse had broken briefly with approximately 1300 metres to race. He said that prior to entering the straight, he had pushed Mr Markham down. They had been fighting for the same position for some distance and he eventually decided to take a hold of his horse and “pull out of it”, at which time it broke. He said that he believed that he had pushed Mr Markham down prior to that and was racing in the two-out line, but was receiving pressure from Mr Markham for an estimated distance of between 50 and 80 metres, he said.
Mr Markham submitted that Mr Dunn needed to have a “clear advantage” before attempting to ease him down. At no stage did Mr Dunn have such an advantage, he submitted.
Mr Dunn, in response, said that they were “pretty even”, but he had succeeded in getting into the two-out line.
Mr Markham said that he accepted that Mr Dunn had him “three-quarters of the way down” but never right down on the markers. He now accepted that perhaps he should have conceded the position but he felt that Mr Dunn had no right to push him down. He further stated that, had he conceded his position and remained 5-back on the markers, his horse would never have got up and finished 3rd. He was doing what he believed was in the best interests of the connections of the horse and what was right, he said.
In summing up, Mr Wallis submitted that it was irrelevant how Mr Dunn had managed to ease Mr Markham down. The video replays proved that he had done so. The reason that Mr Markham was only “three-quarters of the way down” was that Mr Markham was continuing to fight Mr Dunn for the position which, Stewards maintained, he was not entitled to do. Stewards had no concern as to the manner in which Mr Dunn had eased down, Mr Wallis said.
reasonsfordecision:
Mr Markham’s defence to this charge is based on his belief, which we accepted was genuine, that Mr Dunn had attempted to ease him down when, in terms of the Easing Down Regulations, he was not entitled to do so as he did not have the required “clear advantage”.
There may have been some merit in that argument, except for the fact that Mr Dunn had in the Committee’s view, rightly or wrongly, already succeeded in easing Mr Markham down prior to that section of the race out of which this charge arises.
The head-on video replay of the run down the front straight quite clearly showed that Mr Dunn was established in the two-out line while Mr Markham’s horse’s head was turned outwards while the horse raced in the “1½-out line”, for want of a better description, as Mr Markham tried to maintain a position that he had already lost.
At that point of the race, Mr Markham should have accepted that he had been fully eased down by Mr Dunn and it is clear to the Committee that he should properly have conceded his position.
As a consequence, Mr Dunn’s runner, GARRY’S LEGACY, broke briefly as a result of the pressure from Mr Markham on his inside and thereby lost its advantageous position in the field, which was then taken up by Mr Markham’s runner.
In determining this charge, the Committee believes that we are not concerned as to the manner in which Mr Dunn eased Mr Markham down in the first instance. We find that in failing to concede his position as alleged, Mr Markham drove carelessly and, accordingly, we find the charge proved.
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Wallis informed the Committee that Mr Markham has a clear record under the Rule. He is a busy driver at this time of year. Last season he had 56 drives and, in the current season to date, has had 13 drives.
The starting point for a breach of the Rule is a 10 drives suspension or a $500 fine. Aggravating factors are that Mr Markham has caused Mr Dunn’s horse to gallop and thereby gained an advantage by being able to take up Mr Dunn’s position. Mr Wallis said that Stewards believed that an uplift of $100 to the starting point was appropriate for those factors, but Mr Markham was entitled to a discount for his good record.
The breach was in the mid-to-high range for the reason that it went on for so long, Mr Wallis submitted.
Mr Markham indicated that he wished to seek a deferment until after the Reefton TC meeting on 30 December next.
Mr Wallis submitted that, in the event of the Committee considering a suspension, Stewards would be seeking a suspension for in the vicinity of 10 drives, or 5 meetings.
reasonsforpenalty:
In deciding penalty, the Committee took the starting point of a $500 fine as provided in the Penalty Guide. An aggravating factor relating to the breach was that Mr Markham’s actions resulted in Mr Dunn’s runner receiving interference and breaking, thereby losing its position in the field which was taken up by Mr Markham who had been racing several places back on the markers and who was able get away from the markers at that stage, eventually finishing the race in a very close 3rd placing. It was a further aggravating factor that Mr Markham’s efforts to maintain his position persisted for over a distance of approximately 100 metres, making interference almost inevitable.
For those aggravating factors referred to, the Committee has uplifted the starting point from $500 to $600. We have taken this, in Mr Markham’s case, as being equivalent to 12 drives in the context of a suspension, which is Mr Markham’s preferred penalty.
Mr Markham is entitled to a discount for his driving record which, the Committee accepts, is a good one. This we have fixed at two drives and, thus, we have arrived at 10 drives as being an appropriate penalty. In Mr Markham’s case, we are satisfied that this amounts to five race meetings.
penalty:
The Committee accepts that Mr Markham has driving engagements on the second day of the meeting on 28 December and also at the Reefton Trotting Club’s meeting on 30 December next and grants his application for a deferment of suspension until after the latter.
Mr Markham’s Open Driver’s Licence is suspended from after the close of racing on 30 December 2017 up to and including 21 January 2018 – 5 days.
ADDENDUM
Following a defended hearing after Race 6 at the above race meeting, Mr Markham was found guilty of a charge of careless driving.
In the course of penalty submissions, with a view to a penalty of suspension being imposed, Stipendiary Steward Wallis omitted to make mention of the meeting of Rangiora HRC on 7 January 2018. Neither did Mr Markham refer to that meeting. As a consequence, that meeting was not considered by the Committee when it calculated the appropriate penalty, which it deemed to be a 5 days suspension.
The Committee is prepared to accept that the meeting of Rangiora HRC should properly have been included in its calculation of the length of the suspension.
Therefore, the 5 days suspension imposed on Mr Markham should have encompassed the following meetings - Timaru HRC (5th), Rangiora HRC (7th), Nelson HRC (12th & 14th) and Timaru HRC (17th). For the avoidance of doubt, the meeting of Oamaru HRC on 10th January was not included, as Mr Markham informed the Committee that he would not have any engagements at that meeting.
Accordingly, the Committee amends its original penalty decision. Mr Markham's Open Horseman's licence is now suspended from after racing on 30th December 2017, up to and including 17th January 2018. Mr Markham is free to drive after that latter date.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr SW Wallis - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr CJ Markham - Licensed Open Driver
Otherperson: Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward, Mr D Dunn - Driver of GARRY'S LEGACY
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 4c9d34d3d2a27e6fd65ab2f31b0cb13b
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: b686122d598352bf81670354e2c9b77d
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/12/2017
meet_title: Westport TC - 26 December 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: westport-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: GClapp
meet_pm2: none
name: Westport TC