Manawatu HRC 1 April 2025 – R4 (heard 6 April 2025 at Manawatu) – Sailesh Abernethy

Background:

After the running of Race 4, the ‘Peter & Wendy Ferguson Mobile Pace’, an Information was lodged alleging a breach of Rule 869(3)(b). Details are as follows:

‘in that he drove carelessly rounding the first turn by shifting ground inwards when not sufficiently clear which resulted in Leo Lincoln (P Ferguson) being checked and losing its position’.

Rule 869(3)(b) provides – ‘No driver in any race shall drive – carelessly.

Due to time constraints, along with the Respondent’s travel commitments, the hearing did not take place on 1 April 2025. Same was opened, adjourned and took place prior to Race 1 of the Manawatu HRC Club Meeting on 6 April 2025.

Mr Abernethy confirmed he understood the Rule and that he looked to defend the alleged breach.

Evidence:

Stewards identified the incident by way of film (front, side and back). STICKIFINGERS drew gate 4. Shortly after the 2000m start and on leaving the straight, FREDASTAIRE (Mr J Abernethy) is against the fence and leading the field. LEO LINCOLN (Mr P Ferguson) is positioned behind, with STICKIFINGERS to their outside. The Respondent then looks to cross to the trail. Before the manoeuvre is satisfactorily completed, Mr Ferguson is obliged to take hold with his drive checked. Stewards contended that it remained the obligation of the Respondent to ensure that throughout the move, he remained satisfactorily clear of horses to his inside and that in failing to do so, LEO LINCOLN suffered interference.

Using film, Mr Abernethy contended that at the point of crossing, he was clear of FREDASTAIR and in the front of the nose of LEO LINCOLN. He also asserted that the check to LEO LINCOLN, took place after he had moved and was a result of Mr Ferguson continuing to chase up. He also noted that if Mr Ferguson considered he had been subject to interference, he would have lodged a protest (acknowledging that STICKIFINGERS went on to win the race and there was a relatively small margin between that horse and LEO LINCOLN, who finished 3rd).

Decision:

Upon due consideration, the charge was deemed to be proved.

Reasons for Decision:

Films provided identify a check to LEO LINCOLN. It is therefore a question as to whether such check was a consequence of the actions of Mr Abernethy, or whether it was, as he asserts, as a result of Mr Ferguson continuing to chase up. Back straight film was particularly helpful. The Adjudicative Committee could not identify that point at which a move could be safely and satisfactorily completed. Mr Ferguson was entitled to maintain, or look to improve his position behind the leading horse. In conclusion, it was determined that the Respondent remained at fault in respect of the interference suffered. On that basis, the Adjudicative Committee deemed the charge to be proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Stewards contended that the degree of carelessness sat at the low level. The Respondent’s record is clear in respect of any breach of this type, within the 6-month reset period. The Adjudicative Committee was referred to the current Harness Racing Penalty Guide. Mr Abernethy did not offer comment around penalty, beyond expressing preference of a fine over suspension.

Reasons for Penalty:

Given the extent of interference and its consequence carelessness, it is deemed to be in the low range. The current Penalty Guide provides for a starting point of a $300 fine or 2 days suspension in such circumstance ie: 1st breach.  A fine of $300 was adopted as the starting point, with penalty reduced to $250, reflecting the Respondent’s commendable record.

Conclusion:

Mr Sailesh Abernethy is fined a sum of $250.