Rangiora HRC 2 March 2025 – R3 – Barry Ford

INTRODUCTION

Mr Williams alleged that in Race 3, Mr Ford (MANAKAU BLAZE) drove in a manner capable of diminishing his chances of winning when racing four wide throughout.

Rule 869(3)(g) provides: “No driver in any race shall drive in any manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning.”

The Stewards Case

Mr Williams called Mr Renault as a witness, who referred to the incident through the use of the race videos.

Mr Renault first pointed out MANAKAU BLAZE at the start of the race. Mr Renault said Mr Ford’s horse started well. Stating then that a number were running wide until the first bend. The Stewards contended that there were two instances, in particular, where Mr Ford should have shifted inward to the three wide position to give his horse some respite. The race was 1800 metres and Mr Renault said that Mr Ford remained four wide for approximately 1200 metres.

The first instance where the Stewards contend there was an opportunity to shift to the three wide position, occurred near the 1400 to 1500 metre mark. Mr Renault used the films to show Mr Ford rounding the bend. He said that the inside runners were moving forward and Mr Ford would have only had to take a slight hold in order to shift ground inwards. He then could have followed that line up with cover.

The second instance where the Stewards contend there was an opportunity to shift to the three wide position, occurred in the back straight. Mr Renault used the films to point to a portion of the race where Mr Ford remained in the four wide line, but could have and should have, shifted inwards. Mr Renault said, as a result, Mr Ford has continued pushing his horse forward in the four wide line. Mr Renault then showed the run home and said that it was clear his horse was tiring, due to the significant work it had done throughout the race.

Mr Renault said that while they have pointed to the two separate incidents, they contend the whole drive diminished the chances of the horse.

The Stewards believed that in racing four wide for the majority of the race, Mr Ford had diminished the chances of MANAKAU BLAZE winning.

At the first bend and in the back straight, Mr Ford had the option of shifting inwards to the three wide position in order to give his horse some respite.

Mr Ford’s Case

Mr Ford opened saying that he had traveled all the way from Kaikoura and his aim was to win. He said he had no intention of diminishing his horse’s chances of winning and wanted to put him in the race. He said he did the best thing he thought for his horse, which was to continue trying to go forward.

Mr Ford used the films to respond to the Stewards’ contentions. He spoke about the first bend. He said that the inside runner had come off the back of the runner in front of it and had shifted ground outwards. He said this had pushed him wider on the track. In respect of the option to shift inwards on the bend, he essentially accepted that was an option for him, but felt that the better option was to remain where he was – four wide. He said that on this track, he was not having to cover excessive ground by running four wide. In respect of the suggestion he could have shifted inwards and sought cover again later in the race, he said he did not see where he could have, without going backwards. He said that if he had done that, he would not have given his horse a chance in the run home, because he would have got stuck at the back. Mr Ford said he agreed his horse did not finish as he had expected, but maintained that he had made his decisions on the basis that he was doing his best to give his horse the best chance.

REASONS FOR DECISION 

The Rule states that:

 No driver in any race shall drive:-

(g) in any manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning.

The Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved, on the basis that MANAKAU BLAZE’S chances of winning were diminished, due to running four wide when there had been opportunities to shift inwards and gain cover.

It was clear that Mr Ford remained four wide for the majority of the race. That must have a bearing on a horse, given it had no cover and was having to cover more ground. It was clear in this case that it did. The Stewards have pointed to two particular instances where an opportunity arose for Mr Ford to shift inwards and the Adjudicative Committee agrees that at each of those points, there was an option available to Mr Ford. At the first bend, the Adjudicative Committee finds that Mr Ford could have taken a slight hold in order to shift to the three wide position. He would not have gone backwards and would not have lost his momentum. In taking this option, he would have been able to move forward with the other runners three wide with cover. Those runners continued to move forward. Had Mr Ford taken one of these opportunities and sought cover for his horse, this would have given it some respite. Had the horse not have had to work so hard throughout the race, it appears it would have finished stronger. Therefore, due to the nature of the drive, the horse’s winning chances were diminished.

DECISION

It is the Adjudicative Committee’s view, that by electing to sit 4-wide without cover, Mr Ford has driven in a manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning. Thus, the charge is proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY

This Adjudicative Committee has considered the penalty submissions from both the Informant, Mr Williams and the Respondent, Mr Ford. Mr Ford is an Owner Driver who has two horses in work. He is not a busy Driver, having had nine drives last season and six this season.

The Penalty Guide provides an 8-day suspension starting point for a breach of this Rule.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

It is clear Mr Ford was not intending to diminish his chances of winning. As he stated, he had traveled from Kaikoura and was hoping to win. In his mind, to do this, he wanted to continue moving forward. He had thought that was the best option. With the benefit of hindsight, he too, acknowledged that did not work in his favour. As a result, his horse tired in the run home. His horse was the favourite, but as highlighted by the Stewards, this Rule is relevant to all runners.

The fact he was the favourite could have been an aggravating factor, however, to uplift for this alone, would have meant the overall penalty was nine days. Given the infrequency in which he drives, the Adjudicative Committee felt that would be a disproportionate outcome in this case. Further, Mr Ford has a clear record under this Rule. He has been involved in the industry for 45 years and is an Owner Driver, hence he is not a busy Driver. The Adjudicative Committee agrees that this is not a case where it would be appropriate to give a credit in isolation for his good record.

The Adjudicative Committee therefore has determined that an 8-day suspension is an appropriate penalty.

CONCLUSION

Mr Ford is accordingly suspended from the conclusion of racing on 2 March 2025, up to and including 4 April 2025.  Meetings encompassed in this period of suspension are as follows:

1. 14 March – Addington
2. 16 March – Banks Peninsula
3. 19 March – Addington
4. 21 March – Addington
5. 26 March – Ashburton
6. 28 March – Addington
7. 30 March – Rangiora
8. 4 April – Addington