Banks Peninsula TC 1 April 2024 (heard 19 April 2024 at Ashburton) – Written Reserved Penalty Decision – Trevor Grant

BACKGROUND:

This was an adjourned hearing held at the Ashburton Trotting Club’s Meeting on 19 April 2024 and in its Reserved Decision dated 23 April 2024, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved and that Mr Grant was in breach of Rule 868(2) which reads as follows:

(2) Every driver 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.

The Parties were given the opportunity to provide penalty submissions which follow.

INFORMANTS SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY 

Mr Grant has had 20 drives in 2024 and had 70 in 2023.  In those 16 months he has only driven the 2 horses he trains – GEORGE ELIOT and RACHMANINOV. Only GEORGE ELIOT is currently in full training as RACHMANINOV is recovering from  a paddock accident.

Mr Grant has a clear record in relation to Rule 868(2).

The starting point penalty for a breach of the Rule is a 7 days suspension.

Stewards submit there are no mitigating factors to consider in determining an appropriate penalty.

In relation to aggravating factors, as stated in the Stewards’ evidence at the hearing, GEORGE ELIOT finished 4th in Race 5 at the Banks Peninsula TC meeting on 1 April 2024.  The first 3 horses were all given the same finishing time of 2.51.9 with GEORGE ELIOT being given a time of 2.52.0 –  0.1 of a second from the winner. The Stewards are not required to prove that had Mr Grant urged his horse with reasonable and permissible measures over the final 200m of the race it would have finished in a higher position – all that had to be proved in terms of Rule 868(2) was that he did not take such measures and that has found to be the case.

It is extremely important that any penalty imposed in a horse racing jurisdiction has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.  The penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Adjudicative Committee for the type of offending in question.

Taking into account the starting point penalty, Mr Grant’s clear record in relation to this Rule and the aggravating factors detailed above, Stewards submit a suspension of not less than 7 days is appropriate.

RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

I am Trevor John Grant, Open Driver, and herewith is my submission in the Penalty Phase of the charge laid against me on April 1st  2024 at Banks Peninsula Trotting Club that:

GEORGE ELIOT – Stewards questioned driver T Grant regarding his apparent lack of vigour in the run home and after hearing his explanation Stewards issued a charge under Rule 868(2) alleging that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best possible finishing place by failing to show sufficient vigour in the run home. Mr Grant advised he would be defending the charge and the hearing was adjourned sine die by the Adjudicative Committee.

This race and performance is so similar to that of George Eliot at the same course (BPTC) on the 7th January 2024, but rather than breaking at the start, the mare was slow  away and lost considerable ground before eventually latching on to the back of the field at the 1200metre  point, as described by Stipendiary Steward Mr Paul Williams in the account of the race at the adjudication hearing. Thus George Eliot  had spent 970metres of the 2170metre race just  catching the back of the field.

[In his written penalty submissions, Mr Grant provided video links to compare the race held on 7 January 2024 and the race held on 1 April 2024, along with a detailed summary of the judgement/decision of the Adjudicative Committee dated 2 February 2024 relating to the race on 7 January 2024.]  

Because George Eliot is a very intense mare when she races, she needs to be managed carefully, and rather than being “held up” by me as the driver rather, she is being “held together” as she charges flat out towards the finishing line. As pointed out in my defence of the charge, I have timed her to run her last 200metres in 13.6 secs (on this early autumn grass track). A quite remarkable statistic. Any alteration to my driving position and style in these closing stages, would almost certainly have thrown her off-stride I feel.

The Stipendiary Stewards referenced my obligation, as a driver, to the betting public to maintain the integrity of our sport, but I have found no-one that I have spoken to who watched the race that has had a criticism of my drive, but rather expressed almost to a person, admiration for the mare’s performance in the circumstances.

As I have also mentioned in my defence, even though we lost significant time and ground, and flashed home to miss winning by 0.1 secs, and were in front 4-5 metres after the post, I was the only person singled out for sanction (once again on the basis that “the betting public deserves better”).

