Gore HRC 24 August 2025 – R8 (heard 4 September 2025 at Wyndham) – Daniel Anderson
ID: RIB58613
Animal Name:
MONTAGE
Code:
Harness
Race Date:
24/08/2025
Race Club:
Gore Harness Racing Club
Race Location:
Gore Racecourse - 136 Gore-Mataura Highway, Gore, 9772
Race Number:
R8
Hearing Date:
04/09/2025
Hearing Location:
Young Quinn Raceway, Wyndham
Outcome: Proved
Penalty: Junior Driver Daniel Anderson is suspended for 6 days
BACKGROUND
Following the running of Race 8 at the Gore Harness Racing Club’s Meeting on 24 August 2025, Stipendiary Steward Vinny Munro presented an Information alleging a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) by Junior Driver Daniel Anderson. It was alleged that Mr Anderson, as the Driver of MONTAGE, had “shifted ground inwards when not sufficiently clear, checking TRENDY VAN GOGH (C Dalgety) passing the 1850 metres.”
Rule 869(3)(b) provides:
No driver in any race shall drive carelessly.
Due to the unavailability of a witness, the hearing of the Information was opened and adjourned. The hearing reopened at Young Quinn Raceway in Wyndham on 4 September 2025.
The Respondent had endorsed the Information ‘I do not admit the breach of the Rule’ and confirmed his defence of the charge to the Adjudicative Committee. Mr Anderson further confirmed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.
Mr Anderson was assisted at the hearing by Open Driver Nathan Williamson.
Mr Munro said Stewards would call one witness; Carter Dalgety, the Driver of TRENDY VAN GOGH.
EVIDENCE
Mr Munro, with the assistance of Mr Renault, used the available race videos to identify Mr Anderson, driving MONTAGE, positioned 4-wide travelling into the first bend. To the inside of MONTAGE in the 3-wide line was TRENDY VAN GOGH, driven by Carter Dalgety. Further to the inside, in the running line approaching the 1900 metre mark, was SKY PATROL, driven by Brad Williamson.
Mr Anderson was shown looking to his inside just after the 1900 metre mark. He then endeavoured to shift down the track to secure a 3-wide trail behind Craig Ferguson, driving SAUCY DELIGHT. Attempting the manouevre at this early stage of the race, when many Drivers were still establishing their positions, saw Mr Anderson (4-wide) try to ease Mr Dalgety (3-wide) down into the running line behind Brent Barclay, who was driving JACCKA HENRY (2-wide).
Passing the 1850 metre mark, TRENDY VAN GOGH suddenly bobbled and went into a terminal break. She finished tailed off in last place.
Stewards presented angles of the incident that gave rise to the charge from the primary side-on camera, the home straight head-on camera and the back straight camera. During the hearing, Mr Munro made the general point that care had to be taken when assessing footage of incidents that took place on a bend. The relative camera placements could create distorted angles, he said.
Mr Munro read part of the Shifting Ground Regulation, which states:
For the avoidance of doubt, the following shall apply:
The onus shall be on the driver shifting ground to ensure the move is made with safety and does not cause interference by conducting it in a gradual and acceptable manner thereby enabling the driver of the runner being moved to be able to take the necessary action to accommodate the manoeuvre.
Stewards alleged that Mr Anderson caused TRENDY VAN GOGH to break when moving ground inwards and checking that horse passing the 1850 metre mark.
Along with making moves inwards in a gradual and acceptable manner, the Shifting Ground Regulation requires Drivers to have a sufficient advantage over the horse about to be shifted inwards and for that horse to be clear of other horses to its inside so it can be moved in.
It was with respect to the last of these requirements, that Stewards alleged Mr Anderson had driven carelessly. Mr Munro submitted that, when MONTAGE shifted down the track and contacted TRENDY VAN GOGH, Brad Williamson had not yet established his position on the marker line with SKY PATROL. This meant Mr Dalgety was unable to be safely eased down by Mr Anderson to the 2-wide line, Mr Munro said.
Stewards believed Mr Dalgety had made the correct decision to prioritise safety by not relinquishing his 3-wide position to Mr Anderson at this stage of the race.
Witness Carter Dalgety
Stewards called Mr Dalgety to give evidence. He was shown the race video of the first bend and confirmed that just prior to the incident, he was in the 3-wide line with TRENDY VAN GOGH, following Mr Ferguson. Mr Dalgety said that to his inside at this stage was Brad Williamson, driving SKY PATROL, who he said was “sort of in the 2-wide line but heading to the inside (marker line).” Mr Dalgety also acknowledged that ahead of him, 4-wide and to his outside, was Mr Anderson, driving MONTAGE.
Mr Dalgety confirmed that while negotiating the first bend, Mr Anderson had shifted in and contacted the front leg of TRENDY VAN GOGH, resulting in the horse breaking and losing all chance.
Mr Dalgety said that, before and at the point of contact, there was not sufficient room for him to move down the track. He had intended to move down the track from his 3-wide position to trail Mr Barclay in the 2-wide line when it was safe to do so. TRENDY VAN GOGH was overracing on the bend leading up to the incident, Mr Dalgety said.
He was concerned that Brad Williamson had not completed his move to the pylons, and that RAMBLIN ROVER (driven by Hayden Douglas), who was next in the running line behind Brad Williamson (and was behind Mr Dalgety to his inside) was too close up at that stage to enable Mr Dalgety to safely shift down to the 2-wide line.
He estimated that Brad Williamson was between the marker line and 2-wide line (“probably one-and-a-half carts”) when Mr Anderson made contact with TRENDY VAN GOGH. Mr Dalgety acknowledged that Brad Williamson was “on the way” to the marker line.
Asked what he believed would have happened had he moved down the track at that stage to relieve the pressure that was coming from Mr Anderson, Mr Dalgety said he would have hit Mr Douglas and “probably” Mr Barclay’s sulky wheel.
“I just had nowhere to go, really,” Mr Dalgety said. “It’s a bit of a tough bend. A lot of horses hitting it at speed.”
Mr Dalgety said he could not recall anyone calling out before he was checked.
Mr Munro asked Mr Dalgety if he believed it was safe for him to manoeuvre during Brad Williamson’s shift down the track, or better to wait until Mr Williamson had fully repositioned on the pylons.
“I’ve got to wait until he’s there because I don’t see that he actually has a clear spot,” Mr Dalgety replied. “If I followed him and he ended up knocking over Ms Ottley in the green colours behind him (on the pylons), then it would have been carnage.”
Mr Dalgety added that he elected to hold his position 3-wide also because Mr Douglas was improving on the running line and, as the field settled, may have been first to secure the 2-wide trail behind Mr Barclay. He said Mr Douglas was “coming at speed” and had his horse’s legs inside TRENDY VAN GOGH’S wheel when the contact from Mr Anderson occurred.
On behalf of the Respondent, Nathan Williamson asked if Mr Dalgety’s ability to shift down the track was complicated by TRENDY VAN GOGH overracing. Mr Dalgety said this had added difficulty because it was harder to move in when overracing and his horse was “so eager to go forward.”
In response to a question from the Adjudicative Committee, Mr Dalgety said the manner in which Mr Anderson tried to shift down the track was “definitely not abrupt.”
Mr Dalgety reiterated how sharp the bottom bend was at Gore, and that he could see Mr Anderson’s horse was hanging in.
Nathan Williamson, for the Respondent
Open Driver Nathan Williamson, on behalf of Mr Anderson, said that in their opinion, from viewing the race videos, there was room enough at the stage of the race in question for Mr Dalgety’s horse to be safely moved into the 2-wide line.
It was also important to note Mr Dalgety’s evidence that the attempt by Mr Anderson to shift him down the track into the 2-wide line had been gradual and not abrupt, Mr Williamson added.
Nathan Williamson referred to the back straight video to make the case that Mr Anderson had met the requirements of the Shifting Ground Regulation and that there was adequate space for Mr Dalgety to be safely moved into the 2-wide line between Mr Barclay (JACCKA HENRY) and Mr Douglas (RAMBLIN ROVER).
“Our belief is that if Mr Anderson, with a clear advantage over Mr Dalgety, begins to ease him down the track, which he’s entitled to do, and he does it in a safe and gradual manner, then Mr Dalgety has got to move down with Mr Brad Williamson, who moves himself down to the rail,” Nathan Williamson said.
“I believe that Mr Anderson has moved his horse from 4-wide to 3-wide in a gradual manner, understanding that he can put Mr Dalgety in a one off position (2-wide). It’s our belief that (Mr Dalgety’s horse) was causing some problems to get into that position, and therefore he’s ended up not being able to get where he wanted to go, or he hasn’t actually relinquished the spot where he was 3-wide. He never moved when Mr Anderson gradually moved down and therefore Mr Dalgety has become awkwardly placed and contacted Mr Anderson’s wheel,” Nathan Williamson said.
