Hmmm then again maybe not - he got 6 months even with a concession for pleading guilty
Printable View
Which as I understand it Kev is the minimum sentence permitted under the penalty guidelines for the charge issued on the night which would suggest the stewards did not see a high level of culpability in his actions.
There is conjecture elsewhere as to if the right charge for what occurred was leveled on the night, all of which may be subject to appeal
Don’t know if the penalty was reduced to the minimum by the guilty plea Wayne, as I understand it pleading guilty results in a entitlement to a discount to the sentence, not necessarily a discount to the minimum sentence. Without seeing the incident it’s difficult to know just what happened and and the degree of culpability. The talk of an alternative charge along with 6 months being the minimum on this charge was on twitter shortly after the incident and I can’t recall now just what alternative charge was suggested. There was also a reference to the disparity in penalty for this incident in comparison to a year or so ago when Lisa Bartley drove into another horse and driver after a race and received 6 weeks.
The stewards may have it entirely right Wayne or they may not, that’s what the appeal process is for.
Goes without saying, everyone has the right to appeal. I wasn't debating that Dot, sure, if Haydon believes he's been wronged he can access the appeal process.
If a participant had a good record in relation to rule breaches, you couldn't envisage, let's say, a 30% reduction on a guilty plea but that wouldn't mean the stewards didn't take a very dim view of your actions, still highly culpable? What would a comment such as the completely unnecessary nature of the incident mean in a stewards report? And yes, I presume the stewards viewed it.
Yep, there are a few subclauses to rule 168, and once again Haydon has the right to appeal but, would you compare the Lisa Bartley incident with this one, as reported by the stewards Dot?
What I wondered about was the idea of it being a common practice. I can completely understand if you've lost control of a horse the only alternative left might be to turn the horse into the fence. Is that where you were going with Which as I understand it Kev is the minimum sentence permitted under the penalty guidelines for the charge issued on the night which would suggest the stewards did not see a high level of culpability in his actions.
In that case the Lisa Bartley reference would be irrelevant.
Ok I’ve had a bit more of a look at Vics penalty guidelines, it’s is difficult to keep clear having previously raced in NSW, currently racing in WA and having horses race in Vic as there is a lack of uniformity. For anyone doubting that look at the drive that Sid Van de Brande was recently suspended 8 weeks for at Terang and one the night before from Mark Reed at GP that only resulted in a query driving tactics.
Under Vics guidelines stewards will apply a discount for an early guilty plea but the amount of the discount is not specified. In NSW which I’m more familiar with a standard 25% applied for an early guilty plea regardless of offence or record which Micheal Beatty explained when he introduced it was in keeping with the courts. Charges under other rules in Vics guidelines permit the stewards to consider degree of carelessness or culpability and reduce or increase the penalty from the starting point but not under the rule applied in this case. Consequently the starting point was 9 months and along with the guilty plea Hayden must have met the other criteria in the guidelines that permit a discount ( interestingly driver experience is considered under the guidelines for determing penalty but it is not specified whether this can increase the penalty or only reduce it as the other criteria do) and the stewards applied a 33.3% discount to reduce the starting penalty to the minimum. Whether this is consistent with other penalty discounts applied by stewards Wayne I’m not familiar with enough other instances in Vic to know. But as under this rule the stewards can not amend the starting point either way for degree of carelessness or culpability it isn’t possible to assess from the information available whether they viewed Hayden actions with a high or low level of culpability.
I not actually familiar with the Lisa Bartley case, I bought it up here, as I wrote, it had been discussed elsewhere in comparison to this one. And I say again I did not see what actually occurred with Hayden Gray. It may indeed have no relevance.
“What would a comment such as the completely unnecessary nature of the incident mean in a stewards report?” It may mean exactly that Wayne. It certainly means in the stewards opinion the incident was of a completely unnecessary nature. You say Wayne that you can “completely understand if you've lost control of a horse the only alternative left might be to turn the horse into the fence.” I can completely understand that in order to prevent the loss of control of a horse and possibly serious risk of injury to horse or driver from being out of control someone might steer into the fence before that loss of control occurred. I can also say, not in or after a race, but in the context of training on a fenced racetrack for 20 odd years I have on a few occasions steered into the fence to prevent a loss of control and possibly significantly worse outcomes then I’ve adjudged contacting the fence might cause. And I’ve no doubt on one or two of those occasions an observer might have adjudged it to be a completely unnecessary. I have also had horses take charge and run into the fence of their own volition on a few occasions as well. Though I am not saying that any of these things occurred in Hayden Grays case.
Race day hearings are by necessity brief, and consequently not all relevant evidence maybe presented or recorded in the stewards report. The twitter conversation was equally divided between those who felt only 6 years would have been enough of a penalty for Hayden as a horse was injured in the incident to those who felt 6 months was too harsh a penalty for an incident completely out of character for the young driver and that the harm to the horse may have been inadvertent. Can only hope there is an appeal Wayne and all the cards are laid on the table.
Mildura Capers during and after R5 on Sept 6 last year
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=39739
Wayne Cook and David Vozlic
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=39738
Shane Furze (part owner of Geronimo Dan)
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=39737
Nathan Weightman
You just have to watch this race
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...18#MLC06091802
You cannot drive like that and not expect to front the stewards
What a run by the fav
I also noticed that John Justice's 12mths disqualification was affirmed
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=39708
From the comfort of my couch, an incompetent drive.
In earlier times it would probably been deemed acceptable for the trainer to have thrown a couple of haymakers at the driver, especially for that drive. Now deemed non-PC.
Amazing it has taken all of 6 months to come to light.
I received an email as to whether Tin Roof Raider was given a fair start in R2 at Melton on Saturday
He had made a mistake himself but being one off the fence on the second line was he ever going to be able to get in position with the 2 horse being way off the gate?
Maybe the starter should have considered a false start to ensure complete clarity
Maybe the stable didn't have much on the fav or they would have protested or maybe they thought it was fair enough?
What do you think?
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...s/?mc=MX020319
With 9 and 10 scratched doesn’t the 11 score up beside the 8 Kev? Tin Roof Raiders driver wasn’t fined for scoring up in the wrong barrier position but the 2s driver was fined for being out of position. If he scored up in the right place it didn’t look to me that the 11 got a fair start.