Auckland RC – 26 December 2004 – Race 8

This information alleged a breach of Rule 871(1)(d) for careless riding by jockey, G J Grylls in that 250 metres from the finish he angled WAITOKI DREAM inwards to deny GARRARD (A. Peard) a run to which he was entitled. GARRARD had to be checked and switched outside of WAITOKI DREAM for a run. The breach was not admitted.

The incident was demonstrated on video by Stipendiary Steward A. Coles. He pointed out the movement by WAITOKI DREAM as it angled inwards to close the gap on Mr. Peard. This resulted in Mr. Peard having to check GARRARD and make a run on the outside of WAITOKI DREAM. The incident was shown both from the head on and side on views. The distance lost was two to two and a half lengths and this had been made up to three quarters of a length by the finish.

Mr. Grylls questioned Mr. Coles about where Mr. Peard was prior to the incident. Mr. Coles agreed he had come from behind WINGS ON FIRE. Mr. Grylls said that if that were so how was Mr. Peard able to come from there to take the gap before it closed? Mr. Coles said the improvement was attempted while there was a gap and it closed on him as Mr. Grylls angled in.

Mr. Grylls also demonstrated the incident on video and in particular the head on view. He went over the movement by GARRARD as it moved out from behind WINGS ON FIRE and suggested it showed the gap closing as it came from behind and before it could make use of it. He argued on that basis any movement in by him on WAITOKI DREAM was less than a horse width and he was entitled to do so being clear of GARRARD at the time.

Mr. McCutcheon disputed this interpretation. He invited Mr. Grylls and the Committee to look again at the side on view and note the position of the shadows of the respective runners. Those shadows were, he submitted, an accurate assessment of the movement in and how far GARRARD was behind WAITOKI DREAM. They also established that WAITOKI DREAM was improving ahead of WINGS ON FIRE but the opportunity was there for GARRARD until the movement in occurred. It was clear, he submitted, that WAITOKI DREAM was not sufficiently clear of GARRARD to entitle him to angle in and the resulting check to GARRARD was obvious.

The Committee took into consideration all these matters and it is satisfied that the breach has been established. It does not accept the interpretation by Mr. Grylls. It prefers the evidence of Mr. Coles and accepts the submissions by Mr. McCutcheon. In making the inward movement, though it agrees it was slight, there is no doubt that it occurred when insufficiently clear of GARRARD and was therefore in breach of Mr. Grylls obligations under Rule 871 (1) (d).

Mr. McCutcheon informed the Committee that Mr. Grylls had a good record. He had been suspended for four days for careless riding at Auckland on 30 October 2004 but prior to that there had been no other breach of this rule since 2002. On this occasion the Committee had to take into consideration that relegation had been necessary in a Group race on a Premier day and a suspension was sought by the Stipendiary Stewards.

Mr. Grylls confirmed that he was engaged over the next three days of the Auckland meeting and had firm engagements on Cup day including an engagement for WAITOKI DREAM in the Cup. He would not be riding at the Stratford meeting on 31 December 2004. He requested that the Committee defer any suspension to allow him to fulfil engagements on Cup day.

Mr. McCutcheon indicated that any suspension would normally commence in accordance with the Rules with effect from 1 January 2005 and that would then have to include the next day at Auckland which was also a Premier Day. More importantly it could be a problem for connections of a well-supported runner such as WAITOKI DREAM to find a suitable replacement rider at this late stage when other senior riders were already committed. The Committee had a discretion in these circumstances but it should be exercised with care and not as a matter of course.

The Committee after considering these matters agrees that a period of suspension is appropriate and notes that it would normally commence on 1January 2005. Having regard to the submissions by Mr. McCutcheon the Committee is satisfied that this is an appropriate circumstance for exercising its discretion and accordingly orders a suspension of four days to commence from the conclusion of racing on 1 January 2005 until the conclusion of racing on 9 January 2005 the relevant days involving the meetings at Auckland, Whangarei, Thames and Taupo.