With further reference to the race videos, Nathan Williamson argued that Brad Williamson was well advanced in the process of safely establishing himself on the marker line when Mr Anderson was attempting to shift Mr Dalgety down the track.
“We believe, and I believe the film backs up, that Mr Dalgety and Mr (Brad) Williamson weren’t racing close at all. There’s a lot of room for movement inward on Mr Dalgety’s behalf, and he hasn’t moved at all… Not a full cart-width between him and Brad Williamson, but certainly three-quarters of a cart-width between him and Brad Williamson to move down into that position.”
In essence, Nathan Williamson submitted that Mr Dalgety, in not relinquishing his 3-wide position, had been responsible for his own demise.
The Adjudicative Committee asked Nathan Williamson what he made of Mr Dalgety’s evidence that the front legs of Mr Douglas’ horse were inside TRENDY VAN GOGH’S sulky wheel when Mr Anderson contacted Mr Dalgety.
Nathan Williamson: “I heard Mr Dalgety’s evidence but I don’t think the film backs up what he said in regards to that.”
Adjudicative Committee: “Do you accept what Mr Munro said about camera angles on bends being tricky? Mr Dalgety was out there.”
Nathan Williamson: “Yes. I haven’t seen any of the three angles that would show that Mr Hayden Douglas is to the inside of Mr Dalgety… I can see after contact, yes (Mr Douglas) drove through on the inside of Mr Dalgety. But prior to contact, and when the shifts occurred from Mr Anderson, I think there’s almost half a length between Mr Dalgety and Mr Douglas.”
Nathan Williamson said, in his view, the fact that Mr Dalgety’s horse was overracing had played a significant part in the incident. Mr Williamson reminded the Adjudicative Committee of the evidence from Mr Dalgety, that there had been no calling out to suggest Mr Dalgety was in any difficulty with TRENDY VAN GOGH.
“We understand, obviously, the horse Carter was on is a difficult horse and he was having trouble getting it to where he needed to get it. It was obviously his intention to drop into the one-off (2-wide) line but he felt he couldn’t do that safely. In Mr Anderson’s defence, I think the video supports that he could have done it safely if his horse hadn’t of been the problem. That’s the crux of what we’re pointing out.”
Respondent Daniel Anderson
The Adjudicative Committee asked the Respondent about his intentions and what he was trying to do at the critical stages of the incident.
Mr Anderson said he looked to his inside just after the 1900 metre mark, then gradually began trying to ease Mr Dalgety down the track. Rewatching the race videos, Mr Anderson and Stewards agreed the attempted shift inwards had taken place over some 30 metres. Mr Anderson said he believed there was enough room at that stage for Mr Dalgety to get into the running line.
“Had his horse not been overracing a touch too, I do think he would have been able to get into the 2-wide line with no issues,” Mr Anderson said.
Adjudicative Committee: “Do you accept, though, that you’re making the shift so the onus is on you to do it safely? And if his horse is overracing, you’ve got to account for those sort of things?”
Mr Anderson: “Yes, but I looked over and… still believed at the time there was enough room for him to get down into the 2-wide line.”
Mr Anderson conceded his horse was laying in slightly. He attributed this to the tightness of the bottom bend at Gore.
Summing Up
Mr Munro said that the Shifting Ground Regulation puts the onus on the Driver who is making the move inwards, to do so with safety and in a gradual manner.
On this occasion, Stewards alleged that Mr Anderson allowed his horse to move in and, in the course of this movement, his sulky wheel had struck the front leg of Mr Dalgety’s horse, which broke stride and lost its chance.
Mr Anderson had conceded that his horse was laying in slightly on the bend. Mr Munro said this placed even more responsibility on the Driver to shift ground with safety.
Mr Dalgety stated in evidence that he was unable to ease the outside pressure at the time because, to his inside, Brad Williamson (SKY PATROL) had only partly completed his manoeuvre down to the marker line.
Mr Munro submitted that Mr Dalgety could not have safely moved down the track until Brad Williamson was established on the marker line. Mr Munro stressed that Brad Williamson was only part way through his movement to the marker line when the contact between the Respondent and Mr Dalgety occurred.
