NZ Metro TC 8 April 2023 – R5 (heard 10 April 2023 at Motukarara) – Tim Williams

Summary of Facts:

This adjourned hearing was heard at the Banks Peninsula Trotting Club’s meeting at Motukarara on 10 April 2023.

Following the running of Race 9, the Respondent, Driver Tim Williams, denied a breach of Rule 869(7A)(c), namely that PEREGRINE, driven by Mr Williams, shifted inwards passing the 2100m causing an inside runner, SIOUX  PRINCESS to strike several track markers which were dislodged.

The Respondent endorsed the Information ‘I do not admit the breach of the Rule’ and confirmed he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.

Rule 869(7A)(c) provides:

(7A) Every driver who moves inwards shall ensure:

(c) that the movement does not cause any other driver, horse or sulky to contact any track
marker or protrude inside the marker line.

Using available video footage, Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault identified PEREGRINE who was racing 3 back in the two wide line trailing NAZARETH, driven by John Dunn, approaching the 2100m, with SIOUX PRINCESS driven by Sam Ottley, racing on the pylons and improving steadily. Mr Renault pointed out OUTAMYWAY driven by Paul Nairn, go into a break and shift wider on the track with Mr Dunn improving across to take up the pylons position surrendered by Mr Nairn. Mr Williams, he said, then followed Mr Dunn across to the pylons and in doing so, shifted in when not clear, forcing Miss Ottley down onto the track markers of which 3 were struck, becoming dislodged, with one causing a rearward runner to jump and then break.

Miss Ottley was called as a witness but was found to be evasive and unhelpful with her answers to questions from the Stewards and Adjudicative Committee. She stated that she anticipated Mr Williams crossing down to the pylons and had eased to allow him to cross, but was not sure what happened after that as it was 8 races ago. She was not sure how she went over the track markers and was unsure whether she received any pressure from her outside to cause her to strike the track markers. This Adjudicative Committee found Miss Ottley’s evidence not credible.

Mr Williams stated that the films were inconclusive as in two of the replays, he is clear of Miss Ottley and with the other two, the camera angles arguably not accurate enough to say that he was not clear of Miss Ottley. Mr Williams questioned Miss Ottley, who again was unhelpful to the hearing with her answers.

Decision:

After careful consideration of the film replays and evidence presented, this Adjudicative Committee has found that near the 2100m, Mr Williams followed Mr Dunn across to the pylons after Mr Nairns’ drive had broken and shifted wider on the track. The Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that inside Mr Williams, Miss Ottley did anticipate Mr Williams’ shift inwards and eased her drive in order to allow Mr Williams to cross. It found that Miss Ottley continued to ease her drive and eventually was forced down over 3 track markers, dislodging them, with one causing interference to a rear runner. The Adjudicative Committee is further satisfied that in the movement inwards by Mr Williams, to follow Mr Dunn across to the pylons, he has not been clear and has been the cause of Miss Ottley being forced down over the 3 track markers. This Adjudicative Committee found the video replays of this incident compelling with Miss Ottley’s evidence uncompelling and not credible.

Submission for Penalty:

Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault produced the Respondent’s record which was clear of any breaches under this Rule.  Mr Williams’ driving statistics were 96 drives so far this season with 680 last season. Mr Renault stated that this breach was mid range, with the Penalty Guide providing a $300 starting point for a mid range breach. He added that an aggravating factor was the fact that a trailing horse was interfered with by a dislodged track marker lying on the track. Mr Renault submitted that a fine of $300 be considered as penalty in this case.

The Respondent submitted that a $300 fine was excessive for the breach.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Penalty Guide provides a penalty starting point of;

• $300 for a mid range breach

After evaluating all the factors, the Adjudicative Committee determined that a fine of $300, as per the Penalty Guide for a mid range breach, to be an appropriate penalty in this case.

Conclusion:

The Respondent, Mr Williams, was fined the sum of $300.