Banks Peninsula TC 7 January 2024 – R6 (heard 2 February 2024 at Addington) – Trevor Grant

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 6 at the Banks Peninsula Trotting Club’s Meeting on 7 January 2024, Stipendiary Steward, Mr Matt Sole presented an Information alleging a breach of Rule 868(2) by Open Driver Mr Trevor Grant in that, as the Driver of GEORGE ELIOT in the race, he “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to win or obtain the best possible place by failing to show sufficient vigour in the run home”.

The Rule provides:

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.

The hearing of the Information was adjourned sine die and heard at Addington Raceway on 2 February 2024.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Shane Renault presented the Stewards’ case in the absence of Mr Sole.

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

EVIDENCE:

Mr Renault played the race video to identify Mr Grant (GEORGE ELIOT) drawn 2 at the 2170m standing start race. He pointed to GEORGE ELIOT gallop at the start and lose considerable ground before eventually catching the field as it passed the 1400m. Mr Renault said from this mark, Mr Grant has driven his horse to an inside position, 5-back, before shifting to the outside as the field approached the home straight.

Mr Renault said that from the 400m, Mr Grant has sat motionless, apart from activating the ear plugs at the 200m. He said the horse has run on to finish 5th, 3.4 lengths from the winner of the race and 0.7 length from 4th place.

Mr Renault said the concern from the Stewards is that once Mr Grant has come wider on the track, it would be expected of him to show some sort of urging to give the horse a full opportunity to finish in the best possible placing. He said the horse appears to be trotting well and has finished strongly without any urging whatsoever.

Mr Renault read to the hearing, two quotes from previous Decisions involving the same Rule.

RIU v H 2005, “a breach of this rule is one which invariably jeopardises the integrity of harness racing for reasons which are self-evident. Harness races are based on the requirement that all contestants in a race are given every opportunity by their drivers and that when the race has been run all contestants have been fully tested and been asked to do the best that they can.”

RIU v B 2019, “the test is an objective one, and a reasonable observer would not have considered that Mr B has taken all reasonable and permissible measures to win the race. That reasonable observer would have expected at a very minimum to have the driver take some action such as running the reins over the horse’s rump, pushing the whip through the horse’s tail, the actions of holding the whip on the horse’s rump which we accept, did not in the Committee’s view satisfy the obligations to take all reasonable and permissible measures.”

Mr Renault said what these two cases mean is that Mr Grant has an obligation to give some form of urging on his horse to show every person investing on this race, that Mr Grant asked his horse to finish as close as possible.

Mr Renault played a previous race of GEORGE ELIOT’S, at Ashburton, to demonstrate that the horse can be driven out at the finish. In this race, he said, Mr Grant sat in the parked position where at the top of the straight, he turns his whip and drives his horse to the front with vigour, eventually finishing in third place. Mr Renault said Stewards would expect a similar drive in the Banks Peninsula straight, as seen at Ashburton.

Mr Grant prepared written submissions which were distributed and read by him to the hearing.

They were as follows.

“Race 6 the Crate and Barrel Leeston Trot. George Eliot – broke at the start losing ground. A post-race veterinary examination revealed no significant findings. 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.

In response to the above charge laid at the Banks Peninsula Trotting Club’s meeting on January 7^th, 2004, I, Trevor John Grant, submit the following defence.

George Eliot broke at the start, losing considerable ground. As the field passed the 1600m mark, this mare was still approximately 6 seconds behind the leader. We only caught the back of the field with 1300m of the 2170m race left to go, thus she had spent 870m chasing on her own to achieve this.

It is evident in video footage of this race that in making up this ground I have maintained a firm hold on the reins as George Eliot’s intensity and drive are such that on many occasions both through her trials and early racing career she has broken into a gallop, as videos of these events demonstrate. She races in a pacifier and full blinds to keep her settled because of this.

After being 2^nd last on the inner with 500m to go, I have worked the mare across a wall of horses in front of us to obtain a clear passage to the line, all the while working hard to keep her balanced and trotting. With the official time for the last 800m of this race being recorded as 58.7 secs, I have timed my mare to run the same point to point in 57.8 secs, despite running wider on the bend to obtain an uninterrupted run.

I have also timed her to run her last mile in around 2 minutes even, and this in only her 2^nd start on a grass track.

I have pulled the earplugs at the 200m mark once I felt George Eliot was safe in her gait, at which time it can be seen that she threw her head up and bobbled for a couple of strides before leaning into her work again. The mare (and I) then continued to take ground off the leaders rapidly up to and beyond the winning post.

I explained to the Stipendiary Stewards at the time that this charge against me was being considered that I had exhorted my horse in a loud and continuous vocal manner in the drive to the line (as I am well known to do on the racetrack), all the while keeping her balanced and in steady gait. As can be seen on video footage up the straight, George Eliot’s cadence is much quicker than the other horses around her, which requires extra effort to keep her from breaking.

Any extra act of “vigour” that the Stipendiary Stewards say I should have undertaken (and by this I infer that I should have been whipping my horse) would certainly have caused her to gallop after she had already put in this monumental effort.

