You are here: Home / Race Days / NZ Metro TC - 20 April 2019 / NZ Metro TC 20 April 2019 - R 3 - Chair, Mr S Ching

NZ Metro TC 20 April 2019 - R 3 - Chair, Mr S Ching

Created on 29 April 2019

Rules:
869 (3) (b)
Committee:
SChing (chair)
RMcKenzie
Name(s):
T Chmiel-Open Horseman
Miss S O'Reilly - Driver of LILAC BECKY
Informant
S Renault- Stipendiary Steward
Information Number
A11410
Plea:
Denied
Charge:
Careless driving
Evidence:

Following the running of Race 3, the Nevele R Fillies Series No. 41 (Heat 7) an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S Renault against Open Horseman Mr T Chmiel, alleging a breach of Rule 869(3) (b) in that he shifted inwards racing into the first bend, when insufficiently clear of LILAC BECKY.

Mr Chmiel had endorsed the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted which he confirmed at the hearing. Mr Chmiel also confirmed that he understood the rule he was being charged with.

Rule 869(3)(b) reads as follows:

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

Submission For Decision:

Mr Renault gave evidence and used video coverage to show that shortly after the start Mr Chmiel, driving CANSTAR, who had drawn the 8 position at the mobile start was improving quickly and approaching the first bend, was in 3rd position with LILAC BECKY, driven by Miss S O’Reilly, back in 5th place on the inner. Mr Renault pointed out Mr Chmiel, who was unable to find a suitable position early, easing back and angling in when looking to shift down. He said Miss O’Reilly was established behind Mr May, approximately 2 lengths back, on the pylons and the position was rightfully hers. Mr Renault stated that Mr Chmiel shifted back, angled in and took up the rightful position of Miss O’Reilly, who had eased when Mr Chmiel started shifting down. He said that the issue the Stewards have is that Mr Chmiel was never going to get that position and it was only that Miss O’Reilly had had to ease, that he was able to take up that place. He added that Mr Chmiel had gained an advantage and finished up 3 back on the pylons, 1 position better than he should have been in, had he not shifted into Miss O’Reilly’s position, who finished up 4 back on the pylons.

Miss O’Reilly gave evidence to say that she eased her horse as Mr Chmiel was shifting down towards her position. She said that Mr Chmiel was able to get into her position, due to her easing and that it cost her a closer place in the running. In answer to a question from the Committee, Miss O’Reilly said that Mr Chmiel was not clear of her and she had to steady, when he shifted down.

In answer to question from Mr Chmiel, Miss O’Reilly agreed that there was no contact or pressure between them and that she was not forced down closer to the pylons.

Mr Chmiel, in defence, stated that there was a ½ gap available between Mr May and Miss O’Reilly and when Mr May sprinted forward, he indicated to Miss O’Reilly that he was looking for room, by shifting in, and she eased for him, allowing him in. He said Miss O’Reilly had a choice to drive her horse up to be directly behind Mr May and protect her position but instead elected to ease and allow him into the position. He stated that there was no contact between the horses, no pressure applied, and he was clear of Miss O’Reilly when he shifted down because Miss O’Reilly had eased and let him in.

In summing up Mr Renault stated that in the Stewards' opinion, Mr Chmiel was not entitled to shift down and take up the pylon position in front of Miss O’Reilly. He said he should have raced parked and has gained an advantage by taking up the position of Miss O’Reilly.

Reasons For Decision:

We carefully considered the evidence presented, both oral and video replays of the alleged incident. This Committee is satisfied that shortly after the start Mr Chmiel, who had drawn 8 at the mobile start, was improving forward quickly and in search of a handy position. Mr Chmiel then opted to ease and search for a position on his inner, angling in towards a ½ gap at this point between Mr May and Miss O’Reilly. Miss O’Reilly, we determined, saw Mr Chmiel looking to shift down, anticipated him crossing her and reacted by easing, allowing room for Mr Chmiel to shift into the spot in front of her. We are further satisfied that when Mr Chmiel shifted down into a position in front of Miss O’Reilly, he was clear of her and therefore on this occasion has not driven carelessly. Accordingly, the charge is dismissed.

Decision:

The charge was dismissed.

Document Actions