NZ Metro TC - 5 August 2010 - R 9

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: N R Escott, Chief Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: S R McNally, Licensed Open Driver

Information No: 68779

Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club

Date: 5 August 2010

Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Race: 9

Rule No: 869 (3) (b)

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman – J Millar, Committee Member

Plea: Not Admitted

Also present:  Mr C McDowell, Licensed Junior Driver (driver of SUGAR RUSH)

FACTS:

Following the running of Race 9, Next Tuesday – “Nevele R” Race Day at Addington Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr S R McNally, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (b) in that Mr McNally, as the driver of GO TOWN GIRL in the race, “drove carelessly when shifting his runner wider on the track contacting SUGAR RUSH causing severe interference to this horse”.

Mr McNally was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he did not admit the breach.

Rule 869 provides as follows:

(3)   No horseman shall in any race drive:-

      (b)    carelessly.

SUBMISSION(S):

Mr Escott called Mr McDowell, driver of SUGAR RUSH, to give evidence. He stated that his horse had “run in a wee bit” when things got tight. Mr McNally’s horse had run out “a wee bit”.

Mr Escott then showed video replays of the incident, which occurred with approximately 200 metres to run. Mr McDowell then conceded that his horse had not run in. Mr McDowell said that his chances were extinguished in the incident.

Mr McDowell answered, when questioned by Mr McNally, that there had been room for McNally to put his horse in the gap. He also said that he noticed Mr McNally’s horse “duck out quickly”.

Mr N M Ydgren, Stipendiary Steward, stated that he had observed the incident from the patrol box at the top of the straight and had a “clear and unobstructed view”. He alleged that Mr McNally had shifted his horse out to clear the back of SANJAYA (C D Thornley) and, in doing so, contacted SUGAR RUSH driven by Mr McDowell. It appeared that Mr McNally had underestimated the room available to him. Mr McDowell had nowhere to go. Mr McNally had shifted out off Mr Thornley’s back in an attempt to find clear racing room. His horse was full of running but he had underestimated the gap available to him and had contacted Mr McDowell’s horse.

Mr Ydgren said that, in his view, GO TOWN GIRL was driven out by Mr McNally and did not hang out. He said that all of the movement had come from Mr McNally on the inside and the videos supported this. Mr McDowell’s horse had not shifted in at all. If anything, it had improved outwards with Mr McNally until it had run out of room.

Mr McNally stated that he had been “working on” his horse right up to the time when he had got clear of SANJAYA in front of him and, when he got to that gap, his horse had overreacted, gone the opposite way and ducked out. It happened too quickly and Mr McDowell had got caught in the middle of it. The incident would not have happened if his horse had not switched from running in to running out quite quickly. That is when the contact occurred. His horse was in front of Mr McDowell’s wheel and he would have been sufficiently clear had his horse not ducked out quickly onto him.

Mr McNally submitted that he had not been careless. It was rather a case of the horse overreacting too quickly.

Mr Escott submitted that the video clearly showed Mr McNally driving his horse into the gap in an attempt to improve his position.  

REASONS:

The Committee had listened to the evidence of both parties and had carefully viewed the video replays.

The Committee found that Mr McNally, on GO TOWN GIRL, was racing at the rear of the field and on the inside, shortly after turning for home. At that point, he could clearly be seen to angle his horse out, looking for racing room. He shifted out almost onto the back of SANJAYA (C D Thornley) and then, in an attempt to take a gap, he continued to shift out and, in doing so, contacted the front legs of SUGAR RUSH, driven by Mr McDowell, causing interference to that runner.

The Committee found that Mr McNally made a serious error of judgement in shifting out when not clear of Mr McDowell.

Mr McNally had fallen short of the standard required of a reasonable and prudent driver and, we found, he had driven carelessly on this occasion.

The Committee had two comments on the evidence that it heard in this matter:

1.      The evidence of Mr McDowell, we found to be most unconvincing and we attached little weight to it; and

2.      The Committee did not accept Mr McNally’s evidence that his horse ducked out. It was clear that he deliberately shifted out over some distance and we were satisfied that he misjudged the space that he had available in attempting to take a gap where there was insufficient room.  

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

SUBMISSION(S) ON PENALTY:

Mr Escott informed the Committee that Mr McNally had a clear record of breaches under the Rule. However, on this occasion, another runner had its chances in the race extinguished as a result of the interference. The degree of carelessness was in the range of mid to high, he submitted. The Stewards submitted that a fine of between $400-450 was appropriate in this instance.

Mr McNally said that he wished to be treated no worse than any other driver in a situation where the degree of carelessness was mid to high.

The option of a suspension rather than a fine was canvassed with Mr McNally. Mr McNally’s upcoming engagements were looked at. Mr Escott submitted that any term of suspension would need to be for at least 4 days.

Mr McNally said that his preference was for a fine.  

REASONS:

In determining penalty, the Committee took into account, as a mitigating factor, Mr McNally’s good driving record.

However, aggravating factors were that the degree of carelessness in the Committee’s view was at the higher end of the scale and, as a consequence of Mr McNally’s carelessness, the chances of another runner were completely extinguished.

The Committee determined that the breach could be dealt with by way of a fine, because of Mr McNally’s record, but that fine needed to be of an amount that reflected the degree of carelessness on Mr McNally’s part.    

PENALTY:

Mr McNally was fined the sum of $400.