Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M Williamson – decision dated 6 March 2015

hearingid: abb81f9998add76d8d44da19c2721ea5

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 02/03/2015

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M Williamson - decision dated 6 March 2015

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF

THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing

BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Informant

AND MATTHEW WILLIAMSON

Open Horseman

Respondent

Information: A1406

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr P Knowles, Committee Member

Appearing: Mr C Allison, for the Informant

Mr G Knight, for the Respondent

Date of hearing: 19 February 2015

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] Mr M Williamson is the holder of an Open Horseman’s licence, which was issued under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. He is charged with a breach of r 869(3)(g) in that when driving THE SHAKEY MISTRESS in race 8 at the Central Otago TC meeting at Omakau on 2 January last he drove in a manner capable of diminishing the chances of that horse winning by vying for the lead at an excessive pace over the opening 800 metres of the race.

[2] Rule 869 states:

(3) No horseman in any race shall drive: …
(g) in any manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning.

[3] Mr Allison provided written authorisation for the charge to be laid in a letter signed by Mr M Godber, General manager of the RIU, dated 16 January 2015.

[4] Mr Allison stated that the crux of the informant’s case was that the respondent had vied for the lead with Mr Cox at an excessive pace when there were other options available to him.

Informant’s case

[5] Mr Allison called Mr N McIntyre to give evidence.

[6] Mr McIntyre stated he is employed by the RIU and his current position is Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward. He said he has had 11 years’ experience as a stipendiary steward.

[7] Mr McIntyre stated that Mr Williamson had been licensed as a horseman since 2007 when initially licensed as a Trials Horseman before obtaining a Junior Horseman’s licence in 2009. Mr Williamson had held an Open Horseman’s licence for two seasons. During this period Mr Williamson has had about 3900 raceday drives.

[8] Mr McIntyre played and commented on a video of the race in question. He explained it was a mobile pace over 2000 metres for Class 1 horses and that Mr Williamson was the driver of THE SHAKEY MISTRESS.

[9] THE SHAKEY MISTRESS, which was 7/9 in the betting, drew 5 on the front line in a full field of 14 horses.

[10] Immediately after the start THE SHAKEY MISTRESS was driven forward by Mr Williamson to challenge for the lead, which was taken by CERATO driven by Mr Cox. THE SHAKEY MISTRESS continued to attempt to lead and ended up in the parked position on the outside of CERATO. These two horses then began to draw clear of the remaining horses in the race rounding the first bend.

[11] The initial 400 metres of the race was run in 26.4 seconds.

[12] As the field travelled around the first bend THE SHAKEY MISTRESS almost cleared CERATO on her inside however Mr Cox continued to keep his horse’s legs inside THE SHAKEY MISTRESS and Mr Williamson was unable to shift inwards to the lead, as he was not a length clear.

[13] Upon straightening into the home straight on the first occasion CERATO had improved back inside THE SHAKEY MISTRESS. At this stage Mr Williamson reined up THE SHAKEY MISTRESS in another attempt to gain the lead, which was unsuccessful, as Mr Cox again tapped up CERATO.

[14] Near the 1300 metres mark (about 100 metres before the winning post) Mr Williamson finally restrained THE SHAKEY MISTRESS to take a trail behind CERATO.

[15] When CERATO and THE SHAKEY MISTRESS reached the winning post after 800 metres they were in excess of 20 metres clear of the chasing bunch. This margin equates to approximately 8-9 lengths. The field was spread out over approximately 80 metres. He believed that the other drivers were aware that “the pace was on” and had decided to settle their horses.

[16] The time for the opening 800 metres was 54.8 seconds. At this stage of the race the field still had 1200 metres to run. Mr McIntyre stated he could not recall any sectionals as quick as this and, in particular, where a horse was still able to compete at the end of the race.

[17] The pace then eased for the next 400 metres, which was run in 31.3 seconds. This enabled the field to catch the 2 tearaway early leaders.

[18] Shortly after passing the 1200 metres mark THE SHAKEY MISTRESS was being worked on by Mr Williamson to maintain the trailing position but was unable to do so. THE SHAKEY MISTRESS commenced to give ground rapidly passing the 1300 metres mark.

[19] THE SHAKEY MISTRESS eventually finished in last placing some 55.2 lengths from the winner in a time of 2.36.8 around 11 seconds behind the winning horse.

