Northern Southland TC 8 March 2025 – R8 (heard 12 March 2025 at Invercargill) – Nathan Williamson
ID: RIB52484
Animal Name:
ALWAYS BE BATMAN
Code:
Harness
Race Date:
08/03/2025
Race Club:
Northern Southland Trotting Club
Race Location:
Ascot Park Raceway - 29 Findlay Road, Ascot, Invercargill, 9810
Race Number:
R8
Hearing Date:
12/03/2025
Hearing Location:
Ascot Park Raceway, Invercargill
Outcome: Proved
Penalty: Driver Nathan Williamson is suspended for 3 days
BACKGROUND
Mr Munro alleged that Open Driver Nathan Williamson (ALWAYS BE BATMAN) drove carelessly in Race 8 when he shifted ground inwards rounding the final bend, crowding and checking an inside runner (HERE’S JOHNY), driven by Peter Hunter, which broke and lost all chance.
Rule 869(3)(b) provides:
No driver in any race shall drive carelessly.
The hearing of this Information was opened and adjourned at the Northern Southland Trotting Club’s meeting on 8 March 2025, and was heard at the Invercargill Harness Racing Club’s meeting on 12 March 2025.
At the start of the hearing, Mr Williamson acknowledged that he was familiar with the Rule and the nature of the charge. He confirmed that he did not admit a breach of the Rule.
Stewards called one witness; Mr Hunter, the Driver of HERE’S JOHNY.
EVIDENCE
Mr Munro, with the assistance of Mr Renault, used the available race videos to identify Mr Williamson (ALWAYS BE BATMAN) positioned 3 back in the running line approaching the final bend. Mr Williamson was following Mr Hunter (HERE’S JOHNY), who was one out and one back. Mr Hunter was shown moving wider on the bend from about the 500 metre mark, with Mr Williamson improving 4 wide outside him from about the 400 metre mark.
Marginally before the top of the straight, at about the 240 metre mark, Mr Williamson was shown on the videos crossing the reins and reaching down with his right hand to release the removeable deafeners. Stewards alleged the Respondent then lost control of ALWAYS BE BATMAN and shifted in abruptly, checking HERE’S JOHNY, which broke as a result and lost all chance.
The Adjudicative Committee asked for the primary race video to be paused at the point Mr Williamson reached down to release the earplugs to assess the separation between his inside wheel and Mr Hunter’s outside wheel. It was evident there was a gap between the wheels which quickly closed after the gear was activated by the Respondent.
Mr Williamson’s inside sulky wheel could be seen making contact with HERE’S JOHNY’s back legs at about the 220 metre mark, Mr Munro said. The damage was done, he added, before Mr Williamson could steer ALWAYS BE BATMAN away from Mr Hunter’s horse.
Any shift inwards by the Respondent had to be made with safety, Mr Munro said. Stewards submitted that this had not happened.
Witness Peter Hunter
Stewards called Mr Hunter, the Driver of HERE’S JOHNY, to give evidence. He was asked how the horse was travelling on the final bend. He said his horse was typically one-paced and flat-footed when the sprint came. He confirmed he had eased HERE’S JOHNY out from behind the parked horse to attempt to make ground. He said HERE’S JOHNY, again typically, dug in and competed when ALWAYS BE BATMAN improved outside him.
Mr Hunter was asked by Mr Munro if he saw the incident coming or if it happened quickly. “You can see them coming,” he said, “but it came very sharply the last bit.”
There was no time to react to Mr Williamson’s inward movement, Mr Hunter said. “Nathan goes for the plugs and he ducks in badly.”
Responding to a question from the Adjudicative Committee, Mr Hunter said he did not believe HERE’S JOHNY had shifted out just prior to the contact with ALWAYS BE BATMAN.
Respondent Nathan Williamson
Mr Williamson based his defence of the charge on his contention that the interference occurred during a permissible attempt under the Shifting Ground Regulation to move Mr Hunter back down the track. Mr Hunter did not relinquish a position that he no longer had rights to, Mr Williamson argued. He submitted his actions on ALWAYS BE BATMAN could therefore not be held responsible for the interference to HERE’S JOHNY.
The relevant part of the Shifting Ground Regulation was read to the hearing:
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.
Using the race videos to present his case, Mr Williamson identified Mr Hunter moving out of the one-one before the 400 metre mark and urging his horse to go forward. Mr Hunter was unable to get up onto the wheel of the parked horse and had dropped back about half-a-length on the bend, Mr Williamson said. Having failed to progress, Mr Hunter adopted a “loose one-off position” and floated between a committed 3-wide position and the running line, the Respondent submitted.
Mr Williamson identified a point on the last part of the bend where he believed he had a clear advantage over Mr Hunter. The available angles of the relative positions of the two horses’ heads at this stage of the race were unhelpful. Mr Williamson said the relative positions of the sulky wheels on the video footage supported his assertion that he had an advantage over Mr Hunter from about the 260 metre mark.
Mr Williamson said when he improved wider to be ahead of Mr Hunter on the last part of the bend, HERE’S JOHNY did pick up the bit. He also stated that ALWAYS BE BATMAN was laying in round the bend. Mr Williamson said that over a distance of 20 to 25 metres, he eased HERE’S JOHNY back down the track about half a cart width.
The Respondent said he then made the deliberate decision to release his horse’s earplugs, with the knowledge that ALWAYS BE BATMAN was laying in, and attempted to fully shift Mr Hunter back down the track behind the parked horse. Mr Williamson said he chose this manoeuvre so he could save ground leaving the bend.
Elaborating on his tactic, Mr Williamson said, “Allowing my horse to drift in, for me, is the same as saying, ‘easing Mr Hunter down (the track).’ I’ve got an advantage over Mr Hunter. Under the Rules… the horse that has the advantage is allowed to ease another runner down.
“Mr Hunter has no runner directly to his inside. I can put him back one-off. I’ve got ahead of Mr Hunter…. My thought process is, ‘I can release my deafeners and let my horse drift in and put Mr Hunter back where he came from because he is in no position to be trying to come off, or he has no rights to the position he’s trying to be in.”
Mr Williamson added, “Under these Rules, yes, my horse was hanging. Yes, I allowed my horse to roll in.” He said he did not feel as though he had breached any Rule.
Asked how much of this incident could be attributed to his horse’s behaviour, Mr Williamson replied, “None.”
He did concede that his movement inwards after releasing the earplugs “was possibly more abrupt because the horse was hanging in so much” but added, “I don’t believe it was that abrupt.”
Summing Up
The Respondent had admitted allowing his horse to lay in and then, after releasing the earplugs, shifted in because he was trying to force Mr Hunter down the track to save ground, Mr Munro said. Stewards felt Mr Hunter, an experienced Driver with more than 3000 lifetime drives, did not have enough time to react.
“The Regulations make it very clear,” Mr Munro said. “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 therefore enabling the Driver of the runner being moved – in this case Mr Hunter – to be able to take the necessary action to accommodate the shift inwards.”
Stewards submitted that the movement in by Mr Williamson had simply been too quick, and he had therefore driven carelessly.
Mr Williamson, in summary, believed that in pushing Mr Hunter back in about half a cart width prior to activating his gear, he had clearly signalled his intention to further shift HERE’S JOHNY down the track back into the running line. He said Mr Hunter should have been aware and accommodated the pressure that came from his outside when the earplugs were released.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Respondent, in this instance, had an ambitious plan that didn’t come off. Mr Williamson stated in evidence that ALWAYS BE BATMAN lay in on the turn. In improving outside HERE’S JOHNY, Mr Williamson said he had shifted Mr Hunter in by half a cart width and moved ahead of him to gain an advantage. It was the Respondent’s tactical decision to then release the earplugs and push Mr Hunter further down the track so that his own horse could save ground.
This attempted manoeuvre put additional onus on Mr Williamson when it came to maintaining control of ALWAYS BE BATMAN. Mr Hunter said he felt he didn’t have enough time to react to the inwards movement. The Adjudicative Committee agrees. There were only 8 or 9 strides between Mr Williamson releasing the earplugs and his horse making contact with the back legs of Mr Hunter’s horse. The shift in by Mr Williamson was too abrupt. It was not gradual or acceptable.
Another consideration defeated the argument made by the Respondent under the Shifting Ground Regulation. By the time Mr Williamson crowded in on Mr Hunter and made contact, Driver Shane Walkinshaw (RISING STORM) had shifted off the peg line and improved his horse in the one-off line to the inside of Mr Hunter’s wheel. Mr Hunter was therefore unable to relieve the pressure by shifting back down the track, even if he had been given enough time.
In addition, Mr Williamson attributed none of the interference to the behaviour of his horse.
Given the factors described, the Adjudicative Committee finds the Respondent has driven carelessly and breached the Rule.
DECISION
The charge is found to be proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS
Stewards produced the Respondent’s record. Mr Williamson had had 9035 lifetime drives, with 100 drives to date this season and 414 last season.
His record under the Rule was clear. He had been suspended for shifting ground causing interference on 12 September 2024. His 241 drives since then meant the reset applied. His record was excellent for such a busy Driver, Mr Munro said.
Stewards submitted the degree of interference to HERE’S JOHNY caused the horse to lose all chance, which meant this was graded as a high-level careless driving breach. In such circumstances, Mr Munro said the RIB Penalty Guide provided a starting point of a 3-day suspension. Stewards saw this as an appropriate penalty in this case.
Mr Williamson regularly drove in Canterbury, as well as Otago-Southland, Mr Munro said. Stewards accepted upcoming Addington meetings could be included in any period of suspension.
Mr Williamson submitted this should be treated as a mid-level breach because, in his opinion, HERE’S JOHNY was already a beaten runner when the interference occurred. He asked the Adjudicative Committee to consider the lowest penalty possible, and inquired if a hybrid penalty of a suspension and fine might be applicable.
Mr Williamson requested a deferment of any suspension to allow him to fulfil driving engagements at the Wyndham meeting on 15 March 2025.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The breach is found to be high-level. The careless driving by the Respondent caused HERE’S JOHNY to break up and lose all chance. The RIB Penalty Guide, in capturing these circumstances, provides a starting point of a 3-day suspension for a first breach. The Adjudicative Committee considers this an appropriate penalty.
There are no aggravating or mitigating factors that warrant a deviation from the starting point. Mr Williamson was entitled to defend the charge, and therefore cannot receive any credit he otherwise may have received had he admitted the breach.
The Adjudicative Committee did not entertain the possibility of a hybrid penalty involving a suspension and fine. There were no special circumstances.
CONCLUSION
The Respondent’s request for a deferment is granted. Driver Nathan Williamson is suspended for three days, from the conclusion of racing on 15 March 2025, up to and including racing on 21 March 2025. The meetings affected by the period of suspension are: Forbury Park TC (16 March) and NZ Metropolitan TC (19 March and 21 March).
Decision Date: 12/03/2025
Publish Date: 19/03/2025