Oamaru HRC 6 August 2017 – R 2 reserved decision dated 13 August 2017 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: 64d6cd8d04501ea5b9724bc162f85bc2

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 06/08/2017

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Oamaru HRC 6 August 2017 - R 2 reserved decision dated 13 August 2017 - Chair, Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: Mr S Renault, Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr J Morrison – Junior Horseman
Information No: A9632
Meeting: Oamaru Harness Racing Club
Date: 6 August 2017
Venue: Oamaru Racecourse, Oamaru
Race: 2
Rule No: 868(2)
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall – Mr P Knowles
Reserved Decision date: 13 August 2017
Persons Present: Mr R May – Senior Horseman assisting Mr Morrison, Mr W Stapleton – Trainer of LEADING THE WAY

Evidence:
Mr Renault, Stipendiary Steward, lodged an information alleging Mr Morrison (Junior Horseman) was in breach of r 868(2) following his drive on LEADING THE WAY in race 2. The information alleged that Mr Morrison “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that LEADING THE WAY was given full opportunity to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place by not improving outwards near the 450 metre mark when the opportunity existed.”

Rule 868(2) reads:
Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.

Mr Morrison attended the hearing and did not admit the charge. He was assisted throughout the hearing by Mr R May, Open Horseman.
Prior to the start of the hearing, which was after the last race, Mr Morrison was informed of his rights. He was given the option of adjourning the hearing to a later date to give him the opportunity to prepare a defence and call further witnesses. However, in consultation with Mr May he indicated he wished to proceed on the day, despite the lateness of the hour, particularly as his witness was available to give evidence. The RIU also wanted the matter to be heard on the day.

Informant’s case:
Mr Renault stated Race 2 was a small field of just six runners. At the finish of the race LEADING THE WAY finished in fourth placing. The official margins were a neck, 2 lengths, and a half-length.

With the assistance of Mr Wallis, Mr Renault pointed out the relevant positions of the first three runners, which were in single file as the field approached the 500 metre mark. He stated DREAM TO REALITY led with MACHIE MACH trailing and LEADING THE WAY in third position trailing MACHIE MACH three back on the pole line. He said that at about the 400 metre mark Mr Morrison had an opportunity to shift outwards to a one-out position but chose to stay where he was. He had an opportunity to shift outwards and sit before entering the home straight. This would also have forced the favourite BITE THE BULLET over extra ground as a result. LEADING THE WAY was held up in the home straight for a run. Mr Morrison then had to work his way wider on the track where the horse finished on for fourth. Had he shifted out when the opportunity presented itself, he had a reasonable chance of running third. He said the final 800 metres was run in just over 55 seconds.

Mr May questioned Mr Renault as to exactly how far from the finish LEADING THE WAY could have improved wider. He said Mr Renault claimed Mr Morrison should have moved out at the 400 metre mark but he believed the correct distance was closer to 500 metres. After viewing the videos, Mr Renault agreed the 500 metres was nearer the mark.

Mr Renault emphasised he believed the respondent had had about 150 metres in which to make the decision to come out. He said MACHIE MACH was under a drive at this point in the race and Mr Anderson had had to pull the sliding blinds. He said Mr Morrison should have been aware of this. He added considering the early speed of the race Mr Morrison should have been aware that it had been set up for the swoopers. Mr Morrison should have been out with a clear run.

Mr Renault pointed out that LEADING THE WAY initially had no run in the straight. Mr Morrison had eventually pulled the gear when he was 2 lengths behind MACHIE MACH. He then made good ground to finish fourth. He believed had Mr Morrison come out he had a reasonable chance of finishing at least third. He said Mr Morrison had an advantage over Mr Williamson (HANNITY) from the 600 to the 500 metres and could have come out.

Mr Renault concluded his case by stating it was entirely reasonable for Mr Morrison to stay where he was until the 600 metres but he should have come out and forced Mr Williamson wider when it was evident Mr Anderson’s horse was under pressure to keep up. He had the option to come out and had not taken it, but rather he took the risk of luck in the running. That was why he believed there was a breach of the rule.

Respondent’s case
Mr May stated LEADING THE WAY was a sit and sprint horse. He said you could not pull out and just sit wide. The horse was best saved for one run and, had Mr Morrison come out, it was likely he would have got run down later. It was best to wait closer to the straight before making a move. 500 metres from home was a long way out and he believed it was too far for a horse with the racing characteristics of LEADING THE WAY.

