Ashburton TC 2 June 2024 – R9 – Tim Williams

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 9 at the Ashburton Harness Racing Club’s Meeting on 2 June 2024, Stipendiary Steward Mr Shane Renault presented an Information alleging a breach of Rule 868(2) by Open Driver Mr Tim Williams.

The detail on the Information stated “T Williams (SPIRITUAL BLISS) failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to win or gain the best possible placing by shifting outwards near the 350m, resulting in his runner being held up for a run until the 150m.

Mr Williams stated he understood the Rule, the Charge and confirmed he did not admit the breach.

Rule 868(2) states:

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 obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.

EVIDENCE:

Mr Renault played the race video to identify Mr Williams (SPIRITUAL BLISS) racing in the trail position approaching the 400m. He pointed to ITZ MAGICAL MEG, racing outside of Mr Williams, begin to weaken which, he said, gave Mr Williams options to either remain in the trail, or move out into the 1×1 position and follow ACENTO (R Holmes). Mr Renault said Mr Williams chose to shift to the 1×1 and was then held up until he was able to find a run inside of Mr Holmes near the 150m and finished on into 3rd placing.

Mr Renault said the Stewards’ concerns were that SWEET SPIRIT (B Orange), who lead the race and who Mr Williams was following, was not stopping and it was unreasonable for Mr Williams to have shifted out where there was no run. Mr Renault pointed to CEE WHO’S BETTOR (S Thornley), following Mr Williams take the gap.  Mr Williams vacated and then received a clear run into the passing lane, a run the Stewards submit SPIRITUAL BLISS should have received.

Mr Williams said he disagreed with Mr Renault’s analysis that shifting to the 1×1 had made him extremely unlucky. He said after obtaining a clear run at the 150m, he finished a disappointing 3rd. Mr Williams used the video and pointed out he could have shifted wider 100m before he did, but a decision had to made. He said Mr Holmes “had a lap full of horse” and looked to have an advantage over Mr Orange, who looked to be running lethargically. He said the passing lane here at Ashburton is well into the straight and he didn’t want to get held up behind Mr Orange, waiting for the lane. He said he followed the momentum of the race, which was Mr Holmes at that point.

Mr Renault, in summing up, said the Stewards believe Mr Williams should have waited behind Mr Orange until the passing lane. He said, we are never going to know if Mr Williams would have finished in a higher placing and the Stewards will never be able to prove that he would have run in a higher placing, but this Rule always requires Mr Williams to take reasonable and permissible measures to do so. He said the Stewards believe it was bad judgement to shift out at this time, when the leader was travelling well, and a passing lane was going to be available in the next 100m. To shift out onto the back of Mr Holmes and become pocketed, was unreasonable.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Adjudicative Committee considered all the evidence, including numerous replays of videos, very carefully.

Several principles emerge from various cases decided under Rule 868(2) and they include:

• It is the quality of the drive in the circumstances of the case which must be judged.
• That judgement must be based on an objective assessment of the drive in the race.
• The Driver’s conduct must be culpable in the sense that, objectively judged. It is found to be blameworthy.

The Rule is wide ranging and has had many descriptions and interpretations applied when Adjudicative Committees assess the merits of a charge to a particular drive.

In this race, Mr Williams, passing the 450m, was presented with two options. Stay where he was and wait for the passing lane which, at this point, was 200m away, or follow Mr Holmes, who Mr Williams judged as travelling much better than the leader. Mr Williams had 100m to consider the choice and chose, as he said, to follow the momentum which was Mr Holmes.

Retrospectively, Mr Williams’ assessment was correct in relation to Mr Holmes and Mr Orange, 4th and 8th respectively, but the Stewards believe the manoeuvre to be a culpable tactical mistake.

Obviously, the Adjudicative Committee is faced with differing opinions. The Respondent is one of the country’s leading and experienced Drivers and the Appellant an astute Steward. The standard of proof needs to be more than the balance of probabilities and, as Mr Renault alluded to, it is a matter of speculation whether SPIRITUAL BLISS would have finished in a higher placing.

The Adjudicative Committee must consider whether a Driver has taken a particular measure at the relevant time, with the purpose of finishing in the best possible position. A Driver should not be pressured to drive robotically, but allowed to be instinctive without being held to a standard of perfection.

A Driver often has to make a split-second decision, which ultimately may not prove to be the correct one. In the Adjudicative Committee’s view, it was reasonable for Mr Williams to make the decision he did, a manoeuvre done, the Adjudicative Committee finds, with the best intention of giving his horse it’s best opportunity.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, the charge against Mr Williams is dismissed.