We were 3/3 in betting in this race and finished a flying 4th after a far less than ideal run, but the 1/1 favourite, after securing a sweet trip in the trail until the passing lane opened up for it early in the home straight (finishing 2nd), and the 2/2 horse who finished third after being “parked” throughout (a good run), were not mentioned in the Stipendiary Report, and no charges were laid against them.  And nor should there have been if they were doing the best.

The only charge laid was against the driver of the horse who had the most awkward run and by comparison, by a country mile, the best finishing performance.

The other two drivers threw plenty of whip and rein at their horses in the closing 100-120metres, but had less of a response than I did with George Eliot by encouraging her to the line by more steady means. That does not seem to be a fair and equitable response by the Stipendiary Stewards.

Whilst the charge against me has been brought under Rule 868(2),  Rule 869 (3) states quite clearly:

No driver must drive their horse:

(g) in any manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning.

As in the case of my drive on January 7th on this mare, I feel quite certain that in these circumstances, on this occasion, I chose the best option and did not allow the horse to gallop, despite her fantastic finishing burst, quite the fastest I have ever known her to run, on grass or all-weather tracks.

The problem I have here is that in these two charges brought against me under the same rule, the first charge was found “not proven” and dismissed, and yet the second, in circumstances so similar as to be almost a carbon copy, though with a better finishing burst, was found, in direct contrast, to be “proven”. These anomalies should not exist in our judicial system.

In New Zealand Law,

“the person who brings the action or “sues” someone (the plaintiff) must prove their case to the balance of probabilities.” Or in more regularly quoted terms, the prosecution must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, and this pertains to the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) and its officers every bit as much as it does to a criminal or civil court.

Thus the well-articulated decision in the case of January 7th, as I have reprinted above, points out that the requirements to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt had not been met, and they have certainly had not been met in this current case where George Eliot has finished even more spectacularly, so much so that the commentator, from on high suddenly spotted her about 80metres from the finish and exclaimed “and here’s George Eliot out of the clouds”.

This is not a comment from an experienced race-caller about a horse who is not being given every chance to win.

Therefore, it has to be said that there would be a least some reasonable doubt that driving this mare in this fashion was detrimental to her chances, probably plenty of doubt, and it is only pure speculation that driving her in any other way could have provided a better result.

On that basis, I submit that the judgement of “charge proven” is unsafe, and the decision should be vacated.

I have asked that Mr Neville Harris, new Chairman of the Racing Integrity board be forwarded a copy of this submission, since it seems that as a licence holder I am not allowed to be given his RIB email address to contact him myself.

As I have recounted in my defence submission, immediately after the Adjudicating panel announced the decision of “charge not proven” and left the room in the January 7th case,  Mr Shane Renault, bringing the case for the Stipendiary Stewards, said to me that if he saw the same thing again, he would bring the same charge. I feel this is highly insulting towards the Adjudicators, and I feel highly prejudicial and bullying towards me. As Mr Renault is one of the senior Stipendiary Stewards in this area (Canterbury) I am sure that his opinions carry a lot of weight in these matters among his peers.

Significantly also, when the date for this case to be heard was set for 19th April at Ashburton prior to the race meeting there and I was notified by the RIB Executive Officer, she asked who I would have attending the hearing with me, if anyone? I then asked her who else would be present, and she said there would be Stipendiary Steward Mr Paul Williams, who had laid the charge and the Adjudicator Mr Stewart Ching. As there would only be the three of us, I told her that I would attend on my own with my studied and written submission, which I would distribute to the others present and read from myself to prevent any ambiguity or other misinterpretations. This included the incident described above with Mr Renault and what I believe were the direct consequences of his statement on that day.

And so it was to my great surprise only a few minutes into this hearing,  when Mr Williams was presenting his case, that both Mr Renault and fellow Stipendiary Steward Mr Matt Sole entered the room, and proceeded to sit behind me, out of my sight, but well in the eyeline of both Mr Williams and Mr Ching.  I felt then, and feel to this day that this was intimidating and tacit bullying. I knew when my turn to speak came up, I would have to read out the incident with Mr Renault, but I did so anyway, as I had given the matter serious thought before adding it to my submission.

