Geraldine TC 27 November 2010 – R 8 (heard at Ashburton on 8 December 2010)

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr N. G. McIntyre, Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: T. M. Williams, Junior Horseman
Information No: 69300
Meeting: Geraldine Trotting Club
Date: 27 November 2010
Venue: Orari Racecourse
Race No. 8: North End Ford Handicap Pace
Rule No: 868(3)
Judicial Committee: J. M. Phelan, Chairman - S. C. Ching, Committee Member
Plea: Not Admitted
Also Present: J. R. Dunn – Open Horseman

 

Charge:
This matter was heard at the Ashburton Trotting Club’s race meeting at Ashburton on 8 December 2010.

Following the running of Race 8, the North End Ford Handicap Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre against Mr T. M. Williams, the driver of “Samuel James” (1), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(3). Mr Williams is a Junior Horseman and he was assisted at this hearing by Mr J. R. Dunn, an Open Horseman.

The charge reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 868(3) in that T. M. Williams (Samuel James) failed to drive this horse out over the final 40m of the race.”

Rule 868(3) reads as follows.

”(3) Every horseman shall drive his horse out to the end of the race if he has any reasonable chance of running first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth”

Mr Williams had indicated on the Information that he did not admit this breach of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Williams also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

Facts:
Mr McIntyre gave evidence and used video coverage to show that in this race “Samuel James” had led into the home straight, and shortly after was passed by two horses. Mr Williams was seen to use his whip sparingly and also to use other means to urge his horse on. About 100 metres from the finish a third horse passed him, and just after the 50 metres out Mr Williams was seen to put his whip away. Mr McIntyre said that from this point on Mr Williams did not drive his horse out as required by the Rules and that close to the finish of the race “Fly The Flag” (4) ran into 4th place, there being a margin of .4 of a length between these two horses at the finish.

There was also evidence that Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault had questioned Mr Williams after this race regarding this matter, and Mr Williams had stated that his horse was “pacing rough”.

It was the Stipendiary Stewards’ case that a driver in a race must take discernable and demonstrable actions to fully drive his horse out to the finish of a race. In this case, it was alleged, Mr Williams did little or nothing to drive his horse out fully to the end of the race.

Mr Williams used video coverage to illustrate his evidence. He said that he tried his horse with the whip on a number of occasions in the run home, and the horse was getting tired. Mr Williams agreed that he put his whip away but said that he “reined” his horse up to keep him going. He also said that he was concerned that his horse might break before the finishing line, as he was aware that this had happened in the past. Mr Williams said that he was always aware of the horse on his outside, and that he did not believe more vigorous driving would have changed the result.

It was established at the hearing that this was “Samuel James” 6th start, and that Mr J. R. Dunn had driven the horse in its previous five starts.

Mr Dunn gave evidence that this horse has a habit of cross firing and also paces roughly on occasions. He agreed that the horse was tired at the end of this race, and when it is tired it is likely to pace roughly. Mr Dunn also printed out that Mr Williams was looking to his right in the last 50 metres, and that he was aware that he was about to be passed by “Fly The Flag”.

A veterinarian’s certificate was produced in evidence. This stated that “Samuel James” had been inspected on 29 November 2010 and that it had an injury to its inside heel bulb of its near front leg, and that this injury was consistent with the horse having struck itself. Mr Dunn was of the opinion that “Samuel James” had cross fired during the race, and that this may have contributed to the way it raced.

There was also evidence from Mr Dunn and Stipendiary Stewards’ reports concerning the difficulties experienced with the way “Samuel James” had raced.

 

Submissions:
Neither party wished to make closing submissions.

We adjourned to consider our decision.

 

Decision:
We were satisfied that Mr Williams had not driven his horse with any vigour over the last 50 metres of this race. We were also satisfied that “Samuel James” was beaten into 5th place late in the race by “Fly The Flag”, and that the margin between 4th and 5th was .4 of a length.

What we need to determine is whether Mr Williams took appropriate actions to drive his horse out to the end of the race. In this regard we took into account that “Samuel James” was clearly tiring in the run home. It is also relevant that this horse has behavioural problems in that it can cross fire, pace roughly, and break during its races. In this respect we accept the evidence of Mr Dunn who had driven the horse in its previous five starts.

It is also relevant that Mr Williams was aware that “Fly The Flag” was overtaking him, and that he was not taken unawares by this horse’s finishing run. We accept that Mr Williams did “rein” his horse up after putting his whip away, and that more vigorous driving would not have resulted in his horse doing any better.

Taking all the above matters into account we were not satisfied that more vigorous driving by Mr Williams would have resulted in him holding 4th place, and that the charge should be dismissed.

On resuming the hearing we advised the parties that we would provide a written decision with full reasons later, and we gave the following oral decision.

“We are satisfied that Mr Williams was well aware of the characteristics of “Samuel James”. We accept that he was conscious that to put too much pressure on the horse would have been unhelpful.

We also accept that Mr Williams had an honest belief that more vigorous driving over the final 50 metres or so would not have resulted in a better placing, and the charge is dismissed.”