Auckland RC – 1 January 2005 – Race 8

This information alleged a breach of Rule 871(1)(d) for careless riding by jockey, R. McLeod in that near the 1200 metres the first time in The Auckland Cup he angled MISTRALE in to a position closer to the running rail dictating STADIUM (M Walker) in on to WAITOKI DREAM (G Grylls) who was forced in on to the heels of GARRARD (A. Peard) and G Grylls had to check WAITOKI DREAM sharply. The breach was not admitted.

Mr. Grylls confirmed that he had been pressured from outside approaching the 1200 metres and had to check as a result of that pressure. Mr. Walker had been on his outer in a compact field. He agreed that they had been racing on even terms and he had been one off the fence. He had been shifted in at least a horse width, it happened quickly and he had been obliged to check to avoid the heels of Mr. Peard's mount.

Mr. Walker stated that from the start he had jumped well and was going for a position one off the fence. He was looking in to where he could get in and saw Mr. Grylls whom he thought might be trying to get off. Mr. McLeod then came across from his outside and he had to grab his mount to avoid him but had to go in a bit taking in slightly Mr. Grylls. He thought Mr. McLeod was probably a length ahead of him and slowed him sufficiently to prevent him coming across as intended without inconvenience.

Assistant Stipendiary Steward W. Robinson demonstrated the incident on video. He had viewed it from the head on tower in the back straight. After identifying the runners he pointed out the movements in by them. He noted that Mr. Grylls was trying to stay one off as Mr. McLeod moved in pressuring Mr. Walker and causing Mr. Grylls to check out and being forced on to the fence. Mr. McLeod came from three off outside Mr. Walker and he thought Mr. Grylls was lucky not to clip heels with Mr. Peard or fall as a result of being severely checked.

Mr. McLeod asked him how far off he had been and Mr. Robinson confirmed that he had been three off as he came across. In relation to Mr. Coleman, who was ahead of Mr. Walker he described Mr. Walker as just out off his heels. Prior to the incident, he said, Mr. McLeod had been five off the fence.

Mr. McLeod stated that he had started from an outside barrier and prior to the incident was outside BEL AIR (O. Bosson). Mr. Walker was, he thought, racing ungenerously although in the initial stages he was in Mr. McLeod's blind spot. In any event he did not think Mr. Walker had been affected by his movement across or if so only slightly and any further movement in by Mr. Walker was from the actions of his own horse. Mr. McLeod said that he did not believe he had come in as much as was alleged. He had been still three off after the incident and before had been no more than four off. He also believed that to some extent the video showed that Mr. Grylls horse had itself not been racing cleanly and this was therefore a contributing factor.

Summing up Mr. McCutcheon asked the Committee to take note of the video, which showed quite clearly the movement in by Mr. McLeod had forced Mr. Walker on to Mr. Grylls and he had been pushed in on to the fence as a result. Mr. Grylls had been entitled to the one off line, it was where he wanted to be, and he ended up on the fence simply because of the inward movement by Mr. McLeod.

The Committee took into consideration all these matters and it is satisfied that the breach has been established. It does not accept the assertion by Mr. McLeod that there were contributing factors. None of the other persons giving evidence made any reference to such factors and the Committee is satisfied that their statements are confirmed by the video. In particular it is clear that Mr. Grylls was in a one off position where he wanted to be and was entitled to be. His being forced to the fence came from the outside pressure for which the Committee is satisfied Mr. McLeod was responsible. That resulted, as Mr. Robinson stated, in a severe check to Mr. Grylls who was fortunate not to clip heels or fall.

Mr. McCutcheon informed the Committee that Mr. McLeod normally rode in Australia and he had no details of any prior breaches of this kind to put to it. This was, however, a case where the interference had been severe and it had occurred in a major Group 1 race. For those reasons it called for a period of suspension and the period ought to be substantial taking into account these factors. Therefore he submitted that a period of one month should be imposed.

Mr. McLeod confirmed that he had no further engagements in New Zealand after the next day of the Auckland meeting on 3 January 2005 and he would be riding regularly after that in Australia but could be returning for the forthcoming Wellington meeting. He asked the Committee to limit the term of any suspension to take this into account.

The Committee after considering these matters agrees that a period of suspension is appropriate and notes that it should commence after 3 January 2005. Having regard to the submissions by Mr. McCutcheon the Committee is satisfied that the period of suspension must take into account the facts that it was severe and that it occurred in a Group 1 race, namely the Auckland Cup. Accordingly it orders a suspension of three weeks to commence from the conclusion of racing on 3 January 2005 until the conclusion of racing on 24 January 2005.