Otaki-Maori RC 19 October 2024 – R1 – Liam Kauri

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 1, the “McMillan Equine Feeds Maiden”, Mr Goodwin presented an Information charging Mr Kauri, the Rider of “RADIANT LASS” with careless riding in breach of Rule 638(1)(d).

It was alleged that Mr Kauri allowed his mount to shift inwards at the 1200 metres mark when not sufficiently clear of “ZESHADOW” (Mr R Goyaram), which was dictated inwards contacting “RISQUE RULER” (Mr H Grace), which contacted the runner’s rail, with both those runners having to be checked.

Mr Kauri, assisted by Ms Clapperton, did not admit the breach of the Rule, so the Information was heard on a defended basis.

The Adjudicative Committee received evidence from Mr Goodwin as to his interpretation of the race films, Mr R Goyaram (the Rider of “ZESHADOW”), Mr L Kauri and Ms K Clapperton.

The race films depicted that in the 100 metres after the start, “LEMAITRE” ridden by Ms T Davies (which had drawn barrier 6) and others, including RADIANT LASS (from barrier 3), angled inwards seeking positions nearer to the rail, as often occurs.  Inside Mr Kauri’s mount were “ZESHADOW” (barrier 2) and “RISQUE RULER” (barrier 1).  Ms Davies, being aware of her mount placing pressure on Mr Kauri’s mount, straightened “LEMAITRE”, to relieve this pressure.  All the outside horses straightened, but Mr Kauri’s mount continued on an inward movement so as to cause “ZESHADOW” and “RISQUE RULER” to be checked.

Mr Kauri’s evidence was that when Ms Davies’ mount “came onto” him and applied pressure to his mount, he could not maintain his line and eased his mount.  But because he was concerned he might clip heels with her mount, he allowed his mount to shift inwards.  But he said was in order to avoid what he thought was a difficult situation.

Mr Goodwin contended, correctly, that there was always separation between the mounts of Ms Davies and Mr Kauri.

Reasons for Decision:

To be “careless”, is a failure to give sufficient attention as is reasonably required in the circumstances that a person faces.  It is sometimes called negligence, or the failure to behave with the level of care that a reasonable Rider would have exercised in the same circumstances.

The Adjudicative Committee concluded that while Mr Kauri made a momentary error in thinking that the pressure on his mount might have caused him to believe it might clip heels, there were several events that occurred over a short period.  The standard of “perfection” is not the test to apply when assessing if someone is “careless”, but whether the default is not that which is required of a reasonable Rider.  The degree of satisfaction on any charge is on the “balance of probabilities” and in all the circumstances, it was left unsure as to whether that test had been met.

Decision:

Accordingly the charge was not proved and was dismissed.