[20] The overall time for the race was a new track record of 2.25.89. The previous track record set in 2014 was 2.27.8. The leaders ran the last 800 metres in 59.7 with the last 400 metres in 29.9.

[21] The 400 metre splits for the race were:

1st 400 metres - 26.4        2nd 400 metres - 28.4            1st 800 metres - 54.8
3rd 400 metres - 31.3       4th 400 metres - 29.8              2nd 800 metres - 61.1
Last 400 metres - 29.9

[22] The times for the other 2000 metre races on the day were also produced. These demonstrated that the only race with a slower last 800 metres was a C0 trot. The times for the first 800 metres were all slower.

[23] Mr McIntyre produced sectional times from the Harness Jewels meeting at Cambridge Raceway in 2014. These demonstrated that the 1st 800 metres of the race in question was run in a quicker time than the adjusted times for the 1st 809 metres in any of the Jewels races despite those being higher quality horses. Weather conditions were similar and each track was hard and fast. After comparing these times, he said that by the end of the first 800 metres THE SHAKEY MISTRESS’s chances in a 2000 metre C1 pace at Omakau were effectively over.

24] THE SHAKEY MISTRESS was subjected to a post-race veterinary examination by Dr P Gillespie, with no abnormalities detected.

[25] Mr Knight questioned Mr McIntyre. He asked whether either driver had right of way. Mr McIntyre replied in the negative. He agreed that Mr Williamson had all but crossed Mr Cox. He disagreed that Mr Williamson had a fair and reasonable expectation that he had a right to cross Mr Cox. He said that Mr Cox at one point had his whip in the air when Mr Williamson was trying to cross. He said this showed that Mr Cox intended staying in front. He said CERATO was pacing roughly at times and Mr Cox was intent on staying inside Mr Williamson without galloping. He believed Mr Cox was doing the bare minimum to stop THE SHAKEY MISTRESS crossing him.

[26] Mr McIntyre said despite Mr Cox coming back at Mr Williamson when he endeavoured to cross, Mr Williamson kept reining his horse up. When asked whether Mr Williamson could expect to obtain the lead because CERATO was going rough and might have galloped or Mr Cox might have handed up, Mr McIntyre responded Mr Cox could have taken hold but never did. Mr Williamson was vigorous on THE SHAKEY MISTRESS, while Mr Cox was holding his horse and tapping it up whenever Mr Williamson looked like crossing.

[27] Mr McIntyre agreed with Mr Knight that had Mr Williamson been able to cross the sectional times might have been slower.

[28] When questioned as to the relevance of the Harness Jewel times, Mr McIntyre replied they highlighted the fact that the speed for the first quarter and the first half was excessive.

[29] Mr Allison concluded his oral submission by referring to the decisions in Chilcott v HRNZ (22 March 2010) and J & C (19 October 2000). These were both Appeals Tribunal decisions.

Respondent’s case

[30] Mr Knight called the respondent to give evidence. Mr Williamson stated he had not received any driving instructions. He said THE SHAKEY MISTRESS’s natural style of racing was to go to the front. It was a “go forward” horse.

[31] Mr Williamson said that at her previous start THE SHAKEY MISTRESS had led up and tired at the 400 metres. She had been out with an injury and looked fat. He had told the trainer to put a lot more work into her and he was confident she would go a lot better on the day as a consequence of this having being done. He was expecting her to run “a really good race” as she was fit and had run good races in the past.

[32] Mr Williamson stated that had he been able to cross Mr Cox he would have eased the speed. He was not aware at the time that the first quarter was as quick as it was. THE SHAKEY MISTRESS was a big horse and was very deceptive in that she got over the ground quickly.

[33] Mr Williamson was aware of the racing pattern of THE SHAKEY MISTRESS. At Gore on 3 December 2013 she had led and she finished 5 or 6 lengths clear of the field [we interpolate it was 11 ¾ lengths]. It was a track record for 1700 metres. On the other occasion she had won, at Forbury Park on 19 December 2013, she had again led the whole way and won comfortably. These races were evidence that she could race well at the front and could do good sectionals.

