Rangiora HRC 19 May 2024 – R1 – Samantha Jane Ottley

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 1, R.H.R.C. Supports St John Mobile Pace, Open Driver, Samantha Jane Ottley, as the Driver of LE TWIST in the race, denied a charge that she drove carelessly passing the 1000 metres when shifting ground outwards, causing interference to CHANGEFORTHEBETA (Matthew Williamson).

Rule 869 provides:

(3)  No driver in any race shall drive:- 

       (b) carelessly

EVIDENCE:

Stipendiary Steward, Paul Williams, showed video replays of the incident with approximately 1000 metres to race. He pointed out LE TWIST, driven by the Respondent, racing in the one-out, one-back position and CHANGEFORTHEBETA, driven by Mr Williamson, leading the 3-wide line and improving.

Mr Williams said that, near the 1000 metres, the Respondent had driven carelessly in shifting out and causing interference to Mr Williamson, whose runner “goes rough”.

Mr Williamson said that he had come out 3-wide and the Respondent came out, forcing him to race 4-wide to accommodate the move. He said that she had come out quite sharply, as the field was nearing the 1000 metres. The Respondent was not wanting him to get ahead of her, so as not to be able to come out, he said. Asked by Mr Williams, Mr Williamson said that he would not describe the Respondent’s move as “gradual” but, if she had gone slowly, she would have risked getting up on the wheel in front, or not getting out at all.

The Respondent put it to Mr Williamson that his horse was hanging quite badly and on the right rein with its head right round, before it had even got to her. It had gone rough after she had got out, she said. Mr Williamson said that his horse had never let the right rein go for the entire race. The effect of that was that, but for that, he would have been able to pull out and respond, he said. Had the horse been a “normal-steering” horse, he would have been able to come out quite easily. In addition, the horse is only “average-gaited”. It had not responded, he said.

In summary, the Respondent said that Mr Williamson’s runner is a poorly-gaited horse, that wears spreaders and had been hanging badly, without which there would not have been an issue. It had gone roughly for only two strides, she submitted.

Mr Williamson said that the incident would not have happened with a better-gaited horse. He had seen the head of the Respondent’s runner turned out early enough to know that it was coming out, he said.

Mr Williams said that Stewards were not disputing that the Respondent was entitled to come out, but she had come out too abruptly and caused interference to Mr Williamson’s runner.

DECISION:

The charge was dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

It is worthwhile setting out the relevant provisions of the Shifting Ground Regulation:

Where a horse does not have clear passage during a race the driver shall be permitted to shift ground:

2. Outwards and ease another runner up the track provided the horse to be shifted outwards is in a position to be moved out without causing interference to that or any other horse and that the movement complies with the requirements of Rule 869(6)(b) and (c) – the “push out” Rule.

For the avoidance of doubt, the following shall apply:

The onus shall be on the driver shifting ground to ensure the move is made with safety and does not cause interference by conducting it in a gradual and acceptable manner thereby enabling the driver of the runner being moved to be able to take the necessary action to accommodate the manoeuvre.

There are two aspects to the charge. Firstly, that the Respondent’s shifting out was not done with safety and in a gradual and acceptable manner and, secondly, that she had caused interference to Mr Williamson’s runner.

Stewards alleged that the Respondent, Ms Ottley, had come out too abruptly and caused interference to Mr Williamson’s runner. The Respondent said that he would not describe the move as “gradual”.

That there was interference to Mr Williamson, was apparent from the video replays. It was minor, but interference nevertheless. Mr Williamson’s runner skipped for a couple of strides but did not lose ground. However, Mr Williamson agreed, when questioned by Ms Ottley, that his horse had been hanging badly and had never let the right rein go throughout the entire race. He went on to say that the horse is “average-gaited” and had not responded when he saw the head of Ms Ottley’s runner turned out, signalling to him, sufficiently early, that it was about to come out. Mr Williamson said that the interference would not have happened with a better-gaited horse, as he would have been able to accommodate Ms Ottley’s shift.

The Adjudicative Committee finds that, while the Respondent’s move may have been abrupt or not gradual, it was made with safety in that Mr Williamson, but for the manners of his horse, would have been able to take action to accommodate that move.

Because of the degree of contribution to the incident by Mr Williamson’s runner, the Adjudicative Committee cannot be satisfied on a balance of probabilities – that is to say, more probable than not – that the Respondent has driven carelessly.