To my best recollection Mr Ching did not exchange any words with these persons when they came into the room in what I had considered would be a closed hearing, and nor was their entry and remaining presence noted in his report and findings.

Despite Mr Ching naming who was present as the proceedings began, this was not updated as the situation changed.

Whilst I fully appreciate that in this sport and in many other areas of life and endeavour, strong governance is required,

the “Racing INTEGRITY Board” by its very name must hold itself and those who serve it to the highest standards in order to be able to pass judgement on others. That is fundamental.

When I have committed an offence on the track, such  as “shifting ground” or “careless driving, hitting a wheel” as happened recently I will put up my hand  and “take my lumps” so to speak.

If I feel that the charge is debateable then I will query it but take the decision as handed down.

But this continual targeting of me where there is no “clear” case to answer and is based on pure speculation is tiring, is affecting my well-being and destroying my enjoyment of a sport I love and which I have pursued in my own small way to the best of my ability for the last 40 years or more.

I am aware there is growing dissatisfaction in the Canterbury area about the conduct at times of some members of the Stipendiary Stewards, and the word “bullying” often surfaces in conversations around the stables and race meetings. I have put my experience in print here, but others who have much more to lose than I are reticent about putting their heads “above the parapet” for fear of it affecting their livelihood. “Whistleblowers”, despite their most honest intentions, are seldom protected in today’s world.

Too many experienced horsemen and horsewomen, for whom I have the utmost respect, feel the die are weighted against us, and in too many cases where charges are laid, that fair and equitable treatment is not a guarantee.

There is a pervading feeling in these circles, that if you “win one case, you won’t win the next one”. It is unfortunate and telling that people who are at the heart of our industry see it that way.

The paramount  consideration in every case should be the merits or not of that particular charge, and consistency in rulings must be a keynote.

We shouldn’t need an RIB anonymous tipline if there was a culture of “the truth must out without fear or favour”.

Sadly, I feel that this is not the current climate.

Once again, I expect that my submission (herewith) for this stage of the judgement be printed in full just as the charges against me were published in the public domain.

My contact details are freely available on the HRNZ site under Licence Holders if anyone from the RIB (Mr Harris?) wish to discuss any matter I have raised here or my feelings on matters concerning Harness Racing in general I would welcome their approach.

Sincerely,

Trevor Grant.

[Mr Grant requested that any suspension begin after a driving commitment at Addington on 10 May 2024.]

REASONS FOR PENALTY

This Adjudicative Committee has considered the penalty submissions from both the Informant, Mr Williams and the Respondent, Mr Grant. The Respondent has not really addressed the matter of penalty in his submissions but has repeated in majority, his written submissions, as presented at the hearing.

The Penalty Guide provides a 7-day suspension starting point for a breach of this Rule.

The aggravating factor in this case is the fact that had Mr Grant shown just a small degree of vigour on his drive, not just sit motionless over the concluding 200m, GEORGE ELIOT, would have, on the balance of probabilities, finished in a higher place, possibly in 1st place. GEORGE ELIOT finished .1 of a second from the winner.

This Adjudicative Committee has determined that this aggravating factor has deemed that an uplift in penalty is warranted. This uplift is set at 2 days.

In mitigation, Mr Grant’s clear record in regard to this Rule over the previous 12 months, must be taken into consideration. For this factor, a discount is afforded Mr Grant, which this Adjudicative Committee sets at 1 day.

The Adjudicative Committee therefore has determined that an 8-day suspension is an appropriate penalty.

Mr Grant has a driving commitment at Addington on 10 May 2024, which therefore concludes that this suspension will come into effect at the conclusion of that meeting.

PENALTY

Mr Grant is accordingly suspended from the conclusion of racing on 10 May 2024, up to and including 2 June 2024.  Meetings encompassed in this period of suspension are as follows:

12 May – Ashburton, 15 May – Addington, 17 May – Addington, 19 May – Rangiora, 23 May – Addington, 26 May – Timaru, 30 May – Addington and 2 June – Ashburton.