Canterbury Racing – 29 January 2005 – Race 11

Following the protest hearing into Race 11, an information alleging a breach of Rule 871(1)(b) was laid against Mr AC Peard, Licensed Jockey. It was alleged that Mr Peard, the rider of "Just A Dream" allowed his horse under a hard ride with the whip, to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear, causing crowding to "Quiet Please"

(JS Bullard) over the concluding stages of the race.

Prior to the hearing getting underway, I informed Mr Peard, again, of my reasons for standing down on the protest hearing. I advised him that as a result of the protest hearing having been dealt with, that the hearing of the charge against him could be heard by me as the question of bias did not arise. Mr Peard acknowledged that he understood that explanation.

Mr Hunter called JS Bullard, the rider of "Quiet Please" to give evidence. Mr Bullard said that he suffered interference and was held up for a run. He was going for a gap and was unlucky when the gap closed in the last 50 metres or so. He was not able to ride his horse out to his ability. He stated that his horse had got its head and shoulders into the gap and was starting to run on quickly.

Mr Peard, by way of cross examination, asked Mr Bullard if the gap had closed very quickly and as to whether or not he had (i.e. Bullard), called out. Mr Bullard acknowledged that the gap did close quickly but that he did not have time to call out.

Mr Hunter then relied on video evidence in which he believed that Bullard's mount had got its head and shoulders into the gap but that that gap was closed down on him. It was Mr Hunter's submission that "Quiet Please" was denied a better finishing chance and that that was due to Mr Peard's carelessness by allowing his mount to shift in.

Mr Peard then gave evidence. He observed that the protest had been dismissed and that Bullard did not call out when attempting to come into the gap. He maintained that the gap that Mr Bullard was trying for was only marginal and that the film demonstrated that Bullard's mount was moving around and that his horse (i.e. Mr Peard's) only moved inwards marginally when under the whip. He maintained that the contact had occurred prior to there being any significant inward movement on his part. He observed that his horse stumbled and it was at that point when the horse moved further inwards, at which stage he could do nothing about it.

In reply, Mr Hunter acknowledged that the horse did "dip" but stated that that had occurred after the incident that he was alleging was careless. He noted that Mr Peard continued to use the whip but that the damage had already been done.

Careful consideration was given to the evidence and to the head on video in particular. We note that the incident occurred in the concluding stages of the race, when Mr Peard was competing strongly for first place. It is noted that the margin between first and second was only a nose.

There may have been some tightening when Mr Peard used the whip for the first time, but we also note that Mr Bullard was attempting to take a gap which was marginal only. As was found by Mr McKenzie in the protest hearing, a full gap was not really available to Mr Bullard.

In order to find a charge of careless riding proved, we would need to be satisfied that the tightening that did occur was caused by careless riding. Having regard to the fact that the so called "tightening" occurred when Mr Peard began using the whip with some vigour, and that the gap was only marginal, we are not satisfied on the totality of the evidence that the tightening was caused by careless riding.

The information is accordingly dismissed.