Banks Peninsula TC 1 April 2024 – R5 (heard 19 April 2024 at Ashburton) – Reserved Decision – Trevor Grant

BACKGROUND:

This was an adjourned hearing held at the Ashburton Trotting Club’s Meeting on 19 April 2024.

Following the running of Race 5, Open Driver, Trevor Grant, denied a charge that, as the Driver of GEORGE ELIOT in the Race, he “failed to take all reasonable measures to win or obtain the best possible place by failing to show sufficient vigour in the run home”.

Rule 868 provides:

(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.

EVIDENCE:

Stipendiary Steward, Paul Williams, firstly showed the video replay of the complete race. He showed GEORGE ELIOT, who was slow away, race at the rear of the field over the early stages before latching onto the field near the 1200m. At the 600m, GEORGE ELIOT was racing on the pylons and making steady progress through the field. Mr Williams showed Mr Grant activate the horse’s gear at the 400m and shift wider on the track in an effort to find clear running.   He then pointed out GEORGE ELIOT, driven by the Respondent, and near the 200m, racing wide on the track, when the horse achieved clear running. Mr Williams showed Mr Grant, sitting motionless in the sulky and showing no form of discernable vigour throughout the concluding stages.

Mr Williams said that GEORGE ELIOT finished in 4th place with the margins being 1/2 head, nose and 1/2 head between the first four placed horses. The time recorded for the first 3 placings was 2.51.9, with 4th placed GEORGE ELIOT timed at 2.52.0, a tenth of a second behind the winner. Mr Williams added that the mile rate for the event was 2.07.4.

Mr Williams stated that it was reasonable and permissible, from the 200m, that when GEORGE ELIOT achieved clear running, that Mr Grant could have shown some form of discernible vigour on the horse over the concluding stages and may have achieved a higher placing.

The Respondent presented written submissions, which were read at the hearing by Mr Grant and which he requested was put into the Decision in its entirety. Respondent’s written submissions as follows:

Extract from Stewards Report Banks Peninsula 1 April 2024

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.

Herewith is a printed copy of my defence of this charge:

At the beginning of the standing start race over  2180m George Eliot was slow away compared to the rest of the field as she settled into a safe trotting gait. At the winning post with 1800m to run she was 3.5secs behind the leader, and did not tack on to the body of the field until around 1500m to run. I proceeded up the fence to save ground where possible and remained 5-back along the fence until the last 400m. A this point I released the earplugs and kept George Eliot balanced as I looked for a run through the field. Unfortunately there was a wall of horses in front of me and we had to go 7-wide before eventually finding a gap at the 200m.

After a slight bobble as she saw open space ahead of her, the mare quickly picked up speed  and flew to, and beyond, the finishing  line at a great tempo, so much so that the commentator, calling the race from high above, said “and here’s George Eliot, out of the clouds…” about 80metres from the finish.          (I now play recorded commentary and footage from taped Sky TV coverage.)

I have timed George Eliot once into the clear to run her last 200m in 13.6 secs. This was obviously not a horse who was being hindered in her run to the finish, such was the dash she showed to almost pull in all those horses in front of her.

With regard to the manner in which George Eliot is driven, as I had explained before to the Stipendiary Stewards and the Adjudicating Committee ( Mr David Anderson, chairman and Mr Russell McKenzie) when answering the same charge laid at the Banks Peninsula Trotting Club on January 7^th  2024 and heard on February 2^nd 2024 this mare has to be handled carefully when finally finding space and set about chasing those in front of her. A firm line to her mouth gives her the opportunity to lean on the bit to control her balance and drive, as she is a very intense mare in these circumstances. Any slackening or slapping of the reins or hitting with the whip would very probably have resulted in her breaking into a gallop over the closing stages of the race, especially on a grass track where she is still a relative novice (3^rd start).

I have been charged with a breach of RULE 868 (2) in that I did not show ” sufficient vigour” in the run home.

However, RULE 869  (3)(g) states:

No driver in any race shall drive:-

– in any manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning.

This would almost certainly have been the case had I hit the horse with whip or reins and she had galloped, as she was already giving of her best, as evidenced by the video footage of the race. Instead I exhorted my mare in a loud vocal manner, and this was heard and commented on by several people watching the race from the sidelines.

At the time this charge was laid the Stipendiary Steward,  Mr Williams said also that the interests of the punter had to be protected.

From Sky TV racing coverage I note that at the listed start time of the race George Eliot was 4/4 in fixed odds betting, and 4/4 in totalisator betting, but by the time the race had been run and results published she had firmed a little to be 3/3 in tote betting.

In this race, after being slow away, and being driven in the manner which I have she has finished much faster than any other horse and has crossed the line in 4^th place.

The 1/1 favourite in the race, Brother Love, began well and after leading over the first 400m, has settled into the trail up until going to the front along the passing lane from around the 350m point, thus having a much more economical and favourable trip than George Eliot. Despite being encouraged with the whip a number of times in the last 180m or so, he has finished 2nd. The horse 2/2 in the betting, Silver Linings, has run a strong race sitting parked almost the entire journey and ran 3rd. And as pointed out, the horse 3/3 in the betting, George Eliot,  finished 4th.

As these statistics show, different types of “vigour” can produce different results when applied judiciously. All three horses, driven differently, have finished one place shy of the punters expectations of them.

But the only horse mentioned in the Stipendiary Stewards in this regard is George Eliot. And the only driver charged is me, Trevor Grant.

