Auckland TC 24 November 2022 – R3 – Logan Hollis

Introduction

Following the running of Race 3, Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr S Mulcay filed two Information’s against Driver Mr Logan Hollis.

Charge 1: A18273 – alleged:

That Mr Hollis drove carelessly by allowing his colt to shift inwards rounding the final turn which resulted in AARDIE’S FLASH (B Butcher) being forced over track markers before breaking and losing all chance.

Charge 2: A16371 – alleged:

That Mr Hollis failed to drive out to the finish when there was a reasonable chance of TWO EYE SEE finishing in second position.

The Plea

At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Hollis indicated that he denied both charges. With regards to Charge 1, Information A18273, Mr Hollis had noted in the Information that he admitted the charge, but now wished to defend both charges.   Information A18273 was amended accordingly.

The Rules

Rule 869 (3)(b) provides:

No driver in any race shall drive carelessly

Rule 868(3) provides:

Every driver shall drive his or her horse out to the end of the race if he or she has any reasonable chance of running first, second, third, fourth, or fifth.

Evidence

Mr Mulcay showed the relevant race films relating to both charges.

Witness – Mr Dooley

Stipendiary Steward Mr Dooley provided evidence of the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged breaches.

With regards to Charge 1 (careless driving), Mr Dooley referred to the 400-metre mark and identified Mr Hollis’ driving his horse (TWO EYE SEE) forward when it commenced to lay in.  As a result, the horse on its inside, AARDIE’S FLASH (B Butcher), was placed into restricted room.  Mr Dooley said that Mr Hollis continued to drive forward with a loose rein slapping his horse.   TWO EYE SEE shifted in further and AARDIE’S FLASH was forced into the marker peg; it then galloped and lost all chance.    Mr Dooley said that Mr Butcher had established his horse inside of TWO EYE SEE and simply ran out of room because of Mr Hollis’ actions.  He added that when a horse lays in, the Driver should pull on the outside rein to relieve the pressure – Mr Hollis did not do this, and he continued to drive his horse forward.

In relation to the second charge (failing to drive out to the finish), using the films, Mr Dooley pointed out that up to the 40-metre mark, Mr Hollis showed vigour and urged his horse, particularly when competing for second place with a horse on his outer (FLYING COLOURS).  However, Mr Dooley pointed out that from the 30-metre mark, Mr Hollis dropped his hands and showed no vigour at all, and as a result, PUNK ROCKER (P Ferguson) who was finishing the race off strongly wide out passed TWO EYE SEE close to the finish.  PUNK ROCKER finished second and TWO EYE SEE finished third.

Mr Hollis had no questions of Mr Dooley in cross examination.

Mr Mulcay submitted that the margin between second and third was half a length.  He said that PUNK ROCKER finished the race off quickly and the issue for the Adjudicative Committee to consider is, whether or not TWO EYE SEE had a reasonable chance of finishing in second place.

The Respondent – Mr Hollis

With regards to Charge 1, Mr Hollis stated that on the point of the turn, his horse put three quarters of a length on AARDIE’S FLASH, who he said was “hanging out”. He said that when it got tight, AARDIE’S FLASH overacted.  Mr Hollis said that at no stage did he feel that he “got in on top” of Mr Butcher’s horse and also Mr Butcher never called out to him.  He concluded by pointing at that he never made contact with AARDIE’S FLASH.

Under cross examination by Mr Mulcay, Mr Hollis conceded that he may not have allowed AARDIE’S FLASH sufficient room, and as a result , AARDIE’S FLASH broke and lost all chance.

Although Mr Butcher was not called as a witness by either party, it was accepted, according to comments apparently made by Mr Butcher post-race, that his horse was inexperienced.

With regards to the second charge, Mr Hollis explained that TWO EYE SEE is a 2-year-old, and that he was well tried using the whip and reins for much of the home straight.  He said that PUNK ROCKER finished the race off very quickly, and had he used more vigour over the concluding stages, it would not have made any difference to his final placing. Reiterating that, had he struck his horse a further 4 times with the whip, the result would not have been any different.

Mr Mulcay agreed that PUNK ROCKER finished the race off very strongly.

Decision and Reasons

Following deliberation, the Adjudicative Committee found both charges proved to the requisite standard.

With regards to the first charge of careless driving, after taking into account the submissions of both the Applicant and Respondent, noting the race films and the resultant impact on the affected runner, AARDIE’S FLASH, the Adjudicative Committee determined the breach to be in the mid-range of carelessness.

