Gore HRC – 5 September 2004 – Race 9

Mr P Knowles, stipendiary steward, alleged that Mr R Wilson when driving FAITH HILL in race 9 shifted outwards forcing MATAU HANOVER (Mr Norman) wider on the track in breach of the push out rule.

Mr Knowles asked Mr McIntyre, deputy stipendiary steward, to demonstrate the incident on the video. Mr McIntyre used the head-on video to show Mr Wilson following out Mr Barclay who had proceeded forward at the 1200 metre mark. In so doing, he said, Mr Wilson forced Mr Norman 4 wide in breach of the push out rule. The back straight video was also played but this did not assist.

Mr Norman was called by Mr Knowles. He said Mr Knowles had the wrong driver as in his opinion Mr Wilson had no choice but to go 3 wide otherwise his horse would have fallen over. He said Mr Shirley had moved forward to take the gap left by Mr Barclay and in so doing had forced Mr Wilson out. He said he thought Mr Shirley was at fault.

Mr Shirley was called by Mr Knowles to give evidence. He said he simply moved outwards to take the gap left by Mr Wilson when he moved forward. He said he was entitled to take this gap.

Mr Wilson said his horse "semi followed the other horse [Mr Barclay's] out". He said he then ended up in "no man's land" with no other option but to keep moving out following Mr Barclay. He said he did not want to be 3 wide. He was content with the position he had in the race.

Mr Knowles said Mr Wilson had not realised that he had followed Mr Barclay out, that he was "1/2 in, 1/2 out". The result was that Mr Norman suffered. Mr Norman re-iterated that it was not Mr Wilson's fault.

While I believe there is a foundation to Mr Knowles' statement that Mr Wilson was "1/2 in, 1/2 out" possibly because Mr Wilson's horse had followed that of Mr Barclay, I also accept Mr Shirley had very quickly slipped into the gap that he says presented itself when Mr Barclay moved forward. It is clear that Mr Wilson had no choice from that time on but to follow Mr Barclay.

The issues are, is the movement of Mr Wilson's horse entirely of his own making and is it in breach of rule 869. Mr Norman has said that Mr Wilson had no option but to follow Mr Barclay once Mr Shirley had come across into the gap. I give Mr Wilson the benefit of the doubt that is raised by the evidence. The videos are not clear. The best angle is the head-on and that makes it very difficult to determine exactly where the horses were when Mr Barclay, Mr Wilson and Mr Shirley each made their moves.

While I dismiss the charge, I nevertheless take the opportunity to remind Mr Wilson of his obligations under the Rules of Harness Racing with respect to the push out rule, and in particular, 1/2 carting.

Geoff Hall