Auckland TC 1 September 2022 – R7 – Zev Meredith

Summary of Facts:

Following the running of Race 7, the Respondent Zev Meredith, admitted a breach of Rule 869(4) & 869(6)(b)(c); namely that he shifted out prior to the 1000m resulting in OLD TOWN ROAD racing wider on the track.

The Respondent endorsed the Information ‘I do admit the breach of the rule’ and confirmed he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge. The Respondent was supported at the hearing by V Blanchard.

The “Pushout Rule’ (Rule 689) provides:

(6)  Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:

(a)   Drivers are permitted to move ground inwards or outwards at any stage of the race to improve their racing position;

(b)   A horse  during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track;

(c)   A horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.

(7)  Sub-rule (6)(b) and (c) of this Rule shall apply until 1000 metres from the finish of the race. From this point all drivers shall be expected to make moves, with safety, to ensure the horse obtains the best possible place in the field.

Using available video footage Stipendiary Steward M Mulcay identified the horses involved in the incident namely, MEMPHIS TENNESSEE driven by Z Meredith and OLD TOWN ROAD driven by Z Butcher.   He said that Z Meredith was racing 3 back on the pegs with Z Butcher approving to his outside just prior to the 1100m. He said that as they approached the winning post Mr Meredith shifts his drive out forcing Mr Butcher over more ground which was in breach of the Pushout Rule. He concluded by saying this happened prior to the 1000m mark and identified the 1000m on the film.

In explanation the Respondent stated that he had misidentified where the 1000m was.

Decision:

The charge is admitted by the Respondent and is therefore deemed proved.

Submission for Penalty:

Stipendiary Steward Mr Mulcay produced the Respondent’s record which was clear. He said the Guidelines in relation to penalty for this specific offence provided a starting point of a 5 drive suspension or a $250 fine. He said that given the admission of the breach, Mr Meredith’s status (Junior Driver) and his record, the Stewards would be seeking a fine at a level below the starting point.

The Respondent submitted that he would prefer a fine as opposed to a suspension.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Penalty Guide provides a penalty starting point of 5 drives or a $250 fine.

After taking into account the submissions of both the Applicant and Respondent; noting the race film and the resultant impact on the affected runner(s), the Adjudicative Committee assessed the breach as low and adopted a $250 fine as the starting point.

The Respondent was given credit for his good record and admission of the breach resulting in a $50 reduction from the starting point.

The Adjudicative Committee took some guidance from historical breaches of the same Rule.

Conclusion:

The Respondent was fined the sum of $200.