The word “vigour” is not used in Rule 868 nor Rule 869 of Harness Racing New Zealand’s Rules and Regulations.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of “vigour” is:     ​Energy, force or enthusiasm.

The Collins English Dictionary defines “vigour” as :             Physical or mental energy or enthusiasm.

I feel that in my drive on George Eliot in this race, I have once again shown the required mental energy and enthusiasm required to get the best out of her, to the point that my exhortations of this mare could be heard, and were commented on by several members of the watching public, and other drivers in the race.

The way this race unfolded and the charge subsequently laid against me is almost a carbon copy of that of the January 7^th race.  It was heard, as stated above, on February 2^nd this year.   On that occasion, after deliberating at some length, the Adjudicating Panel found the charge unproven, and it was dismissed.

Their decision regarding this charge also wrote:

The Adjudicative Committee, in reflecting on Mr Grant’s drive, referenced what is referred to as the “Justice Haylen Test” where an informed and interested party would ask the hypothetical question: “What on earth is Mr Grant doing”. Such a person after viewing GEORGE ELIOT’S entire race would in all probability not ask that question and would more likely say “what a great performance that was”. It could not be said that, taking into account the horse’s performance and all aspects of Mr Grant’s drive, he did not give GEORGE ELIOT every opportunity and it would be harsh to find that he did not take all reasonable and permissible measures.

Given the near identical features of these two races, on the same track, with the same mare then the same conclusion would surely be reached if the “Justice Haylen Test” was to be applied in this case.

So it was to my great surprise that within a few seconds of that Adjudicating Panel giving their decision and leaving the room on February 2^nd after finding that charge “unproven” and dismissing same,  Mr Shane Renault (representing the Stipendiary Stewards at the hearing), said to me if he saw the same thing again he would lay the same charge against me. This struck me as an extremely prejudicial comment hard on the heels of being informed of the Panel’s judgement.

I strongly feel that that prejudice has played out in the laying of this current charge. The mare and I have tried our best to win this race, and came within a split-second of doing so after a slow beginning and difficulty finding a clear run in the home straight.

I also find it interesting to note that in the Stipendiary Stewards report on this race, and that of January 7th, on the occasions when these charges were laid, there was no mention of George Eliot being held up for racing room until halfway down the straight, although that was clearly evident in both cases. When a horse in any race is held up for racing room in the finishing straight it is invariably mentioned  in the Stewards comments on that race. But not so in the two cases in point, a strange anomaly in my view.

The laying of this charge in all the circumstances outlined above has once again taken a toll on me, as I strive to succeed on the racetrack and in every aspect of my life. I feel that I am being targeted in races where clear evidence shows we are doing our best and my decisions on any course of action at these times are based on trying to get the most profitable result for all concerned.

Once again I request that this written submission be published in full in the RIB publication  of the Decision in this matter.  I have supplied all persons present at this hearing with a copy of this document, along with a complete copy of the Adjudicating Committee decision regarding the charge heard and dismissed on February 2^nd relating to the race on January 7^th 2024.

Sincerely,

T.J. Grant.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Respondent’s defence to the charge was, essentially, that the best way of achieving the best possible place was to keep the bit firm in the horse’s mouth, and do no more, as in Mr Grant’s belief, the horse was doing its best, and it was the best way to drive this particular horse out over the concluding stages.

It is admirable that the Respondent should wish to not pressure the horse, thinking that he was getting the best out of GEORGE ELIOT and the horse was doing it’s best. However, that does not amount to a defence to a charge of failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures, should the horse fail to obtain the best possible finishing position. This Adjudicative Committee understands Mr Grant’s reluctance to pressure GEORGE ELIOT with his understanding of how the horse races best, in his opinion, however there are obligations under the Rules that Drivers must adhere to.

There is a requirement for Drivers to test their horses to a standard that satisfies the Rules they race under, the connections and the betting public, that the horse has been driven out to give it every opportunity to win or obtain the best possible place.

A Driver has an obligation, in terms of the Rule, to ensure that his horse is given “full opportunity to win the Race or finish in the best possible position or finishing place”, in this case 1st, 2nd or 3rd. The Adjudicative Committee finds that Mr Grant has failed to do this and, while he thought he was doing his best for the horse, his drive over the concluding stages was culpable and punters were entitled to expect more and could justifiably feel let down. Using only a loud vocal manner to encourage the horse is not sufficient, in the Adjudicative Committee’s view, to satisfy the Rule where some discernable or demonstrable action is required to meet the standard required.

The Adjudicative Committee in applying the Justice Haylen Test to Mr Grant’s drive on GEORGE ELIOT, where an informed and interested party would ask the hypothetical question “What on earth is Mr Grant doing” after watching the concluding stages of the race, would in all probability ask that question and would be of the opinion that GEORGE ELIOT was not given every opportunity to win or obtain the best possible place in the race.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the standard required by the Rules was not met. It was reasonable and permissible for Mr Grant to apply some pressure and test GEORGE ELIOT over the final 200m by some discernable or demonstrable measure, either by urging with reins or touching with the whip.

The Adjudicative Committee has therefore determined that Mr Grant has failed on this occasion to take all reasonable and permissible measures to win to gain the best possible placing for GEORGE ELIOT.

The Adjudicative Committee therefore finds the breach of r 868(2) to be proved. The Adjudicative Committee reserved its Decision on the day. It thus gives Mr Williams 5 working days from receipt of this judgment, to make submissions as to penalty and requires that Mr Grant makes submissions within 5 days of his receiving Mr Williams’ submissions.