Forbury Park 23 June

Mr Knowles, stipendiary steward, charged Mr Suddaby, driver of BOULDER BAY in race 6, with careless driving in that he allowed his horse to shift inwards onto BEAUDIENE HOLMES (K Larsen) causing that horse to be checked for room and to break losing all chance.

With the concurrence of both parties, evidence heard at the earlier protest into the incident was admitted for the purpose of this charge. Mr Knowles demonstrated on the videos that as the horses progressed up the straight after the start BOULDER BAY came across onto BEAUDIENE HOLMES and in his view this movement was when the horse was not sufficiently clear. He stated this was a gradual movement over some 150 metres. He also demonstrated that in his view when BEAUDIENE HOLMES had skipped this was because of pressure being placed on the horse from the outside and that the source of this pressure was BOULDER BAY. Mr Suddaby refuted this stating that the horses were simply side by side racing into the bend, and that each was trying to press forward to obtain the best position in the field. He denied that he had caused any tightening.

As the hearing drew to a close Mr Knowles pointed out that he had observed on the videos that Mr Suddaby had clearly looked over his left shoulder before making his final move downwards. Mr Suddaby said he had done this to ensure that the horse that had drawn 1 at the start was not racing on the inner of BEAUDIENE HOLMES.

Mr Suddaby demonstrated on the video that immediately prior to BEAUDIENE HOLMES skipping the first time Mr Larsen had tapped the horse with the whip. Mr Larsen was unable to be questioned as to this matter as he had left the course. As a consequence the hearing was adjourned on the evening of 16 June until the next meeting on 23 June.

At the resumed hearing Mr Larsen acknowledged he was hunting his horse up in an attempt to take the trail. He agreed he had tapped the horse a couple of times with the whip. He re-iterated that there was general tightening over a distance of 100 metres or so.

In light of the clear video evidence that Mr Suddaby looked before moving and his shifting his position in the sulky, I indicated to the parties my intention to amend the charge to one under s 869(4) of driving in a manner causing or, in this case, likely to cause interference to any other horseman and /or horse or its progress. Both Mr Knowles and Mr Suddaby indicated that there was no further evidence that they wished to call or submissions to be made.

I accept Mr Knowles statement, which is supported by the video evidence, that soon after the start Mr Suddaby commenced an inwards movement towards the running line. He continued this movement as the horses raced towards the bend at the end of the home straight. He was aware that BEAUDIENE HOLMES was on his inner as was the horse that had drawn barrier 1. Mr Larsen stated that he had called out that he was being forced to race in tight quarters. It was likely that BEAUDIENE HOLMES would run out of room and while I have determined that I could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the reason BEAUDIENE HOLMES broke was due to interference from BOULDER BAY, I am satisfied that Mr Suddaby did tighten that horse as the two progressed up the straight. A prudent action on Mr Suddaby's part would have been to relieve that pressure. This he did so briefly by shifting his position to the far side of his sulky. Mr Knowles has suggested that had he not done so contact may well have been made. I find the amended charge under s 869(4) proved.

Mr Knowles has said that the breach of rule 869(4) was mid range and has asked for a fine of $350. This submission was made in the context that Mr Suddaby's actions had resulted in interference to BEAUDIENE HOLMES. As I indicated at the earlier protest I could not be satisfied as to this and the protest was dismissed. I do not view the matter quite so gravely as Mr Knowles, nonetheless, I have found Mr Suddaby's actions did cause tightening.

I regard the charge under s 869(4) as being a lesser charge than that of careless driving and am aware of fines in the $200 to $250 range in the Otago/Southland area for breaches of the careless driving rule. Taking into account Mr Suddaby's excellent record this year of no breaches of any rule even though he is a busy driver, I believe the matter can be dealt with by way of a fine of $200 and this is the penalty I impose. Mr Suddaby is reminded of his obligations under the Rules of Harness Racing and the need to consider the safety of his fellow drivers.

Chairman