NZ Metro TC - 17 September 2010 - R 5
869(6)(b) and (c)
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr N. M. Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Mr A. L. Clark – Open Horseman
Information No: 68781
Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club
Date: 17 September 2010
Venue: Addington Raceway
Race No. 5: Anthony Shearer/Pink Batts Ordeal Trotting Cup
Rule No: 869(6)(b) and (c)
Judicial Committee: J. M. Phelan, Chairman - P. J. Rosanowski, Committee Member
Plea: Admitted.
Charge:
Following the running of Race 5, the Anthony Shearer/Pink Batts Ordeal Trotting Cup, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren against Open Horseman Mr A. L. Clark alleging a breach of Rule 869(6)(b) and (c), the “push out” Rule.
The charge reads as follows.
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(6(b) and (c) in that with 1500m remaining Mr Clark shifted “The Fiery Ginga” wider in doing so pushing “Roydon Flash” and “Leighton Hest” wider on the track.”
Rules 869(6)(b) and (c) read as follows.
“(6) Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:-
(a)….
(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.”
Facts:
Mr Clark had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was admitted, and he also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
Mr Ydgren gave evidence and used video coverage to show this incident as described on the Information.
Mr Clark did not dispute the facts of these matters.
Decision:
As Mr Clark had admitted this breach of the Rules it was found to be proved in accordance with Rule 1111(1)(d).
Submissions on Penalty:
In relation to penalty Mr Ydgren advised that Mr Clark had no previous conviction for a breach of this Rule. This was however a $20,000-00 Listed Race, and Mr Ydgren submitted that a fine of $250-00 would be appropriate in this case.
Mr Clark had no relevant submissions to make as to penalty.
We adjourned to consider the matter of an appropriate penalty.
Reasons:
In considering the matter of an appropriate penalty we took into account that Mr Clark had admitted the breach and also that he had no previous relevant convictions.
Taking all the above matters into account we were satisfied that a fine of $200-00 would be appropriate in this case.
Penalty:
On resuming the hearing we advised the parties that Mr Clark was fined the sum of $200-00.