Stewards believed that Mr Dalgety had acted safely, with awareness of what was happening around him. Mr Dalgety wanted to ease in to a more favourable position in the running line, but in the Stewards’ view was unable, at that point of the race, to relieve the pressure that Mr Anderson had applied.
Mr Anderson had attempted to shift in and secure a 3-wide trail too soon, Mr Munro said. Stewards believed this was a misjudgement with quite large consequences, and that this amounted to careless driving.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The question of whether the Respondent drove carelessly rests on the Shifting Ground Regulation, which states:
During any race, a driver shall be permitted to shift ground:
1. Inwards and ease another runner down the track provided such driver is in a position to do so by having sufficient advantage over the horse about to be shifted inwards and that horse is clear of other horses to its inside so it can be moved in.
For the avoidance of doubt, the following shall apply:
The onus shall be on the driver shifting ground to ensure the move is made with safety and does not cause interference by conducting it in a gradual and acceptable manner thereby enabling the driver of the runner being moved to be able to take the necessary action to accommodate the manoeuvre.
In particular, the Adjudicative Committee finds the charge turns to a significant extent on whether Mr Dalgety was clear of other horses to his inside, so he could be safely moved into the 2-wide line by Mr Anderson.
The Adjudicative Committee used the available race videos to closely examine the actions of the Respondent and other Drivers relevant to the incident. The back straight camera angle was of most assistance (bearing in mind Mr Munro’s caution about the care required in assessing camera angles on a bend), as this came closest to providing a side-on profile of the runners as the incident unfolded.
Mr Anderson could be seen looking to his inside just after the 1900 metre mark and thereafter, over the course of some 30 metres, attempting to ease Mr Dalgety down the track into the 2-wide line.
The Adjudicative Committee believes Nathan Williamson was correct in pointing out on the back straight race video that, at the time Mr Anderson began his attempt to ease Mr Dalgety into the 2-wide line, there was potentially space between Mr Barclay (JACCKA HENRY) and Mr Douglas (RAMBLIN ROVER) for Mr Dalgety to move into.
The shift by Mr Anderson began little more than 300 metres after the start of the race, when some Drivers were still establishing where they would settle in the run. One of these was Brad Williamson, on SKY PATROL, who was positioned inside Mr Dalgety.
The Adjudicative Committee finds that when the Respondent commenced his shift inwards, Brad Williamson was in the process of shifting his horse down to the marker line. SKY PATROL was positioned between the 2-wide line and the marker line. A growing (though not yet full) gap was evolving inside Mr Dalgety.
The Adjudicative Committee finds, in these circumstances, that Mr Anderson was entitled to begin to attempt to ease Mr Dalgety down the track. Race driving is dynamic and fluid. Shifting ground with safety is of paramount importance. However, it is possible for different Drivers to move simultaneously and, if circumstances permit, to begin easing gradually and carefully down the track in anticipation of another partly-completed shift to their inside being fully completed.
The Adjudicative Committee does not share the view advanced by Stewards that Brad Williamson had to be fully established on the marker line in order for Mr Anderson to begin attempting to ease Mr Dalgety down the track.
The difficulty for the Respondent is Mr Dalgety’s evidence that he did not feel able to accommodate this shift down the track because his horse was overracing. The back straight video supported this. About four or five strides after Mr Anderson began shifting down the track, Mr Dalgety’s horse could be seen to be racing keenly. At this point, the margin between Mr Barclay’s helmet and Mr Dalgety’s horse (which was still one lane wider than Mr Barclay’s 2-wide position) appeared to tighten to less than one metre.
The Adjudicative Committee finds that Mr Anderson should not have persisted with his shift down the track, as the available space inside Mr Dalgety had tightened to what the back straight video angle suggested was an unsafe degree.
Mr Dalgety told the hearing that it was harder to move inwards when overracing and his horse was “so eager to go forward.”
Drivers intent on shifting ground have to be mindful of the evolving circumstances of those Drivers affected by the shift, and make strategic adjustments accordingly – including, if necessary, delaying or abandoning their attempt to ease another Driver down the track.
Given the circumstances that evolved on this occasion, the Adjudicative Committee finds that the Respondent has driven carelessly.
DECISION
The charge is found to be proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS
Stewards produced the Respondent’s record. Mr Anderson had had 70 drives this season and 109 drives last season. His lifetime drives stood at 344.