A Driver is deemed to be careless when he or she fails to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference or causes interference by misjudgement or mistake.  The test being whether the Driver exercised the degree of care and attention that a Driver would exercise if placed in the same circumstances.  In this case, when TWO EYE SEE commenced to lay in rounding the turn, Mr Hollis should have taken immediate corrective action.  His failure to do so, placed AARDIE’S FLASH in restricted racing room and ultimately was the cause of that horse being forced down onto the markers and breaking. Belatedly, Mr Hollis did take corrective action but by that time, AARDIE’S FLASH had galloped and lost all chance.

With regards to the second charge, the Adjudicative Committee had to determine firstly, whether Mr Hollis failed to drive TWO EYE SEE out fully to the finish; and secondly, whether there was a reasonable chance of TWO EYE SEE finishing in second position.

In terms of the first limb, the race films clearly show that approximately 30 metres from the finish, Mr Hollis dropped his hands and allowed TWO EYE SEE to finish the race off without him applying any vigour at all.  He virtually coasted to the finish.  This was in contrast to most of the run up the home straight, where Mr Hollis used his reins and whip generously and urged his drive with some considerable vigour.  It was apparent from the films, that TWO EYE SEE was competing with FLYING COLOURS for second place for much of the run up the straight and nearing the 40-metre mark, TWO EYE SEE gained ascendency and had that runner covered.  At the same time, PUNK ROCKER put in a huge finishing burst wide out on the track, making up many lengths in the final 200 metres.  Mr Hollis may not have been aware at the rate that horse was finishing off the race.  In effect he may have been ‘caught napping’, as although PUNK ROCKER finished half a length in front of TWO EYE SEE, the race films show that it only got past that horse in the final few strides and had Mr Hollis showed more vigour, particularly from the 30-metre mark to the finish, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that there was a reasonable chance of TWO EYE SEE finishing in second place.  Therefore, the second limb is satisfied.

Penalty Submissions

Charge 1

Mr Mulcay submitted that Mr Hollis has a clear record under the Careless Driving Rule.  He said that he has had 46 drives this current racing season and a similar number during the previous season.  Mr Mulcay referred to the Penalty Guide which provides for a 10 drive or $500 fine as the starting point.  He said that Stewards assessed the carelessness to be mid-range taking into account the consequences to AARDIE’S FLASH.  He submitted that Stewards were seeking a 3-day suspension.

In response, Mr Hollis submitted that he normally has between 1-3 drives per meeting and more recently has had at least 3 drives per night.  He added that he has 13 horses in work, and expects to be racing and driving 4 of his horses per meeting over the next few weeks.  He acknowledged that he does not intend to drive at the forthcoming meeting at Manawatu (on 6 and 8 December 2022).

Charge 2

Mr Mulcay submitted that Mr Hollis has a clear record in relation to this breach.  He referred to the Penalty Guide which provides for a 12 drive suspension or $600 fine in circumstances where the breach involves the potential loss of second place.

Mr Hollis submitted that he would prefer a fine as opposed to a suspension because he drives most of his own horses, and there would be a cost involved in finding a replacement Driver.

Penalty

Charge 1

The Adjudicative Committee has assessed the level of carelessness to be in the mid-range.  This takes into account that as a result of the interference, the well favoured AARDIE’S FLASH (2/3 in the betting), lost all chance.  A suspension of 3 days is imposed.  This is on the basis that Mr Hollis currently has in the vicinity of 3 drives per meeting.

Charge 2

Mr Hollis did exercise considerable vigour up the home straight until the 30 metre mark, after which he dropped his hands and allowed TWO EYE SEE to coast to the finish, untouched. That was a significant error of judgement which denied his horse the opportunity to finish in second place.  Mr Hollis has an obligation to drive his horse out fully to the finish.  The Adjudicative Committee adopted the recommended starting point set out in the Penalty Guide, namely 10 drives suspension or $600 fine and then adjusted for the aggravating and mitigating factors which included:

1. That there is a public perception element to this breach and that is the optics of Mr Hollis dropping his hands and coasting to the finish is not a good look, particularly so for the betting public who may have wagered on TWO EYE SEE.
2. That in finishing in third place, there was a potential financial cost to the connections given that the second-place stake was $3100 as opposed to third stake of $1900.
3. That Mr Hollis has a good record in relation to this Rule.
4. That there was a half-length margin at the finish, and clearly Mr Hollis did not see, and would not have been aware of, the strong finishing run of PUNK ROCKER – albeit this not to discharge his responsibility to drive out to the finish.

Considering these factors, the Adjudicative Committee deemed a $300 fine and a 2-day (6 drive) suspension to be an appropriate penalty.

Conclusion

In relation to Charge 1, Mr Hollis’ license to drive in races is suspended for 3 days from 25/11/2022 until 09/12/2022 inclusive.

In relation to Charge 2, Mr Hollis’ license to drive in races is suspended from 10/12/2022 until 16/12/2022 inclusive.  In addition, a fine of $300 is imposed.