RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: T S Chmiel, Licensed Open Horseman

Information No: 68999

Meeting: Rangiora Harness Racing Club

Date: 15 June 2010

Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Race: 1

Rule No: 857 (7) (g)

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - S C Ching, Committee Member

Plea: Not Admitted

Also present:

FACTS:

Following the running of Race 1, John Jones Steel Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mrs K R Williams, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr T S Chmiel, alleging a breach of Rule 857 (7) (g) in that Mr Chmiel as the driver of DOBINBINLARDIN in the race, “failed to come into or maintain his position behind the mobile”.

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

Rule 857 provides as follows:

(7)     No horseman shall:- (g)  fail to come up into and/or maintain his position.

SUBMISSIONS:

Mrs Williams said that DOBINBINLARDIN had drawn 5, which was the outside of the front row as a result of scratchings, at the mobile start 1950 metres event. She explained that, having drawn the outside of the front line, it was Mr Chmiel’s obligation to get up onto the gate first, with all other runners following him up. She pointed out, on a video replay, that Mr Chmiel was 20 metres off the gate. He appeared to make no effort to get up to the gate. He was back with the second row horses at the point of dispatch, Mrs Williams alleged. At no stage, did Mr Chmiel let the horse go to get near the gate.

Mr Chmiel said that there were no runners behind him and no interference was caused to any other runner. In the preliminary, the horse had pulled and the harness had ridden right up to its neck. He did not want this to happen again in the run up. He did not want to affect the horse’s chances of galloping or “taking off” if the harness rode up again. He did not wish to endanger any other runner or runners. In its previous start, he had been unable to hold the horse after the start.

In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr Chmiel acknowledged that he had failed to come up into his correct position. It was a conscious decision to hold back, Mr Chmiel said. 

REASONS:

Mrs Williams had shown a video replay of the start of Race 1, in which Mr Chmiel on DOBINLARDIN had drawn the outside of the five horses on the front row at the 1950 metres mobile start. It was clear from the video replay that Mr Chmiel was back off the gate and virtually in line with the four horses that had drawn the second row at the dispatch point. It was not apparent that he was making any effort to get up on the gate.

Mr Chmiel admitted that he had failed to come up into position and, furthermore, he admitted that it was a conscious decision on his part not to come up into position. He offered an explanation for this but such explanation, in the Committee’s view, did not amount to a defence to the charge.

The key to the Committee’s decision was that Mr Chmiel had clearly failed to come up into position and he had admitted that it was his intention not to do so.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:

Mrs Williams referred to the Penalty Guide which suggested a starting point of a fine of $250. She referred to a fine of $200 imposed on a driver at the recent Nelson meeting for a breach of the same Rule. Mrs Williams submitted that a fine of between $200 and $250 was appropriate in this instance. Mr Chmiel had a clear record as far as breaches of the Rule were concerned. She agreed with the Committee’s suggestion that the breach was at the lower end of the scale.

Mr Chmiel asked the Committee to have regard to his explanation by way of a defence to the charge.

REASONS:

The Committee looked at penalties that had been imposed in other cases of a breach of the Rule. It noted that these ranged from between $150 to $250. Of particular significance was the fine of $200 imposed at the Nelson meeting last weekend.

The Committee had regard to Mr Chmiel’s good record under the Rule and to the fact that the breach was, in the Committee’s view, at the lower end of a scale of seriousness.

PENALTY:

Mr Chmiel was fined the sum of $200.

R G McKenzie                  S C Ching

Chairman                        Committee Member