A reset period of 6 months or 200 drives applied with regard to the Careless Driving Rule.
Mr Anderson had two previous breaches of the Rule:
*Winton HRC on 8 May 2025 (fined $250 for hitting a wheel).
*Invercargill HRC on 12 June 2025 (4 day suspension, mid-level).
This was therefore Mr Anderson’s third careless driving breach within the 6 month reset period.
The Racing Integrity Board’s Harness Racing Penalty Guide proposed a starting point of a 7-day suspension for a second careless driving breach found to be high level. It did not provide a starting point for a third careless driving breach.
“High level” was defined as the Driver’s own horse, or another horse, losing all chance.
The interference to TRENDY VAN GOGH caused by Mr Anderson, elevated this to a high level breach, Mr Munro said.
Stewards invited the Adjudicative Committee to consider Mr Anderson’s status as a Junior Driver and cooperation throughout these proceedings, notwithstanding that he had exercised his prerogative to defend the charge. A lengthy suspension would be detrimental to Mr Anderson’s career, Mr Munro submitted.
Mr Anderson, who confined his driving to Otago and Southland, said a significant suspension would effectively curtail any hope of him qualifying for the upcoming New Zealand Junior Driver Championship.
He did not request to defer any possible period of suspension.
Nathan Williamson said there were mitigating factors to consider in setting the penalty, including that Mr Dalgety’s horse was overracing and had become awkwardly placed when the interference occurred.
A suspension of 7 or more days for Mr Anderson would be excessive, Mr Williamson submitted.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The RIB Penalty Guide defines a high-level breach of the Careless Driving Rule as one which causes interference resulting in a Driver’s own horse or another horse losing all chance.
Mr Anderson’s attempt to shift down the track passing the 1850 metre mark resulted in TRENDY VAN GOGH, driven by Mr Dalgety, being checked out of contention. Under the definition above, based on the consequences of the Respondent’s actions, the Adjudicative Committee finds this to be a high level breach.
The Penalty Guide provides a starting point of a 7-day suspension for a second careless driving breach that is found to be high level. It does not suggest a starting point for a third breach found to be high level, which, by definition, this is. The Adjudicative Committee therefore increases the starting point to an 8-day suspension to reflect Mr Anderson’s record under the Rule.
There are no other aggravating factors.
Defending the charge, as he was entitled to do, means Mr Anderson cannot receive any credit he otherwise may have received had he admitted the breach.
The Adjudicative Committee did carefully weigh a number of mitigating factors to determine where the penalty should fairly land.
A helpful precedent is Burton 2025, in which a Junior Driver defended a careless driving charge which was found proved. Though deemed to be a high-level breach due to a rival horse having its chances extinguished, the Adjudicative Committee found the degree of carelessness was not high, and reduced the starting point of a 3-day suspension by 1 day.
Here, Stewards described Mr Anderson’s degree of carelessness as “a misjudgement with quite large consequences.” The Adjudicative Committee considers Mr Anderson’s degree of carelessness to be at the low to mid-level.
Consideration is also given to the timing of this suspension inevitably curtailing any hopes Mr Anderson had of qualifying for the upcoming New Zealand Junior Driver Championship.
Although it was incumbent on Mr Anderson, who had initiated the move inwards, to make his own assessment of the horse he was seeking to ease into the 2-wide line, evidence of there being no calling out to alert him to TRENDY VAN GOGH overracing and potentially in difficulty on the bend offers some additional mitigation.
In the full sweep of circumstances, the Adjudicative Committee considers the impact of an 8-day suspension on a Junior Driver at a busy time of the season to be too harsh.
For the reasons outlined above, the starting point of an 8-day suspension is reduced to a 6-day suspension. The Adjudicative Committee believes this fairly reflects the Respondent’s deteriorating record under the Rule, the degree of carelessness displayed on this occasion, and the consequences for TRENDY VAN GOGH.
CONCLUSION
Junior Driver Daniel Anderson is suspended for 6 days, from the conclusion of racing on 4 September 2025, up to and including 9 October 2025. The Otago-Southland meetings affected by the period of suspension are: Invercargill HRC (11 September), Oamaru HRC (14 September), Winton HRC (18 September), Gore HRC (28 September), Wyndham HRC (2 October) and Northern Southland TC (9 October).
Decision Date: 04/09/2025
Publish Date: 12/09/2025