Winton HRC 27 May 2012 – R 12
ID: JCA17317
Meet Title:
Winton HRC - 27 May 2012
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADennis
Race Date:
2012/05/27
Race Number:
R12
Decision:
We dismiss the charge.
Charge:
Mr Wallis alleged that Mr Thomas (ASCOT BOY) drove in an improper manner by dropping his foot to strike the near side hind leg of his runner with approximately 250 metres to run.
Facts:
Mr Wallis demonstrated on the side on video that as ASCOT BOY rounded the final bend, and after the deafeners had been removed, the respondent had attempted to strike the near hind hock on two occasions. The horse finished second.
When questioned by the respondent, Mr Wallis said the information alleged that it was the hind leg of ASCOT BOY and that was what he was alleging rather than the hock. He said the left foot of Mr Thomas had dropped from the cart and he pointed to the rolling motion of the foot. He said it appeared that there had been contact, although that was not certain from the videos, but it was clear the respondent was attempting to kick the horse. He said that as the horse cannot see the kick coming it could get a fright and go into a gallop. He said the purpose of kicking the horse would be to attempt to make it focus and try harder. He emphasised he was not alleging Mr Thomas was using his foot as a bar but that he was attempting to make contact with a leg.
Mr Thomas emphasised that the horse was wearing bandages and he would never deliberately hit the hock of the horse as this would cause the horse pain and clearly would be cruel. He acknowledged his foot had slipped down as he entered the straight but he was trying to get it straight back into the sulky. He admitted that the video showed that his foot had come into contact with the near hind leg of ASCOT BOY on one occasion but he was not aware of this at the time. He stated that if he knows he has done something wrong he will admit the breach. He said he had once been charged with using his foot as a bar and he had admitted this when questioned by the stewards. He said he would have admitted the breach on this occasion had his actions been deliberate but they were not and that was why he was defending the charge. He said ASCOT BOY was travelling well and he had not gone for the stick. He emphasised the incident looked bad in slow motion but at normal speed his foot was down for only 2 strides. He had got his foot back into the cart as soon as he could. He said he had never deliberately kicked a horse in the back leg in his life and would not do so, as it is clearly unacceptable.
Submissions for Decision:
In reply Mr Wallis said that if Mr Thomas’s foot had slipped he would have expected it to come straight back up and not to wave as the respondent’s foot had on this occasion.
Mr Thomas reiterated the incident was momentary and that the contact was accidental.
Reasons for Decision:
We have viewed all the video angles. Only the side-on video is of assistance. This fails to show the respondent’s foot dropping from the cart. When ASCOT BOY comes into view on rounding the bend the respondent’s left foot is hanging down beside the cart. It does not appear at this time to come into contact with ASCOT BOY. However, Mr Thomas’s foot then proceeds forward on one occasion and appears to come into contact with the hind leg of ASCOT BOY. And Mr Thomas has confirmed that there was contact at this time. This contact is not forceful. We are concerned that the toe of the boot is pointed inwards and that it appears Mr Thomas is reaching with his foot towards the horse in an endeavour to make contact with the left hind leg. In simple terms, it does not look good. However, we accept the respondent’s comment that slow motion does make the incident look worse than it is in real time. The suspicious forward movement of the foot is only on one occasion and is just for a stride. Mr Thomas has emphasised ASCOT BOY is bandaged on the leg and that is a further reason why he would never deliberately hit this horse.
The video footage, as we have said, is inconclusive as to whether the respondent’s foot just slipped or is taken out of the rest deliberately. There is no coverage of ASCOT BOY at this point in the race. In those circumstances, we accept the respondent’s evidence that his foot slipped. There is only one kick and this is certainly not forceful. Nor is the leg fully extended in a rigid fashion. The charge is a serious one and we have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities (r 1008A) that the respondent deliberately kicked ASCOT BOY. While there is contact between boot and hind leg, we are left in some doubt as to whether this was deliberate.