The Stipendiary Stewards informed me that a loud vocal encouragement was not a sufficient display of vigour, despite the fact that I know this method, along with steady control of her mouth when asking her for maximum effort, achieves the best results with George Eliot. To have whipped her at this point would have been detrimental to her, to me, and to the racing public when she would almost certainly have galloped.

George Eliot’s performance in this race after breaking at the start and losing at least 6 seconds on the leaders is well beyond what one could have expected from a young mare, especially as she had only cleared maidens 6 days before and was having her first start in a higher-rated race. Indeed, it was a performance that one would be very pleased with from an experienced top-grade trotter.

I can think of no reason why I would want this mare or myself to under-perform especially since I am a few years retired from my professional career, and my only source of income now is my NZ Superannuation and any earnings we can achieve by training and racing our horses.

Given the fact that the Stipendiary Stewards had all this information that I have outlined above available to them at the time, as well as comprehensive video coverage of the race, I feel aggrieved and feel that the laying of this charge, which would have resulted in a suspension for me had I not defended it, is to say the very least, “disappointing”.

To publicly state in their report that I have “not taken all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best possible finishing place by failing to show sufficient vigour in the run home” has been tantamount to accusing me of “pulling my horse up”.

I feel that the laying of this charge, with so little evidence to support it, has impugned my character and personal integrity. It has caused me considerable concern and anguish over the last 26 days, as I try always to hold these values to the highest standards in my life”.

Mr Grant said, regarding Mr Renault’s comments on the Ashburton race, were not a fair comparison of what happened at Banks Peninsula. He said the mare wears full blinds and was sitting in the parked position in the Ashburton race and could only see one horse. He said she is a completely different and intense horse when racing amongst a lot of horses.

Mr Grant said so long as he has a steady hold of his horse, he can vocally encourage her and there is no point asking her to go quicker than he knows she can go and have her gallop.

The Adjudicative Committee asked Mr Grant if GEORGE ELIOT had broken gait in the run home in previous races. He said maybe 3 or 4 times, he wasn’t completely sure but said she has lost her gait numerous times at trials.

Mr Renault asked Mr Grant what he was doing to encourage his horse prior to activating the earplugs. Mr Grant had the video enlarged to show himself yelling at GEORGE ELIOT. He said after losing all that ground at the start, coming wide on the turn, running a 57 second half, at her full limit, he said he does not know what else he could do, they did their very best.

Mr Renault, in summing up, said the Stewards were at no stage inferring Mr Grant had pulled up his horse. He said if that was the case, they would be looking at a more serious charge.

Mr Renault said Stewards agree the horse has produced a very good run, but turning for home, the horse was in contention and Mr Grant is required to show some sort of urging so that anyone watching the race can say the horse was given every opportunity. He said a previous case, RIB v Allen, the Adjudicative Committee of the day said that shouting or yelling at a horse was insufficient urging.

Mr Renault said the Stewards conclude the horse has trotted fluently the entire length of the straight and has continued to make ground from its position at the top of the straight to finish so closely at the finish, under no urgings, Stewards believed that Mr Grant failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

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

There are several principles that 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.

Mr Grant has, in great depth, articulated what he considers to be the best way to urge GEORGE ELIOT, given the circumstances, at the finish of this race. The Stewards have rejected his explanation and they do not need to prove that there was a deliberate act by Mr Grant to disadvantage the horse, however, there must be some degree of carelessness or incompetence to find Mr Grant’s actions blameworthy. As stated in HRNZ v W H (2005).

The Stewards’ evidence is obviously based on Mr Grant’s lack of vigour within the last 400m of the race. Mr Grant’s explanation is plausible, given he has driven the horse in all its races and trials. Mr Grant has relied on his experience and expertise and balanced up two competing factors and chose one, either draw his whip and chase his horse, risking it breaking stride, or not, he chose the latter.

Mr Renault is correct in stating there is an obligation from Drivers to show vigour at the finish of a race. The circumstances for GEORGE ELIOT in this race were not normal, having regard to all of the circumstances, including the amount of ground it had lost to the field at the start and it’s effort to catch the field, and the mare’s final 800 metres sectional time which, in the Adjudicative Committee’s view, was quite exceptional for a 4-year old, one-win trotting mare on a grass track. The horse and Driver had put in an enormous effort to place itself at the tail of the field as it entered the home straight.

The Adjudicative Committee accepts that, in the run home, Mr Grant’s efforts to urge his runner were minimal to say the least. However, it was quite clear that the mare was doing her very best and that it was not necessary for Mr Grant to ask her for a bigger effort and, for him to have done so, would not necessarily have resulted in a higher placing. The Adjudicative Committee noted that GEORGE ELIOT finished in 5th placing, with the margin back from the 4th placed runner being 3/4 length. Mr Grant’s efforts in asking the mare to finish in the highest possible finishing position were reasonable having regard to all of the circumstances and, while it would have been permissible for him to take some action to urge his mare, he reasonably considered that such action would not have resulted in a higher finishing position and, indeed, may have been detrimental to her chances,

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.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, the charge against Mr Grant is dismissed.