[34] With respect to the race in question he said he came out quickly and had gone to go to the front. He thought he would get to the lead easily enough and that Mr Cox would take the trail. He had not chased THE SHAKEY MISTRESS until she was halfway round the bend when he realised Mr Cox was going to hold him out. He had not touched her until then. He said he believed he had made it clear that his intention was to lead and he had almost been able to cross CERATO and go to the lead. He said he never spoke to Mr Cox, and Mr Cox never spoke to him.

[35] Mr Williamson emphasised that he did not believe Mr Cox would not hand up. At CERATO’s first start the horse had taken a trail behind JACCKA EMBERS and he thought Mr Cox would do the same in this race. He said in hindsight he had made a poor decision but there were other races where he could look back and reach a similar conclusion. This was part and parcel of racing.

[36] When questioned by Mr Allison, Mr Williamson said THE SHAKEY MISTRESS had last shown form at Forbury Park on 12 December last. As to the horse’s racing style, he reiterated she was a free running horse and he had reined her up. He said he might have spoken to Mr Cox. He could not recall. He had never heard any reply from Mr Cox. When asked whether the driver in the parked position dictates the speed, he agreed that driver did, although that could depend on the circumstances of the race. He agreed the first time that he had taken hold of THE SHAKEY MISTRESS was some 700 metres after the start and just before the winning post, and that he had further urged THE SHAKEY MISTRESS with the reins earlier in the straight.

[37] When asked whether he had other options, Mr Williamson replied that he did, but only with hindsight. He had a split second to decide and he had decided to go forward. He said once he got up to Mr Cox’s sulky wheel a second time and could not cross he decided to pull back. He had not realised the speed they were travelling and that he was doing as much damage as he had to THE SHAKEY MISTRESS’s chances. He was not aware how far they were ahead of the rest of the field, as he had not looked back.

[38] Mr Williamson emphasised that after 300 metres he had almost crossed, and that Mr Cox was only just inside him. He was trapped because the head of CERATO was only just underneath him. He did not want to drag his horse back to behind Mr Cox as she was going freely, even though he was aware Mr Cox was not going to go away.

[39] With respect to the sectional times, Mr Williamson said not many horses could do a 54.8 without the driver going for them. He did not agree that a horse doing this time would have burnt too much energy as some horse respond positively to being driven forward and had gone well. He agreed he had never run a first 800 this quickly before. He reiterated he had felt “trapped” after he had almost crossed at the 400 and that he only decided to pull back and take the trail after Mr Cox had kicked back in the straight, which was when he first realised he was not going to get to the lead. He said he had had trouble pulling THE SHAKEY MISTRESS back into the trail, but agreed he had slapped her up just prior to his deciding to do this.

[40] Mr P Williamson, the father of the respondent, also gave evidence. He said he had been in the industry for 30 to 40 years and driven several hundred winners. He was an experienced horseman.

[41] Mr Williamson stated THE SHAKEY MISTRESS was a locally owned horse so he was aware of her racing pattern. He had driven her once on 15 December 2013. He had driven her with the intention of leading, as she was a keen horse. She was usually aggressive when the gate pulled away and was a “rolling type”. She would pace roughly if restrained. He said he had let her lead and he was caught unawares at how fast her lead-time was. She had eventually ended up in the trail and had finished 5th.

[42] Mr Williamson said THE SHAKEY MISTRESS was deceptive as to how quickly she got over the ground and her style of racing was to lead and win. On this basis, his son’s tactics in the race in question were not surprising.

[43] Mr Williamson believed Mr Cox had allowed the respondent to all but cross him, and the respondent would have legitimately expected him to allow the respondent to do so. It was risky for the leading horse when it was all but crossed to push up as the driver risked taking the legs of his own horse as he kicked back underneath. He accepted Mr Cox was entitled to kick back as he had the inside running but it was very unusual for a driver to do so.

[44] Mr Williamson questioned the relevance of the evidence as to the margin back to the trailing horses and the times in the race, stating when is a margin too large and when is a time too fast? He also questioned the relevance of whether THE SHAKEY MISTRESS dropped out of the race or simply finished a few lengths behind the winner.

[45] Mr Williamson stated that the respondent was the victim of circumstances. THE SHAKEY MISTRESS liked to lead and CERATO had trailed at its last (and only) start. It was reasonable for the respondent to consider that Mr Cox would hand up. It was difficult for a driver to slow down a horse once it is fired up and has gone hard from the gate. He emphasised the respondent was not driving the horse aggressively. He was not throwing the reins at it.