Mr May emphasised in his opinion three back on the pole line was not a bad place to be on this track because it was not often a horse in that position did not get a run in the home straight. He said the respondent was unlucky not to get a run and that the winning run by BITE THE BULLET was a “sensational performance”. The time of 55.6 seconds for the final 800 metres was “sizzling”. He believed it was at best a 50/50 call” whether to come out. HANNITY was a stayer (a “grinder”) and tended to race at the one speed.

Mr Morrison stated he had driven the horse the same way in its previous races. He had won three races with him by keeping the horse for a final run. He stated 500 metres was a long way out for LEADING THE WAY to improve wide and he would not have shifted out and just sat there. Had he shifted out and just stayed there without progressing, he risked getting pushed back in. He would have had to have moved forward which would have been too early as the horse did not sprint that well. He said today’s race was a step up in class and he felt he was better off staying where he was and let the horse finish the best he could. A final burst was likely to produce the best result.

Mr Morrison said that while the trailing horse (MACHIE MACH) was struggling to keep up with the leader, he felt it was the best horse to follow into the straight. He had driven LEADING THE WAY in front once before and he had been run down in the straight. He agreed with Mr Renault that Mr Anderson was chasing his horse up but MACHIE MACH was a stayer and generally it stayed on pretty well.

Mr Morrison said over the closing stages his horse had run on well when it got clear running. He thought he would get a gap but that did not eventuate. He reiterated just shifting out with LEADING THE WAY did not work either. The horse needed cover all the way in a race. Had he shifted out, he would have been run down 200 metres from the finish. He had won 3 races on the horse, always coming in the last 200 metres.

Mr Morrison called Mr Stapleton, the trainer of LEADING THE WAY, to give evidence. Mr Stapleton stated LEADING THE WAY had to have cover for a final run. He said the horse had been tried different ways in the past and it had “failed to fire”. Had LEADING THE WAY been shifted wide at the 500 metre mark, it would not have sustained a 500 metres sprint and it would not have run on. He said had Mr Morrison shifted out, he would have had “a go at him after the race”, as he should have known to drive the horse with cover because it only has a short sprint. He was also of the opinion the horse was feeling the track a bit as it was an unsound horse. Mr Renault replied that the veterinarian had checked the horse and had cleared it.

Mr Renault questioned Mr Stapleton as to whether LEADING THE WAY might have run third had the respondent shifted out. He replied this was “hypothetical” if he had sat parked. He reiterated it was a sit and sprint horse. The race was run in a quick time and the last half in 55.

Summing up:
In summary, Mr Renault stated Mr Morrison had every opportunity to shift LEADING THE WAY wider from the 500 metres. He could have shifted out and sat there, which would have given him a clear run in the home straight. It was entirely reasonable he would have finished in third place. Mr Morrison had an obligation to give his horse every opportunity and he had failed to do that when the horse was held up on the final bend.

Mr May stated that Mr Morrison had not driven the horse any differently than he had in previous races. Being three back on the pole line was a good position to be in on entering the home straight. He was of the view that had Mr Morrison shifted LEADING THE WAY wide at the 500 metres mark the horse would have tired and not have finished off the race. It would probably would not have finished any better than where it did. He reiterated a 55 seconds half is very good for these horses.

Mr Morrison stated he drove LEADING THE WAY the way he races best and had got an economical trip. He would not have finished in third place had he shifted out at the 500 metres mark as the horse could not sustain a sprint for that long.

Decision:
Mr Morrison was charged with an alleged breach of r 868(2) in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that LEADING THE WAY was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.
 

LEADING THE WAY finished in fourth placing a half-length from the third placed horse and approximately two and a quarter lengths from the winner.

Mr Renault stated that Mr Morrison was trailing third on the pole line 500 metres from the finish when an opportunity to shift outwards was available to him. He failed to do so and remained behind the trailing MACHIE MACH into the home straight, where he was blocked for a clear run to the finish. He submitted Mr Morrison then had to work LEADING THE WAY wide in the straight to gain a clear run.

