R Te Aroha 18 September 2026 – R2 – Billy Marshall

SUMMARY:

Following the running of  Race 2, Mr Davidson presented an Information charging Mr Marshall with careless riding, in breach of Rule 638(1)(d), in that “he allowed his mount FLEUR DE CHAMP to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear OUR EASY STREET, which was checked near the 800 metres”.

Mr Marshall acknowledged that he understood the Rule and confirmed that he denied the breach.  Accordingly, the matter was heard on a defended basis on raceday.

EVIDENCE:

Mr Davidson called two witnesses. Firstly, evidence was provided from Mr Oatham with his observations and interpretation of the race films, and secondly, Mr H McNeill the Rider of OUR EASY STREET.

Mr Marshall gave evidence, as well as making submissions.

The Adjudicative Committee also had the benefit of its own observations of the relevant race films.

Witness Mr J Oatham (Chief Stipendiary Steward)

Mr Oatham used available film to point out that as the field approached the 800 metre mark, Mr Marshall’s mount moved forward outside OUR EASY STREET. He was at this point, three quarters of in front of that horse and on its outside. FLEUR DE CHAMP then continued to improve but moved across, pressuring OUR EASY STREET, who had to be checked. Mr Oatham stated that at the time of crossing OUR EASY STREET, Mr Marshall’s horse was barely 1 length clear. Mr Marshall continued to ride forward and did not alleviate the pressure, forcing Mr McNeill on OUR EASY STREET, to check his mount, with OUR EASY STREET losing momentum.

Witness Mr H McNeill

Mr H McNeill, the Rider of OUR EASY STREET, was called as a witness by Mr Davidson and confirmed that at the 800 metre mark, FLEUR DE CHAMP had improved on his outside and then moved across, taking his line and forcing him to check his horse. As a result, he lost momentum. At the time FLEUR DE CHAMP came across, Mr McNeill considered it was “definitely” not clear of his horse.

Respondent Mr Marshall

Mr Marshall had no questions for Mr Oatham or Mr McNeill.

Mr Marshall’s evidence was that he tried to keep his horse straight and so was not at fault. He had endeavoured to hold his horse out and used the whip in his right hand to do so, but without success.

SUMMING UP

Mr Davidson stated that it was clear that Mr Marshall’s mount had shifted inwards at the 800 metre point, crowding and checking OUR EASY STREET, which lost momentum. This was clear by the evidence of Mr Oatham and Mr McNeill.

Mr Marshall reiterated the efforts he had made to keep his horse straight and asked what he could have done to correct the situation. Mr Davidson advised he needed to have taken hold of his horse, rather than continue to ride forward.

DECISION:

After considering all the evidence and submissions, the charge was found to be proved.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that at the 800 metre mark, Mr Marshall’s mount moved forward outside OUR EASY STREET. He was at this point, three quarters of a length in front and on its outside. FLEUR DE CHAMP then continued to improve but moved across, pressuring OUR EASY STREET, who had to be checked and lost momentum. At the time of crossing, OUR EASY STREET, Mr Marshall’s horse, was barely 1 length clear, not its own length and another length clear, as required under the Rules.

Although Mr Marshall told the Adjudicative Committee he believed that it was not his fault, the Adjudicative Committee could not agree.  The simple fact is that FLEUR DE CHAMP continued to shift inwards, when insufficiently clear of OUR EASY STREET; this was careless of Mr Marshall.

The charge was found to be established by a wide margin.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Mr Davidson advised that Mr Marshall had one previous careless riding breach in 62 rides.  The breach being in August 2026 at Woodville and as a result, he was suspended for 1 National Jumps Day.

Mr Davidson noted that as this was the end of the Jumping Season, a suspension was not possible and so a monetary fine was required. He considered that the breach was in the “low to mid range” and that a fine of $500 was recommended.

Mr Marshall submitted that what occurred was “not intentional”, but accepted that there would be a fine.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

Mr Marshall’s record was viewed as a neutral factor and after considering all the evidence and submissions, the Adjudicative Committee determined that a fine of $500 was appropriate.

CONCLUSION:

Mr Marshall is fined $500.