[46] Mr Williamson agreed, however, when questioned by Mr Allison, that the respondent had shaken the reins at THE SHAKEY MISTRESS in the straight but said it was after this that the respondent had realised he would not get the lead. He said THE SHAKEY MISTRESS was not that tractable. She always ran quick first sectionals and reiterated she was a “go with the flow” type of horse.

[47] In response to further questioning from Mr Allison, Mr Williamson agreed that the respondent was the regular driver of THE SHAKEY MISTRESS and should have been aware of how deceptively fast she was in her action. He reiterated that the respondent would have concluded over the early stages of the race that Mr Cox was going to give him the lead. At the 400 metres it appeared THE SHAKEY MISTRESS was going to be able to cross and he was of the view that the respondent would have been surprised that Mr Cox did not concede the lead. He emphasised THE SHAKEY MISTRESS was not a horse a driver could “crank back”. It was a different matter once she had settled after a quick half mile, although it had still taken some time to pull her back to trail CERATO.

[48] Mr Knight submitted the distance back to the rest of the field and the public perception was the reason for the charge. He said it might have looked bad to the public but it was not as bad to the trained eye. If the other horses had been closer, he was confident no charge would have been laid. He also questioned the relevance of where THE SHAKEY MISTRESS finished in the race. He said once the horse was “done” the respondent just sat on it and it jogged home. Mr Williamson had looked after the horse at this point and she would have finished closer had he asked more of her in the final stages of the race.

Summing up

[49] Mr Allison stated the speed over the opening 800 metres was excessive. With a lap to run the chances of THE SHAKEY MISTRESS winning the race had been extinguished. He stated both horsemen had had the opportunity to take alternative action. He emphasised Mr Cox had been in front for quite some time before Mr Williamson opted to take the trail. There was no evidence that suggested he could not have taken hold earlier. That option was always available. He emphasised that perversely Mr Williamson had just flicked up THE SHAKEY MISTRESS with the reins before he pulled back.

[50] Mr Knight emphasised the free going nature of the racing style of THE SHAKEY MISTRESS and that she was not easy to restrain early in her races. He pointed out Mr Williamson had said he felt “trapped” and had had to make a decision one way or the other. He had decided to push on for the lead. With the benefit of hindsight, he might have made a different decision. He did not believe Mr Williamson’s actions in the straight contributed to the result as he was past the point of no return at this stage of the race. He reiterated it was the public perception of the incident that had led to the laying of the charge and that the margins at the end of the race were of no relevance. The sectional times were also irrelevant. There was no rule as to lead times. It was two horses, two human beings, and a horse race. He reminded the Committee that these were two very experienced horsemen. And while he accepted intent was not required for a breach of the rule, he emphasised there was none.

Decision

[51] As the Appeals Tribunal in J & C emphasised, each race will depend on its own particular circumstances, especially as they unfold during the race. The obligation to drive within the Rules of Harness Racing, exhibiting skill and utilising experience, rests with the driver for the duration of that race.

[52] We have found J & C to be of particular assistance. Factors identified in that case as being relevant to a determination of a charge under r 868(2) were:

• The distance of the race;

• The stage of the race where duelling occurred;

• The distance over which the duelling occurred;

• The extent to which the horses in question were ahead of the rest of the field;

• The speed at which the horses were travelling in order to maintain or take the lead, in this regard of relevance are the sectional times for the race;

• The energy expended in having to maintain or reach the lead, in this regard of relevance is did the driver have to urge the horse merely by shaking the reins or did the driver have to resort to use of whip, pulling earplugs etc;

• The availability to the drivers of options other than those that were adopted.

[53] As did the Appeals Tribunal in Chilcott, we believe that a consideration of these factors will assist in the determination of this charge, despite the charge being laid under r 869(3)(g).

[54] We have had regard to the racing performance of THE SHAKEY MISTRESS. Mr G Knight and Mrs J Knight currently train her. She was previously trained by Mr B Negus and the mare had a break between trainers of ten months. In her ten starts prior to Omakau the mare had once placed in a dividend bearing position. This was over 1200m on 12 December 2014 at Forbury Park when she finished a length from the winner in 4th. We accept she is free rolling and prefers to lead, is not very tractable and that that limits the horse’s options tactically.

