TROTTING DRIVER’S APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 225, 21 June 1939, Page 6

TROTTING DRIVER’S APPEAL

Dismissed By The Association INCIDENT AT EASTER MEETING By Telegraph—Pret-s Association. CHRISTCHL'RCH, June 20. On the second day of the New Zealand’ Metropolitan Trotting Club’s Easter meeting the Flying Handicap was contested by only six horses, and, at the end of the quarter mile, Icevus (R. Young) fell and brought down Evicus, who seriously interfered with Rocks Ahead. The bracketed horses, Big Author (M. Holmes) aud Willow AVave (O. E. Hooper) finished first and second. zkfter the race an inquiry was held by the judicial committee, and it was decided to reduce M. Holmes to a D grade driver, the effect of which ruling was to debar Holmes from driving in races. Holmes appealed to the New Zealand Trotting Association against the decision. The appeal was heard in committee tonight and dismissed. After a long hearing the following statement was handed to the Press: “There is no dispute as to the facts. Holmes frankly admitted when the matter was before the judicial committee that his horse had interfered with Icevus, and, on the hearing of this appeal,’ he said: ‘Round about the mile post Big Author hung in aud, when I pulled out, I had to pull his head round, and the horse tangled. To stop him from going to break altogether, I had to pull his head in to straighten him, and that was when Young hit me.’ “So that in order to stop his horse from breaking, he (Holmes) pulled him in so as to interfere with Icevus, the horse Young was driving, aud, on his own showing, he did something which he had no right to do, namely, ‘to so act as to cause his horse to interfere with another horse.’ “Sub-clause 2 of Rule 381 is quite clear, and provides that ‘any horseman who, in the opinion of the stewards, caused or contributed to any crossing, jostling or interference by foul, careless or incompetent driving, shall be guilty of an offence,’ and Holmes certainly contributed to interference by pulling his horse in instead of letting him go to a break, when he knew, or should have known, that the effect of pulling his horse in was to interfere with Icevus. His appeal is consequently dismissed. “The punishment meted out in this case is very light, but the association, realizing that Holmes thought that, as his horse was going to break, he was justified in acting as he did, has decided not to increase punishment. However, as complaints of interference are so frequent and the consesequences of interference may lead to very serious results by incapacitating or killing innocent horsemen, the punishment should, unless there are extenuating circumstances, be much more severe than was inflicted in this case, and the association will .feel bound, in future cases, to inflict such punishments as will deter horsemen from committing a breach of rules relating to interference.”