NZ Metro TC - 3 April 2010 - R 9

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Information No:  67844

Meeting:  New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club    

Date:  3 April 2010

Venue:  Addington Raceway   

Race 9:  “Ice Bloodstock” Canterbury Regional Country Cups (Final)

Rule:  869(4)

Judicial Committee:  Chairman           J. M. Phelan

Plea:    Not Admitted  

Appearing:      Informant:  Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott

                        Defendant:  Mr S. R. McNally – Open Horseman

DECISION AND REASONS:

Following the running of Race 9, the “Ice Bloodstock” Canterbury Regional Country Cups (Final), an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) by Mr S. R. McNally.  The information reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(4) in that S. R. McNally drove in a manner causing interference when shifting in after approx. 200m when shifting Rangataua Ray (M. Williamson) onto Another Homer (R. Holmes) causing this gelding to break.”

Rule 869(4) reads as follows.

“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.”

Mr McNally had indicated on the information that he did not admit this

breach of the Rules, and he confirmed this at the hearing.   Mr McNally also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.

There had been a previous protest hearing and it was agreed by all parties that the evidence heard at that hearing would form the basis of this hearing.

Mr Escott said that Mr McNally had driven in such a manner that he had caused interference to “Another Homer” when he had allowed his horse to move inwards onto “Rangataua Ray”, which resulted in this latter horse making contact with “Another Homer”, which ran out of room, was checked, and broke losing its chance.

Mr McNally did not contest the facts of this matter, and agreed that his horse had moved inwards as alleged, although he said he had tried to correct this inwards movement.  The main thrust of Mr McNally’s defence to this charge was that he had an advantage over “Rangataua Ray”, and that Mr Williamson should have “eased back” to avoid the situation.

After hearing the evidence I adjourned to consider my decision.

I was satisfied that Mr Williamson was following “Will Play” at the time of this incident, and that he had the right to be where he was.  Even though Mr McNally may have had an advantage over “Rangataua Ray” a driver can only move another horse inwards or outwards when it is safe to do so.  This means that there must be a space available for the horse being moved to move into.

In the present case Mr McNally moved “Rangataua Ray” inwards when that horse had no space to move into.  As a result there was contact between “Rangataua Ray” and “Another Homer”, resulting in the latter horse running out of room and breaking.

I was satisfied that the charge had been proved, and on returning to the Enquiry Room I advised the parties of this decision.

Penalty:

In relation to penalty Mr Escott advised that Mr McNally had no previous relevant convictions, and he recommended a fine of $250-00 to $300-00.  Mr McNally said that he would prefer a fine to a suspension.

I adjourned to consider the matter of penalty.   On looking at the Sentencing Guide and previous fines for a breach of this Rule I was satisfied that the range of fines recommended by Mr Escott was appropriate.  I decided that Mr McNally would be fined the sum of $250-00 in this case, and on returning to the Enquiry Room I advised the parties of this decision.

J. M. Phelan

CHAIR

67844