The thrust of the RIU’s case was that Mr Morrison should have shifted wider at the 500 metre mark and either sat up outside the trailing runner MACHIE MACH, or improved forward, to challenge in the home straight where he would have had a clear run to the finish. In failing to do so he was in breach of the rule.

Both Mr May and Mr Morrison stated that LEADING THE WAY is a sit and sprint horse. They were of the view that had LEADING THE WAY been shifted wide from the 500 metre mark, and either sat outside the trailing horse MACHIE MACH, or, improved forward, it was unlikely LEADING THE WAY would have finished any better than fourth placing.

Mr May stated that the race was run a hectic pace with a final 800m in 55.6 (we note the official time is 55.7). He said there was no advantage to Mr Morrison in coming out of the trailing position at the 500 metres and sitting wide. He believed Mr Morrison took the right option by staying where he was. He further stated that it was unusual for an inside runner not to secure a run in the home straight on this track.

Mr Morrison stated he had driven LEADING THE WAY in a similar fashion on numerous occasions. He said the horse raced best with cover as he did not sprint that well. He was adamant that shifting wide from the 500 metre mark was not in the best interests of LEADING THE WAY, and doubted he would have finished any better than fourth. He said while he could have shifted outwards at the 500 metre mark, he did not want to as he was of the opinion it was too early to make a run with this horse. He maintained that sitting with cover and waiting for a run in the home straight was his best option. He had won three races with LEADING THE WAY by driving him in such a fashion. He had once driven the horse in front only to be run down in the home straight.

Mr Stapleton, the trainer of the horse, stated that Mr Morrison drove LEADING THE WAY in a similar manner to his other races. He was emphatic that LEADING THE WAY required cover and would not have run on if he had been taken wide from the 500 metres. When driven differently, he had failed to run on. He said he was very happy with the way the horse was driven and, had the respondent shifted out at the 500 metres, he would have had strong words with him after the race, as he would not have believed the horse had been given its best opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible placing.

The central issue to this charge is whether or not Mr Morrison should have improved outwards from a trailing position at the 500 metres, and given his horse an opportunity of a clear run in the home straight. Mr Renault is of this opinion; while Mr Morrison, Mr May and Mr Stapleton have disagreed, with all three adopting very similar reasoning as to why this was not so. It is clear that Mr Morrison has a good understanding of LEADING THE WAY’s racing manners, having won multiple races with him.

The onus is on the informant to satisfy this Judicial Committee that Mr Morrison has breached the rule. While the opportunity was afforded the respondent to shift outwards, we do not believe his failure to do so would have resulted in a reasonable and knowledgeable harness racing spectator exclaiming words to the effect “what on earth is he doing” or “my goodness look at that” (to use the words of Haylen J in a ruling in S dated 20 May 2009), which the RIU cited in RIU v Quate 8 August 2017.

We also refer to HRNZ v H (2005) (also cited in Quate), where it was said:
“The Rule requires both a demonstration of tactics which can, by objective standards, be said to be both reasonable and permissible. Those have to be tactics which can be seen by not only the Stipendiary Stewards, but also those present at the racetrack, and in particular the betting public, to be tactics which are designed to give the horse every chance to finish in the best possible position that it can. The informant does not have to prove any deliberate intent not to win the race. There may be circumstances in which a driver’s manner of driving may amount merely to a permissible error of tactics, but where that error of tactics amounts to bad judgement that results in disadvantage to his horse, then such manner of driving falls within the terms of the rule.”

We believe the respondent in continuing to follow Mr Anderson at the 500 metres (and thus still a considerable distance from the finish of the race) when driving a “sit and sprint” horse, which has produced its best results when saved for a short final burst and, having regard to the speed in which the race was run (and, in particular, the sectional times), the respondent was adopting a tactic which by objective standards, could be said to be both reasonable and permissible.

Mr May perhaps put it best when he said it was a “50/50 call”. When it is simply a question of tactics and, had the driver adopted a tactic different to that taken, he might have obtained a better placing, (which in this case we would add is moot), this does not inevitably lead to a conclusion that there has been a breach of the rules.

We find that Mr Morrison drove LEADING THE WAY within the Rules of Harness Racing and the charge is dismissed.

Dated at Wellington this 13th day of August 2017.

Geoff Hall, Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 868(2)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: