NZ Metro TC 30 May 2024 – R5 – Terence Siegfried Chmiel

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 5, Hagley Windows & Doors Mobile Pace, Open Driver, Terence Siegfried Chmiel, denied a breach of Rule 869(3)(f) in that, as the Driver of GLENGARRY MOONLIGHT in the race, he “drove improperly when shifting wider on the track instead of waiting for a run in the passing lane which allowed [stablemate] MIKI BENNETT a run to his inside.”

Rule 869 provides:

(3)  No river in any race shall drive:

      (f)  improperly

EVIDENCE:

Stipendiary Steward, Shane Renault, showed a video replay of the entire 1980 metres mobile start race. He showed GLENGARRY MOONLIGHT go forward at the start from its barrier position 8 to lead, with MIKI BENNETT, having drawn 2, dropping in to get the trail behind it. The Respondent had looked inwards when crossing.

Shortly after, TEDS LEGACY (Jim Curtin) came across and took the lead, leaving the Respondent in the trail and MIKI BENNETT 3-places back on the markers, Mr Renault said. At the 400 metres, there had been no change in those positions. At that point, the Respondent attempted to shift off the back of Mr Curtin, but was held up for a run. When he did manage to shift off, the horse was under pressure and losing ground. It “battled” in the straight, Mr Renault said. When he did shift out, a run remained available to the inside of the leader, but the Respondent elected not to shift back down.

Mr Renault said that Stewards were alleging that, on the bend, approaching the passing lane run to which he was entitled, the Respondent, being aware that the stablemate was on his back, had shifted wider on the track, assisting the stablemate to get an inside run at about the 300 metres. The Respondent had driven improperly by allowing his horse to shift outwards when it was already under pressure, enabling the stablemate a run. Mr Curtin’s runner was not stopping and two other runners were improving round. The only reason that the Respondent has shifted out was to give a run to the stablemate, MIKI BENNETT, Mr Renault alleged.

The Respondent said that, at the time, Mr Curtin’s runner was “flat” and stopping. He was not aware that MIKI BENNETT was still on his back, and had not even thought about it. He was driving his own race, he said. The passing lane was still 50 metres away. He wanted to “get out and get going”, as his horse was travelling well but, as soon as he attempted to go, his runner had dropped the bit and dropped back 2 lengths. At no stage did he look around to see what runner was on his back, he said. He was driving his horse according to how it felt at the time, he said. He had looked across early in the race to make sure that he was clear before crossing to the markers.

DECISION:

The charge was found not proved.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Respondent has been charged that he has driven improperly. “Improperly” means in a manner not in accordance with accepted standards, and improper driving can take any one of a number of forms, as previous cases show. The Respondent has been charged that he drove improperly on this occasion simply because, in the view of the Stewards, he had driven in a manner aimed at and giving an advantage to a trailing runner, a stablemate.

Mr Renault argued that the Respondent drove improperly in attempting to shift out from the trail, when he should have awaited the passing lane run. That run would have inevitably come, but the Respondent, balancing a number of factors, made the decision that the best of the available options, was to attempt to shift wider on the track. He felt that his runner was travelling well, while the leader, TEDS LEGACY, appeared to him to be “flat” and stopping. The entrance to the passing lane was still 50 metres away.

To the Respondent’s surprise, immediately he made the decision to “get out and get going” his runner had dropped the bit and dropped back 2 lengths. The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the Respondent’s decision at the time, was a reasonable one. His evidence was credible and was supported by the video evidence.

Had the Respondent’s actions not potentially advantaged a stablemate, then it is most unlikely that any charge would have been brought. The only “improper” element of the drive involved the alleged, potential advantage to the stablemate. The word “potential” is used because the stablemate, MIKI BENNETT, having availed itself of the passing lane, battled into 4th placing. The Respondent’s runner, GLENGARRY MOONLIGHT, finished in 6th placing, over 7 lengths from the winner, having enjoyed the trail for most of the race.

The standard of proof is on the “balance of probabilities”. However, “the more serious the charge and consequences, the more cogent the evidence should be” (RIB v Mangos, April 2023 – a charge of improper driving). The starting point for penalty for improper driving under the RIB Harness Racing Penalty Guide is an 8-days suspension. The charge of improper driving is a serious charge.

The Adjudicative Committee “has to be sure, from the cogency and force of all the evidence, that the charge has been established to its comfortable satisfaction on the balance of probabilities, but to a high degree and that the claimed defence was untenable” (RIB v Mangos).

The Adjudicative Committee is not fully satisfied to a high degree of being sure that the evidence that it accepted was strong and cogent, to establish the charge of improper driving (RIB v Mangos).