Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 5 May 2025 – Allen Pyers

Background:

This charge arises from Race 4 of the Manawatu Harness Racing Club Meeting on 13 March 2025. An Information and resultant charge were lodged, alleging a breach of Rule 869(7)(a). Details are as follows:

That on Thursday the 13th March 2025 in Race 4 at Manawatu HRC Meeting, you allowed your gelding to shift in, contacting a track marker approaching the 200m, an alleged breach of Rule 869(7)(a) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing.

Rule 869(7A)(a) provides – Every driver who moves inwards shall ensure: that contact is not made with any track marker where it shall be a defence to a breach of this sub-rule if the driver establishes that the breach was attributable to the behaviour of his own horse or any other horse in the race.

The Respondent confirmed that he sought to defend the charge.

Evidence:

Stewards identified the incident by way of film. Same is supplemented by that Summary of Facts dated 1 April 2025. Salient details are that as the Respondent’s gelding approached the 200 metre mark, he contacted the marker peg. RIB Stewards present at the race meeting (Mr M Sole and Mr S Mulcay), were of the view that the contact was the result of Driver error, with no mitigating factors apparent.  It was noted that Mr Pyers had received a warning under the same Rule at the Kapiti Coast Harness Racing Club Meeting on 19 January 2025.

Transcript of that audio of the conversation between Mr Sole and Mr Pyers as recorded on race day, was read to the Adjudicative Committee.

Whilst not denying that his horse made contact with the marker, Mr Pyers contended that the wording of the Information ie: that he allowed the horse to to make contact with the marker, is not correct. He also expressed concern that a comment made by Mr Sole, that he ran over the middle of the marker, is not correct. He added that the horse was lugging and that he had nursed his drive around the corner. He has since purchased an anti-lugging bit and the horse is steering much better now.

Decision:

The charge is found to be proved.

Reasons for Decision:

The fact the horse struck the marker pegs is not in dispute – video evidence confirms this. The pegs were struck twice. Mr Pyers’ concerns around the wording of the Information and comments made by Mr Sole, are noted. The wording of the particular Rule remains important, in that it requires that every Driver shall ensure that contact is not made with any marker peg. The use of the word ‘allowed’ within the Information, is not critical in determining whether a breach of the pertinent Rule has taken place. The fact that the horse was tiring and lugging, is not sufficient as to establish that the breach was attributable to the behaviour of the horse and as such, that defence provided for within the Rule, is not accepted.

Submissions for Penalty:

A breach of this nature is normally dealt with by way of a Minor Infringement Notice (MIN). The schedule provides for a fine of $100. This was the penalty sought by the Informant. The Respondent did not offer specific comment. On balance and upon consideration of all pertinent matters, a fine of $100 was deemed the appropriate penalty.

Conclusion:

Mr Pyers is fined a sum of $100.