RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: N M Ydgren Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: A E Veint

Information No: 68349

Meeting: Rangiora Harness Racing Club

Date:  4 July 2010

Venue: Rangiora

Race: 5

Rule No: 869 (7A) (a) & (b)

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman – S C Ching, Panellist

Plea: Admitted

FACTS:

Following the running of Race 5, Tank Ellis Trains @ “The Yaldy” Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr N M Ydgren, against Licensed Junior Driver, Mr A E Veint, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (7A) (a) & (b) in that Mr Veint, as the driver of DREAMONA’S LADY in the race, “when attempting to gain a run in the passing lane struck a number of pylons and his sulky protruded inside the marker line”.

Rule 869 provides as follows:

(7A)  Every horseman who moves inwards shall ensure:

(a)   that contact is not made with any track marker

(b)   that any part of the sulky does not protrude inside the marker line.

Mr Veint was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he admitted the breach. Mr Veint, a Junior Driver, acknowledged that he was aware of his right to be assisted at the hearing by a senior horseman but he informed the Committee that he waived that right.

SUBMISSION(S):

Mr Ydgren showed a video replay of the final 300-400 metres of the race. He pointed out DREAMONA’S LADY, driven by Mr Veint, racing 3-back on the markers approaching the home turn. As the field entered the home straight, he showed Mr Veint angle for a run on the inside of MISS MOET (M R McIntyre), which was trailing the leader. There was no clear gap for DREAMONA’S LADY in the passing lane. Its sulky could be seen to strike and/or run inside approximately eight track markers. Mr Ydgren submitted that it was a clear breach of the Rule.

Mr Veint did not wish to make any submissions in relation to the incident.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

SUBMISSION(S) ON PENALTY:

Mr Ydgren submitted that the Committee should take into account Mr Veint’s “open and frank admission” of the breach. He also informed the Committee that Mr Veint had a clear record under the Rule. However, the breach was at the higher end of the scale, Mr Ydgren submitted. He referred to the Penalty Guide and submitted that a fine of $200 was appropriate.

Mr Veint did not wish to make any submission in relation to penalty.

REASONS:

The Committee took into account Mr Veint’s admission of the breach and his previous good record. The Committee noted that the Penalty Guide recommended a starting point of a $200 fine for a breach of the Rule. The Committee agreed with Mr Ydgren that the breach was at the higher end of the scale. Mr Veint had elected to take an inside run that was never available. The breach was a blatant one which Mr Veint had little option other than to admit.

PENALTY:

Mr Veint was fined the sum of $200.

R G McKenzie                  S C Ching

Chairman                        Committee Member

68349