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: f80268f6a290e8aa18b253abb16679b9
informantnumber: 5618
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 24/05/2012
hearing_title: Winton HRC 27 May 2012 - R 12
charge:
Mr Wallis alleged that Mr Thomas (ASCOT BOY) drove in an improper manner by dropping his foot to strike the near side hind leg of his runner with approximately 250 metres to run.
facts:
Mr Wallis demonstrated on the side on video that as ASCOT BOY rounded the final bend, and after the deafeners had been removed, the respondent had attempted to strike the near hind hock on two occasions. The horse finished second.
When questioned by the respondent, Mr Wallis said the information alleged that it was the hind leg of ASCOT BOY and that was what he was alleging rather than the hock. He said the left foot of Mr Thomas had dropped from the cart and he pointed to the rolling motion of the foot. He said it appeared that there had been contact, although that was not certain from the videos, but it was clear the respondent was attempting to kick the horse. He said that as the horse cannot see the kick coming it could get a fright and go into a gallop. He said the purpose of kicking the horse would be to attempt to make it focus and try harder. He emphasised he was not alleging Mr Thomas was using his foot as a bar but that he was attempting to make contact with a leg.
Mr Thomas emphasised that the horse was wearing bandages and he would never deliberately hit the hock of the horse as this would cause the horse pain and clearly would be cruel. He acknowledged his foot had slipped down as he entered the straight but he was trying to get it straight back into the sulky. He admitted that the video showed that his foot had come into contact with the near hind leg of ASCOT BOY on one occasion but he was not aware of this at the time. He stated that if he knows he has done something wrong he will admit the breach. He said he had once been charged with using his foot as a bar and he had admitted this when questioned by the stewards. He said he would have admitted the breach on this occasion had his actions been deliberate but they were not and that was why he was defending the charge. He said ASCOT BOY was travelling well and he had not gone for the stick. He emphasised the incident looked bad in slow motion but at normal speed his foot was down for only 2 strides. He had got his foot back into the cart as soon as he could. He said he had never deliberately kicked a horse in the back leg in his life and would not do so, as it is clearly unacceptable.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
In reply Mr Wallis said that if Mr Thomas’s foot had slipped he would have expected it to come straight back up and not to wave as the respondent’s foot had on this occasion.
Mr Thomas reiterated the incident was momentary and that the contact was accidental.
reasonsfordecision:
We have viewed all the video angles. Only the side-on video is of assistance. This fails to show the respondent’s foot dropping from the cart. When ASCOT BOY comes into view on rounding the bend the respondent’s left foot is hanging down beside the cart. It does not appear at this time to come into contact with ASCOT BOY. However, Mr Thomas’s foot then proceeds forward on one occasion and appears to come into contact with the hind leg of ASCOT BOY. And Mr Thomas has confirmed that there was contact at this time. This contact is not forceful. We are concerned that the toe of the boot is pointed inwards and that it appears Mr Thomas is reaching with his foot towards the horse in an endeavour to make contact with the left hind leg. In simple terms, it does not look good. However, we accept the respondent’s comment that slow motion does make the incident look worse than it is in real time. The suspicious forward movement of the foot is only on one occasion and is just for a stride. Mr Thomas has emphasised ASCOT BOY is bandaged on the leg and that is a further reason why he would never deliberately hit this horse.
The video footage, as we have said, is inconclusive as to whether the respondent’s foot just slipped or is taken out of the rest deliberately. There is no coverage of ASCOT BOY at this point in the race. In those circumstances, we accept the respondent’s evidence that his foot slipped. There is only one kick and this is certainly not forceful. Nor is the leg fully extended in a rigid fashion. The charge is a serious one and we have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities (r 1008A) that the respondent deliberately kicked ASCOT BOY. While there is contact between boot and hind leg, we are left in some doubt as to whether this was deliberate.
Decision:
We dismiss the charge.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(f)
Informant: Mr S Wallis, Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr G Thomas, Licensed Open Horseman
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: e9c99c47ff6dec94a2725da20c71bbfb
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R12
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: d0a50c74630dcea7330527f45cdbb838
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 27/05/2012
meet_title: Winton HRC - 27 May 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: winton-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: ADennis
meet_pm2: none
name: Winton HRC