[55] Mr Williamson based his tactics on THE SHAKEY MISTRESS being a free roller from the outset. The field had formed 100 to 150 metres after the start. Mr Williamson ended up sitting outside the leader Mr Cox. He persisted for the next 550 metres to endeavour to wrest the lead off Mr Cox. He was unsuccessful in his endeavours as he was never sufficiently clear of Mr Cox, who urged his horse forward to keep his position to the inside of Mr Williamson. By the time Mr Williamson restrained THE SHAKEY MISTRESS and took a trail behind CERATO there was some 20 to 30 metres back to the head of the rest of the field.

[56] That Mr Williamson was intent on obtaining the lead is evidenced by the vigorous manner in which he reined up his horse. We accept that on the first occasion Mr Williamson tried to cross he could legitimately have expected Mr Cox to hand up the lead. Mr Cox’s actions when driving CERATO at its previous start, when he did exactly that, would have supported and indeed reinforced Mr Williamson’s expectation.

[57] Of concern to us, however, is the fact that after having been unsuccessful in obtaining the lead, Mr Williamson did not consider a change in tactics. He persisted in reining up THE SHAKEY MISTRESS and sitting outside Mr Cox when there was ample opportunity at this point in the race to drop in behind CERATO and trail that horse. The video demonstrates that Mr Williamson has sat up after the bend out of the back straight but he has then gone back to the reins in one more fruitless attempt to obtain the lead. It is not until he was again unsuccessful, and Mr Cox’s intention not to hand up was reinforced by his urging CERATO forward again, that Mr Williamson decided that a change in tactics was necessary by grabbing hold of THE SHAKEY MISTRESS. Eventually he dropped in to trail CERATO just before the winning post.

[58] We are of the view that 400 metres was plenty of ground for the two horsemen to sort themselves out. Mr Williamson’s determined attempt to obtain the lead simply continued for too long. Mr Williamson is uncertain as to whether Mr Cox yelled out to him. Whether he heard him or not does not affect our conclusion on this point.

[59] The race was a sprint over a distance of 2000 metres. We note that the sectional times are very quick for this grade of horse, indeed for any grade of horse. While we are reluctant to place any great weight on the Harness Jewels times due to the difference in distance and track, they do support this conclusion. With 54.8 for the first 800 metres it was inevitable, before Mr Williamson decided it was wise to grab hold, THE SHAKEY MISTRESS would fade before the end of the race. Mr Williamson has acknowledged the opening times were fast for the class of horse. We note the last 800 metres of this race was slower than the other 2000 metre races on the day by a significant margin.

[60] After chasing hard for the lead around the top bend Mr Williamson was clearly beaten off by Mr Cox. It is our view that Mr Williamson should have given up the hunt for the lead when Mr Cox made clear his intention to keep it. Mr Williamson had the option to get cover and take a breather. That driving tactic was preferable to his continuing to duel for the lead with Mr Cox at a speed and over a distance that was inevitably going to exhaust the reserves of his horse.

[61] It should have been evident to Mr Williamson before he chased his horse up for a second time just prior to the 700 metres that he had no chance of getting the lead off Mr Cox, who had made his intentions abundantly clear.

[62] We are of the view that the chances of THE SHAKEY MISTRESS winning the race were diminished by Mr Williamson’s actions from the 300 metres to the 700 metres. He failed to take the option available when Mr Cox first failed to hand up the lead of dropping in, taking the trail and giving THE SHAKEY MISTRESS cover. He was only 100 metres from the winning post for the first time that Mr Williamson finally realised a change of tactics was necessary. This was too late. The chances of THE SHAKEY MISTRESS winning the race had already been diminished.

[63] We thus find that Mr Williamson drove in a manner that was not only capable of diminishing the chances of THE SHAKEY MISTRESS winning but did in fact diminish that horse’s chances of so doing. The charge under r 869(3)(g) is proved.

[64] We require written submissions as to penalty and costs.

[65] Mr Allison is to file his submissions within seven working days of receipt of this decision.

[66] Mr Williamson is to file his submissions within seven working days of receipt of the informant’s submissions.

Dated at Dunedin this 6th day of March 2015.

Geoff Hall                  Chairman

Paul Knowles             Committee Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: