NZ Metro TC 26 April 2024 – R10 – James Curtin

Summary of Facts:

Following the running of Race 10, an Information was filed by the Stipendiary Steward Shane Renault alleging the Respondent James Curtin breached Rule 869(4)(6)(b)(c) in that when driving TEDS LEGACY, he shifted outwards near the 1050m, forcing SHEPHERDS DELIGHT wider on the track.

The ‘Pushout Rule’ (r689) provides that:

(6) Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:

(a) drivers are permitted to move ground inwards or outwards at any stage of the race to improve their racing position; (b) a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track; (c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.

(7) Sub-rule (6)(b) and (c) of this Rule shall apply until 1000 metres from the finish of the race. From this point all drivers shall be expected to make moves, with safety, to ensure the horse obtains the best possible place in the field.

The Respondent admitted the breach and endorsed the Information accordingly.

Stipendiary Steward S Renault used the available race films to demonstrate the breach.  He pointed out TEDS LEGACY driven by Mr Curtin, when approaching the 1050m, racing 4 back on the pylons with SHEPHERDS DELIGHT driven by Tim Williams, racing in a one off position and 4 back. HARRISON, driven by John Morrison, he said, was racing immediately ahead of Mr Williams and outside Mr Curtin, opting to shift 3 wide at the 1050m. Mr Renault pointed out Mr Curtin shift out and take up the position vacated by Mr Morrison and in doing so, forced Mr Williams wider on the track prior to the 1000m.

Mr Curtin elected to make no submissions in relation to the breach, apart from conceding the incident was prior to the 1000m.

Decision:

The charge is admitted by the Respondent and is therefore deemed proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault produced the Respondent’s record, which was clear under this Rule.

Mr Renault stated that the Penalty Guide provided a $200 fine for an initial breach of this Rule. He said there were no aggravating factors to consider.

Mr Curtin elected to make no submissions in regard to penalty.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Penalty Guide establishes a $200 fine for an initial breach of this Rule.

The Adjudicative Committee determined there were no aggravating factors to consider, therefore no uplift was warranted.

The Adjudicative Committee deemed there was no reason to deviate from the Penalty Guide starting point of a $200 fine.

A $200 fine was determined to be an appropriate penalty in this case.

Conclusion:

Mr Curtin is fined the sum of $200.