Auckland TC 22 March 2024 – R7 – Mark Purdon

Introduction

Following the running of Race 7 the Woodland Stud Northern Derby Mobile Pace (Group 1 $200,00), Mr M Purdon, the Driver of WE WALK BY FAITH defended a charge of careless driving.

An information was filed by General Manager Stewards, Mr McIntyre alleging that Mr Purdon breached Rule 869(3)(b) in that he drove carelessly nearing the 200m when shifting outwards causing interference to MAJOR HOT (M White) with resultant interference to CHASE A DREAM (N Rasmussen) which broke losing all chance.  

Mr Purdon endorsed the Information ‘I do not admit the breach of the Rule.’  At the commencement of the hearing he confirmed his not guilty plea.

The Adjudicative Committee explained how the defended hearing would be conducted and invited both the Applicant and Respondent to call evidence in support of their respective cases.

The standard of proof required is one the balance of probabilities.

Rule 869 (3)(b) provides:

No Driver in any race shall drive carelessly.

Evidence

Mr McIntyre advised that he intended calling the Driver of MAJOR HOT, Mr M White as a witness. He also said that he would use the available Race films to demonstrate the alleged breach.

Mr Purdon advised that he intended calling the Driver of CHASE A DREAM, as a witness.  He said that he would also give evidence in his own defence,

In his evidence, Mr White stated that he didn’t have to take a ‘big hold’ of his horse, but he did receive pressure from the horses on his inside (WALK BY FAITH driven by Mr Purdon) and outside (DREAMS ARE FREE driven by Mr N Williamson).

Mr McIntyre referred Mr White to the Race films and pointed out that Mr Purdon was 3 back and held up and shifted out into his line causing Mr White to take a hold and drift back onto CHASE A DREAM who was checked and broke. Mr White said that his horse was weakening at the time. Mr White accepted this proposition and but added that there was no contact between his horse and Mr Purdon’s.

Under cross examination by Mr Purdon, he suggested to Mr White that he may have been tightened up but was not inconvenienced too badly because his horse was giving ground. Mr White agreed with this.

In his evidence Mr Purdon stated that he accepted MAJOR HOT may have been inconvenienced but said it wasn’t a bad check and CHASE A DREAM was travelling well in behind before MAJOR HOT shifted back on to it. He added that “I may have moved out, but it wasn’t dangerous,” but it was simply a ‘racing incident.’  Under cross examination, Mr Purdon said that although he shifted out, Mr White was going backward and the only reason the interference occurred was because CHASE A DREAM was going better than any other runner.

In her evidence, Ms Rasmussen referred to the Race films. She said that her horse was “bolting” in behind but got its tongue over the bit and she was receiving pressure from horses on both sides of her. In the end she said that she ran out of room and broke partly because her horse was hard to control because of its tongue being over the bit and because Mr White’s horse came back onto her.

Summing up

In summing up the case for the Applicant, Mr McIntyre submitted Mr Purdon shifting out when not quite clear of MAJOR HOT and Mr White had to take a strong hold and went back onto CHASE A DREAM who was checked and broke.

In summing up his defence of the charge, Mr Purdon submitted that the interference occurred because CHASE A DREAM was bolting in behind in tight quarters, and because it got its tongue over its bit.

Decision

After spending some time reviewing the Race films and considering the evidence provided by Mr McIntyre, Mr Purdon and the witnesses, Mr White and Ms Rasmussen, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved to the requisite standard, i.e. on the evidence it was more probable than not, that Mr Purdon was careless.

A Driver is deemed to be careless when as a matter of fact they do not exercise the level of care that a prudent driver would exercise in similar circumstances. Careless actions do not necessarily require intent, nor are they necessarily dangerous. On this occasion, Mr Purdon made an error of judgement when electing to shift out when he did.  He was racing three back behind the eventual race winner and he eased off the fence only one horse width. Had he waited one more stride he perhaps would have been clear of MAJOR HOT, who was under pressure and tiring.

Mr White claimed that he received pressure from both Mr Purdon and from Mr Williamsons horse who was on his outer. The Race films do not support the claim that Mr Williamson’s horse put him under pressure. The only pressure of any consequence that he received was because Mr Purdon shifted out.

The Adjudicative Committee finds that Mr Purdon’s level of carelessness is low end. The Adjudicative Committee accepts that his culpability is also at the low end because of three factors. First, his outward shift was gradual, and he only shifted one horse width. Had he waited for one more stride the interference may not have occurred. Second, MAJOR HOT was under pressure and tiring, albeit Mr Purdon still had an obligation to ensure he was clear of that runner was shifting out. Thirdly, although CHASE A DREAM was checked and broke, it had run out of racing room and it got its tongue over its bit which according to Ms Rasmussen was a contributing factor.

Submission For Penalty

Mr McIntyre submitted that Mr Purdon has a clear record under the careless driving Rule. He referred to the Penalty Guide which provides for a starting point of a 5 day suspension when a breach of this nature occurs in a Group Race.

Mr Purdon advised that he could commence any proposed suspension immediately and did not offer any submissions as to penalty.

Reasons For Penalty

The RIB Penalty Guide provides a starting point of a 5 day suspension for a breach that occurs in a Group Race. The penalty Guide provides that all starting point penalties assume the severity of the breach is mid-range. In this case, the Adjudicative Committee finds that the severity of the breach is low range.

After taking into account the evidence and the reasons for its decision which was outlined in the previous section of this decision, the Adjudicative Committee adopts a 4 day suspension as the starting point.

The Adjudicative Committee has noted Mr Purdon’s good record and although he cannot be penalised for defending the charge, he cannot be given any credit for admitting the breach. The Adjudicative Committee also notes that the breach occurred in a Group 1 Race with stakes of $200,000. An uplift in penalty due to the status of the race would normally apply, but in this case the Penalty Guide establishes a starting point penalty that already takes into consideration that the breach occurred in a Group Race.

In consideration of all the facts, a suspension of 4 days was imposed. The two forthcoming Manawatu Harness Racing Meetings were not considered as part of Mr Purdon’s suspension days.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Mr Purdon’s License to drive in races is suspended for a period of 4 days from 23/03/2024 until 01/04/2024 inclusive.