Forbury Park TC – 31 October 2004 –

Mr Knowles, stipendiary steward, after race 5 laid an information alleging that contrary to rule 869(3)(b) Mr Armour, driver of BLUE ROBYN, with some 1800 metres to run drove carelessly in that he allowed his horse to move inwards onto FAITH HILL, Mr Wilson, causing that horse to break and lose its chances.

Mr Knowles had Mr Allison, assistant stipendiary steward, demonstrate on the videos that at approximately the 1800 metre mark Mr Armour moved around the field 3 wide and, as he progressed to sit parked 2 wide, the wheel of his cart came into contact with the leg of FAITH HILL. Mr Wilson gave evidence confirming contact and stated that he had yelled out more than once to Mr Armour to give him room. He said he was wanting to ease FAITH HILL back to let Mr Armour move to the 2 wide position as this would have given him cover.

Mr Armour acknowledged contact between his cart and the leg of FAITH HILL but said FAITH HILL hit the back rather than the side of his tyre. He said he was thus not in breach of the Rules when he made contact as the inward movement was complete before the touching occurred. He was aware Mr Wilson had yelled out but thought he said that he was keeping his position. Mr Knowles in reply said in his view it did not matter whether the front, back or side of Mr Armour's wheel hit the leg of FAITH HILL. The movement was made with insufficient room.

I find I agree with Mr Knowles. All agree that there was contact between the wheel of Mr Armour's cart and the leg of FAITH HILL. This clearly occurred as Mr Armour was moving from a 3 wide to a 2 wide position. Just which part of Mr Armour's tyre hit the leg of FAITH HILL is of little significance in these circumstances. There was contact simply because the inwards movement was made by Mr Armour when there was insufficient room. I accept Mr Wilson's evidence that he was yelling to Mr Armour to give him room. As a consequence of Mr Armour's actions, FAITH HILL broke and lost all chance. I find Mr Armour to be in breach of Rule 869(3)(b), careless driving.

Mr Knowles has said the breach to be mid-range and I agree with this assessment. He has asked for a fine of $250 or 2 days' suspension. Mr Armour has stated he would prefer a fine. Taking into account Mr Armour's good record and not penalising him for a failure to admit the breach but giving no discount for an admission, either, I believe Mr Knowles' suggested penalty to be realistic. I fine Mr Armour the sum of $250.