No Doubt The "Social License" Brigade Will Come Down Hard On Johnny Cox.

[Chief Stipe]

JUST MICHAEL - began awkwardly and shifted outwards at the start. When questioned regarding the performance driver J Cox reported the gelding had hung inwards from the 800m causing him difficulty and he would be recommending a change of bit prior to the horse resuming. Mr Cox defended a charge under Rule 869(3)(f) alleging he drove improperly passing the 1500m when striking the trailing KIWI HERO on several occasions with his fist with the Adjudicative Committee electing to defer the hearing to a date and time to be fixed.

 

 

 

[Brodie]

Not too sure that Jonny Cox actually connected with Kiwi Hero?

Probably overdid the punching action a wee bit, but Kiwi Hero was obviously pulling hard and contacting Jonny Cox’s head!

Is there no onus on the driver of Kiwi Hero to ensure that his horse is not hitting Jonny Cox’s helmet?

[Chief Stipe]

56 minutes ago, Brodie said:

Not too sure that Jonny Cox actually connected with Kiwi Hero?

Probably overdid the punching action a wee bit, but Kiwi Hero was obviously pulling hard and contacting Jonny Cox’s head!

Is there no onus on the driver of Kiwi Hero to ensure that his horse is not hitting Jonny Cox’s helmet?

It is very unnerving driving a horse with the one behind doing that.  Dangerous in fact.  All of these social do gooders have no idea what it's like to drive a horse.

I've told the story many times where I was driving a horse and had one on a lead.  The horse on the lead was a real bitch and come up and bit me in the back.  The next time it tried it got an elbow in the gob and full force.  Never did it again.  

[Chief Stipe]

The stupid thing is no one would have noticed unless the RIB reviewed the film in the bunker.  Which it appears they have done because I'm sure it wasn't reported on the night.

[the galah]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

The stupid thing is no one would have noticed unless the RIB reviewed the film in the bunker.  Which it appears they have done because I'm sure it wasn't reported on the night.

Not sure about that chief. I was watching the race with someone and we both commented on what cox did at the time he did it..

Your right in that he has no doubt done what he did because he felt the trailing horse may have possibly injured him,but his reaction did seem over the top,and a mitigating factor was he did it more than just the once.

it was a race,and the horse he was trying to hit had most of the field behind it and as you would know,the horse concerned may have reacted differently and galloped,so there was possible nasty consequences to what he did,which of course is why other drivers don't ever react like he did.

I guess in his defence,The horse causing him the discomfort,obviously didn't worry too much about contact with him before he reacted,so most likely wasn't likely to after.

I think he may have been better calling out to holmes to tell him of his discomfort. Holmes made a move off his back as soon as he realised cox's discomfort.

Edited May 9, 2023 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, the galah said:

Not sure about that chief. I was watching the race with someone and we both commented on what cox did at the time he did it..

Your right in that he has no doubt done what he did because he felt the trailing horse may have possibly injured him,but his reaction did seem over the top,and a mitigating factor was he did it more than just the once.

it was a race,and the horse he was trying to hit had most of the field behind it and as you would know,the horse concerned may have reacted differently and galloped,so there was possible nasty consequences to what he did,which of course is why other drivers don't ever react like he did.

I guess in his defence,The horse causing him the discomfort,obviously didn't worry too much about contact with him before he reacted,so most likely wasn't likely to after.

I think he may have been better calling out to holmes to tell him of his discomfort. Holmes made a move off his back as soon as he realised cox's discomfort.

Have you driven a horse?

[Gammalite]

1 hour ago, the galah said:

. Holmes made a move off his back as soon as he realised cox's discomfort.

Yes that was a telling factor. The horse went around to the death seat and ran 3rd giving up a trailing position because of the actions of Cox it seems. so it may of effected the race out-come.   I believe you are not allowed to put the reins in one hand these days either these days ? , so Cox was guilty of that . And raising your hand to another runner could have serious repercussions through the field just as you suggest, which is not ideal at all.

strange thing ? is Didn't look like the horse was hitting him very hard anyway? . What ever happened to tolerating a horses knees whacking you in the lower back . ? you know they're 'close' then and pulling hard lol 😂😄. Just give them a whack with your helmet for Goodness sake, that will make it back off a bit and help the trailing driver a bit too, to get a little more control with his/her reins and ususally settles the horse a bit to help it get to the finish. 

 

[Brodie]

24 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

Yes that was a telling factor. The horse went around to the death seat and ran 3rd giving up a trailing position because of the actions of Cox it seems. so it may of effected the race out-come.   I believe you are not allowed to put the reins in one hand these days either these days ? , so Cox was guilty of that . And raising your hand to another runner could have serious repercussions through the field just as you suggest, which is not ideal at all.

strange thing ? is Didn't look like the horse was hitting him very hard anyway? . What ever happened to tolerating a horses knees whacking you in the lower back . ? you know they're 'close' then and pulling hard lol 😂😄. Just give them a whack with your helmet for Goodness sake, that will make it back off a bit and help the trailing driver a bit too, to get a little more control with his/her reins and ususally settles the horse a bit to help it get to the finish. 

 

It doesn’t even look as though Cox actually connected with his fist!

Dont think Jonny will be invited to fight at a “fight For Life”!

Handbags it looked like lol

[paleface adios]

MR COX would be one of the most under rated drivers going  around .good on him for telling Holmes horse to back off . the way Holmes was driving is was likely he was going to course a really bad crash . lets hope he has made gear changes to that horse

[hunterthepunter]

21 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Have you driven a horse?

galah champion grandstand driver 

[Rangatira]

On 10/05/2023 at 6:31 PM, hunterthepunter said:

galah champion grandstand driver 

against stiff opposition too

Riders in the Stand

There’s some that ride the Robbo style, and bump at every stride;

While others sit a long way back, to get a longer ride.

There’s some that ride as sailors do, with legs, and arms, and teeth;

And some that ride the horse’s neck, and some ride underneath.

But all the finest horsemen out—the men to Beat the Band—

You’ll find amongst the crowd that ride their races in the Stand.

They’ll say “He had the race in hand, and lost it in the straight.”

They’ll know how Godby came too soon, and Barden came too late

 

They’ll say Chevalley lost his nerve, and Regan lost his head;

They’ll tell how one was “livened up” and something else was “dead”—

In fact, the race was never run on sea, or sky, or land,

But what you’d get it better done by riders in the Stand.

 

The rule holds good in everything in life’s uncertain fight;

You’ll find the winner can’t go wrong, the loser can’t go right.

You ride a slashing race, and lose—by one and all you’re banned!

Ride like a bag of flour, and win—they’ll cheer you in the Stand

 

[Nowornever]

On 10/05/2023 at 6:27 PM, paleface adios said:

MR COX would be one of the most under rated drivers going  around .good on him for telling Holmes horse to back off . the way Holmes was driving is was likely he was going to course a really bad crash . lets hope he has made gear changes to that horse

Quite the opposite I would suggest. Great driver from the front or trail but if you are on him and he is behind the middle half of the field you are no show.  76% of the time unlucky from that position or gets caught out working too hard. Stats don't lie.

[Taku Umanga]

7 day suspension

[Chief Stipe]

Rangiora HRC 7 May 2023 – R10 (heard 12 May 2023 at Addington) – Jonny Cox

ID: RIB21430

 

Respondent(s):

Jonny Cox - Driver

 

Applicant:

Paul Williams, Stipendiary Steward

 

Adjudicators:

Russell McKenzie (Chair) and Dave Anderson

 

Information Number:

A20976

 

Decision Type:

Non-raceday hearing

 

Charge:

Improper Driving

 

Rule(s):

869(3)(f) - Riding/driving infringement

 

Plea:

Not Admitted

 

Stewards Report

 

Results

 

Animal Name:

Just Michael

 

Code:

Harness

 

Race Date:

07/05/2023

 

Race Club:

Rangiora Harness Racing Club

 

Race Location:

Rangiora Racecourse - 312 Lehmans Road, Fernside, Rangiora, 7440

 

Race Number:

R10

 

Hearing Date:

12/05/2023

 

Hearing Location:

Addington Raceway, Christchurch

 

Outcome: Proved

 

Penalty: Driver, Jonny Cox, suspended 7 days

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Following the running of Race 10, Tyre General Handicap Pace, Open Driver, Jonny Cox, denied a charge that, as the Driver of JUST MICHAEL in the race, he drove improperly passing the 1500 metres when striking the trailing KIWI HERO (Robbie Holmes) on several occasions with his left fist.

 

Rule 869 provides as follows:

 

(3) No driver in any race shall drive:

 

     (f) improperly

 

EVIDENCE:

 

Stipendiary Steward, Shane Renault, read to the hearing a definition of “improper driving:

 

“Improper driving” can mean unseemly, unwarranted or not in accordance with the normal rules of conduct expected of a licenceholder or driver competing in a race. “Improper driving” is something improperly done, connected with the act of driving. “Improper driving” involves something being done which ought not to have been done, or something is omitted to have been done which ought to have been done and which is judged to be wrong, but not necessarily within the description of careless, dangerous or reckless.

 

Mr Renault said that the charge involves an incident near the 1500 metres. He showed a video replay of the relevant part of the race and pointed out JUST MICHAEL, driven by the Respondent, racing in the one-one position approaching the home turn for the bell lap. He also pointed out KIWI HERO, driven by Mr Holmes, trailing the Respondent, racing keenly and under a strong hold. He then pointed out the Respondent turn his head to the side and look around.

 

Mr Renault said that it was the concern of the Stewards that, for a distance passing the 1500 metres, the Respondent had used his left fist to strike the horse behind him, which Stewards deemed to be an improper act – striking the horse on the head three times and, on one occasion, on the chest. Mr Cox was being trailed closely by the horse behind and had turned his head to try to get it off his back and, in the end, had struck the horse. It was a “terrible look for racing”, Mr Renault submitted. Such actions during a race, or at any stage, cannot be condoned, he said.

 

Mr Renault then made mention of the Code of Welfare for Horses and Donkeys under the Animal Welfare Act. That provides:

 

20 Persons must not strike an equid on its head

 

A person must not strike an equid on its head.

A person who fails to comply with this regulation commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,500.

The offence in subclause (2) is an infringement offence with an infringement fee of $500.

Mr Renault said that there were things that a Driver could do to stop the horse behind trailing too closely, but the Respondent’s actions were not one of them and constituted improper driving. Any person, anywhere in the world, could watch this race and see what the Respondent had done.

 

The Respondent showed a video replay from the 2200 metres to illustrate that Mr Holmes was following too close. He showed that the horse’s head was inside his helmet which, he alleged, happened on several occasions down the back straight. Just after the 1000 metres, he said, he leaned back to get the horse off his back. It had been striking his wheel and the back of his sulky. It was getting in a dangerous position, he said, and he did not wish a fall to occur. He believed that Mr Holmes should have taken his runner out before this happened. The Respondent added that, in the circumstances, he was unsure of what else he could have done.

 

Mr Renault said that Mr Holmes, when asked, had said that he had had no concerns at the time, and had not heard the Respondent call to him. Had he realised, he would have pulled his runner out and gone forward. Stewards would have had no concerns that it was anything out of the ordinary, Mr Renault said.

 

Finally, Mr Renault said, it was not the Respondent’s concern what was happening behind him. The Respondent ought not to have turned around and contacted Mr Holmes’ runner as who was to know how it would react, he said. It could gallop and fall. The Respondent’s actions were certainly outside the bounds of the Rules, he submitted.

 

DECISION:

 

The charge is found proved.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION:

 

The Respondent was clearly frustrated by Mr Holmes’ runner which had, he said, been annoying him for some distance by following too close. In fairness to the Respondent, some of that could be seen on the video replays that the Adjudicative Committee was shown.

 

However, the actions that the Respondent took to attempt to stop the horse annoying him, were completely inappropriate and improper within the definition put to us by Mr Renault.

 

The decision that he made was the worst decision that he could have made. His striking the other horse about the head and chest was plainly visible on the replay and, unfortunately, also plainly visible to the viewing audience on the Trackside television channel.

 

It, having been clearly proved that the Respondent did strike the horse on several occasions with his left fist, as alleged, the Adjudicative Committee then had to determine whether that amounted to “improper driving”.

 

The Adjudicative Committee was clearly satisfied that the Respondent’s venting his frustration by striking the trailing runner on several occasions with his fist, amounted to improper driving. By any definition, his actions were improper. It could never be proper or appropriate to strike another runner in the manner he did, no matter how frustrated he was, or how concerned he may have been about the likelihood of interference, or even a fall, resulting from that runner following too close.

 

The Adjudicative Committee noted the provisions of the Animal Welfare Code to which it was referred to by Mr Renault, confirming that a horse must not be struck on the head. That prohibition certainly has application to Harness Racing.

 

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

 

Stipendiary Steward, Shane Renault, said that the Respondent has had 167 drives this season and, last season, had 291 drives. He is a South Island Driver.

 

The starting point under the Penalty Guide is an 8-days suspension. It is difficult to assess the seriousness of the breach, because such breaches are rare. Aggravating factors were the look/perception to the viewing public, Mr Renault said the Respondent has a good record. The submission of Stewards for penalty was for a suspension of not less than 6 days, Mr Renault said.

 

The Respondent maintained that his actions were “a safety thing”, notwithstanding the charge having been found proved. He admitted that, although his reaction may not have been the best, he felt at the time that he had no other option.

 

The Respondent requested a deferment until after 19 May next.

 

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

 

The RIB Harness Racing Penalty Guide (February 2023) suggests a starting point for penalty of an 8-days suspension. That is a significant penalty. Factors to be considered in relation to penalty are the animal welfare aspect of the breach, the Respondent’s previous good record and some allowance for Mr Cox’s position that he had been frustrated and provoked into his actions by the trailing horse. That is not to say, of course, that his actions were justified.

 

Weighing up the totality of those factors, the Adjudicative Committee had decided that the appropriate penalty in this case is a suspension of 7 days.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Respondent, Open Driver, Jonny Cox is suspended from after the close of racing on 19 May 2023, up to and including 1 June 2023 – 7 days.

 

Decision Date: 12/05/2023

 

Publish Date: 17/05/2023

[Gammalite]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

The Respondent maintained that his actions were “a safety thing”, notwithstanding the charge having been found proved. He admitted that, although his reaction may not have been the best, he felt at the time that he had no other option.

No other option ???  but to raise your arm at the horse trailing. Must say it's lucky that no-one else does that when horses trail up 'hard' or there would be suspensions fairly often . 

they tend to back off a bit in the middle stages of the longer events. (esp nz)

worst outcome i remember was Vincent in the Vic Derby 2017. Vincent,  the 4 time group 1 champ only beaten that one time in Australia from his 8 starts here,  and it was because the trailing horse ripped his tyre clean off the rim . bit tragic being a Group 1 and all.😪  Bet Mark would of liked to give the trailing driver a bit of a 'slapping' lol..😄  probably not wanting to take it out on his horse though . 

[Chief Stipe]

42 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

No other option ???  but to raise your arm at the horse trailing. Must say it's lucky that no-one else does that when horses trail up 'hard' or there would be suspensions fairly often . 

Didn't you suggest whacking it with his helmet?

[Gammalite]

53 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Didn't you suggest whacking it with his helmet?

horses 'chew on helmet' all the time in races. quite normal. not normal to wave your arm in their face though. They might 'Shy-away' from that and cause an issue in the field if baulked too much ?? that's how i see it anyway. 

[Kane21]

Has a horse put its leg in the cart in front of it and slow it down? Has a jockey clipped heels?

[Gammalite]

1 hour ago, Kane21 said:

Has a horse put its leg in the cart in front of it and slow it down?

Only accidently mate, when there's a dramatic slowing of the pace. usually caused by a horse galloping in confined space and coming back on some trailing runners behind it suddenly. Some horse's will almost 'prop' when they go off stride as are not capable of galloping properly with the hopples restraining that action, and get a fright. 

A horse with a leg in your sulky would mean you both pull up to a standstill (out of the race) immeadiately. then you can lift the horse out .it's usually keen to get itself out by that stage as well lol 😄 

A horse can't 'Pull' it's way into the sulky (cart) ahead of it in a race in general, as the pacing action is much lower than what is needed to lift a leg into the sulky directly in front of it. They can certainly puncture your tyre though ! 

[paleface adios]

17 hours ago, Kane21 said:

Has a horse put its leg in the cart in front of it and slow it down? Has a jockey clipped heels?

could of coursed a crash that trailing horse don't you think LEE?

[Kane21]

14 hours ago, paleface adios said:

could of coursed a crash that trailing horse don't you think LEE?

Yes, it could have caused a crash Karen.

[Chief Stipe]

Jonny Cox lost his appeal.

 

Appeal – Decision dated 6 June 2023 – Jonny Cox

ID: RIB22742

Respondent(s):
Racing Integrity Board

Applicant:
Jonny Cox - Driver

Appeal Committee Member(s):
Mr A Harper (Chair), Mr M McKechnie

Persons Present:
Mr Cox, Mr S Renault and Mr Sole - Stipendiary Stewards (on behalf of Respondent)

Information Number:
A20976

Decision Type:
Appeal

Charge:
Improper Driving

Rule(s):
869(3)(f) - Riding/driving infringement

Stewards Report

Results

Animal Name:
JUST MICHAEL

Code:
Harness

Race Date:
07/05/2023

Race Club:
Rangiora Harness Racing Club

Race Location:
Rangiora Racecourse - 312 Lehmans Road, Fernside, Rangiora, 7440

Race Number:
R10

Hearing Date:
06/06/2023

Hearing Location:
Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Outcome: Appeal Dismissed

Penalty: Driver Jonny Cox' suspension of 7 days stands

Background

1. On 7 May 2023 the Rangiora Harness Racing Club held a meeting at the Rangiora Raceway.

2. Race 10 on the programme was the Tyre General Handicap Pace. The Appellant drove “JUST MICHAEL”. Also in the event was “KIWI HERO”, driven by Mr R Holmes.

3. Following the event, the Appellant was charged with Improper Driving under Rule 869(3)(f) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing.

4. The Rule provides:
“No driver in any race shall drive:
(f) improperly.”

5. The charge arose from an incident when passing the 1500 metre mark in the race, where the Appellant struck the trailing horse KIWI HERO, on four (4) occasions with his closed fist.

6. Following a defended hearing held on 12 May 2023, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved and the Appellant’s Open Driver Licence was suspended for a period of seven (7) days.

7. The Appellant now appeals the Decision as to the finding of the Adjudicative Committee and also the penalty which they imposed.

Appellant’s Submissions

8. The Appellant submitted KIWI HERO had been trailing JUST MICHAEL too closely to the point, there could have been a dangerous situation arising.

9. He says his actions arose from concerns as to safety for both himself and also other participants in the race. He had already endeavoured to have KIWI HERO move back by moving his head around, but that was to no avail.

10. The Appellant maintains he called to the Driver of KIWI HERO to pull back, but again that was to no avail.

11. In the Appellant’s submission, there was nothing more he could have done to prevent a potentially dangerous situation arising and his actions were solely out of safety concerns.

12. The Appellant also asked for three (3) race films to be shown. These race films were events from 26 February 2018 at Waikouaiti, 6 April 2018 at Addington Raceway and 24 December 2018 at Manawatu.

13. On all three (3) occasions, Drivers had reacted to a trailing horse following too closely. On none of these occasions was the Driver charged, although the actions had come to the attention of Stipendiary Stewards and a warning had been issued on at least one of those occasions.

Respondent’s Submissions

14. Mr Renault on behalf of the Respondent, relied on the video films, maintaining it was improper for the Appellant to strike KIWI HERO with his closed fist on three (3) occasions to the head, and on one (1) occasion to the chest.

15. The Respondent accepts KIWI HERO was racing keenly and on more than one occasion, had moved its head to the inside of the Appellant’s helmet during the running.

16. However, Stewards did not see anything out of the ordinary from these events until the 1500 metre mark, where the Appellant moved to the side and struck KIWI HERO. It was only when the Appellant carried out this action, that any risk arose from a safety perspective of KIWI HERO potentially over racing and striking the wheel of JUST MICHAEL.

17. It is the Respondent’s view, it is improper to strike a horse in the head area, particularly given Industry concerns as to matters of animal welfare and the Appellant’s actions were clearly visible on Trackside television to a wide audience.

18. It is the submission of the Respondent, that the actions of the Appellant on this occasion, amounted to a terrible look for Harness Racing.

Discussion

19. The Appeal has been conducted by way of a re-hearing. The Appeals Tribunal procedure is set out in Rule 126 of the New Zealand Harness Racing Rules. The Fifth Schedule to the Rules sets out the actual procedure to follow. Paragraph 44 confirms the Appeal is to be by way of a re-hearing and the Appeals Tribunal has adopted that procedure.

20. In considering this Appeal, the Appeals Tribunal is required to form its own opinion as to matters of law and fact. However, it should give due weight to findings made by the Adjudicative Committee.

21. The Appeals Tribunal has carefully read the Adjudicative Committee’s Decision, and also the submissions which had been made before it.

22. The facts are relatively clear and not disputed.

23. JUST MICHAEL was travelling in the 1-1 position during the running. Immediately following him was KIWI HERO. The trailing horse was “pulling” and on more than one occasion, struck the helmet of the Appellant. At the 1500 metre mark, the Appellant lent to the side and struck KIWI HERO with his fist on four (4) occasions. On three (3) of those occasions the strike was to the head, and on the other occasion it was to the chest.

24. The Appellant’s justification for taking this course of action, was a concern he had for the safety of all participants in the event, due to KIWI HERO trailing too closely and potentially striking a wheel, which could cause safety issues.

25. The Appeals Tribunal looked at the three (3) previous examples which were submitted by the Appellant as being similar circumstances to these facts, but where Stipendiary Steward action was either not taken, or dealt with by way of warning.

26. The Appeals Tribunal is of the view the actions by the Drivers on each of those three (3) occasions, was far less than what the Appellant resorted to. Not only that, but attitudes towards animal welfare have stiffened considerably over the last five years.

27. It is critical for the Industry to take, and be seen to take, stern measures where any issues of animal welfare arise, in order to maintain its current social licence to operate. To do otherwise, will create a high level of risk to the ongoing operation of the Industry. This has been reinforced on a number of recent Decisions, both at Adjudicative Committee level and Appeals Tribunal level.

28. For those reasons, the Appeals Tribunal placed little weight on the films of races which took place some five (5) years ago.

29. The Appeals Tribunal did not see any safety issues which could in any way, justify the actions which the Appellant took. Perception is reality and it was a poor look for the Industry.

30. In the Appeals Tribunal’s view, it is never acceptable to strike a horse in the head region, whether in a race or not. The actions of the Appellant, in the Appeals Tribunal’s view, fall very much within what would be considered as Improper Driving. A definition of Improper Driving was submitted to the Adjudicative Committee as being:

“Improper driving can mean unseemly, unwarranted or not in accordance with the normal rules of conduct expected of a licence holder or driver competing in a race. Improper driving is something improperly done, connected with the act of driving. Improper driving involves something being done which ought not to be done, or something is omitted to have been done which ought to have been done and which is judged to be wrong, but not necessarily within the description of careless, dangerous or reckless”.

31. There was no justification for the Appellant to take the actions which he did, and in the Appeals Tribunal’s view therefore, the Adjudicative Committee was correct to make the finding they did.

32. It is for this reason, the Appeals Tribunal dismisses the Appeal as to finding.

33. The Appellant also appealed the penalty which was imposed.

34. However, at the hearing the Appellant indicated he did not wish to pursue the Appeal as to penalty and accepted a suspension of seven (7) days to be appropriate if the Appeals Tribunal dismissed his Appeal as to the finding.

Decision

35. The Appeal as to both finding and penalty is dismissed.

36. The Appellant has been driving under a stay since the filing of the Appeal. The seven (7) day suspension should therefore now be imposed. Accordingly, the Appellant’s Open Driver Licence is suspended up to, and including, 30 June 2023.

Costs

37. The Appellant has not been successful in his Appeal. The Respondent does not seek costs.

38. The Appellant should, however, make some contribution to the costs of establishing the Tribunal for the hearing of this Appeal. The Appellant is therefore ordered to pay $500 costs. The Tribunal notes this costs award is for an amount significantly less than the actual costs which have been incurred in hearing this Appeal.

Decision Date: 06/06/2023

Publish Date: 08/06/2023

[Chief Stipe]

Looking at the detail in the original case and in this appeal, it is clearly evident that if it wasn't for The Bunker and the repeated viewing of the High Definition video it would have been very hard for any Steward to have seen if Cox had connected or not.  Damn near impossible for any public viewer watching on TV.

[Honestjohn]

I watched a good horse get it's leg in the cart,  it was put down.  I think it was the early days of Tim Williams? I think. 

 

Hj

[Honestjohn]

Back on topic.  I wouldn't have anything to do with cox . Came to Canterbury with a reputation. 

Just my 2cents.

 

Hj