Rangiora HRC 21 May 2023 – R10 – (heard 23 July 2023 at Addington) – Alana Cameron

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 10, CATR Sunday 17 Dec 2023 Book Now Mobile Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Matt Sole, against Licensed Junior Driver, Alana Cameron, alleging that, as the Driver of RUBY MALONE in the race, she “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure her horse was given full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible finishing place by not shifting wider on the final bend resulting in her horse being held up until near the 100 metres”.

The Information was filed with the Raceday Adjudicative Committee and adjourned sine die. It was heard at the meeting of NZ Metropolitan TC held at Addington Raceway on 23 July 2023.

The Respondent was assisted at the hearing by Licensed Trainer/Open Driver, Matt Purvis.

Rule 868(2) provides as follows:

(2)   Every driver shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.

EVIDENCE:

Stipendiary Steward, Matt Sole, presented the following written submissions, in conjunction with showing video replays:

1. Rule 868(2) is aimed at ensuring that the integrity of Harness Racing is protected. A Driver has two main obligations. They are to drive his horse in a manner that is both reasonable and permissible in order to gain the best possible finishing place, as an investor is entitled to have a Driver do his or her best to gain a return from that investment.

2. The race was run over 2600m. RUBY MALONE had drawn barrier 2 on the mobile gate and settled 3-back on the markers behind SKY VALE (Blair Orange) and MIGHTY REACTOR (Matthew Williamson) racing into the first bend. MIGHTY REACTOR had to work over the early stages to reach the lead, having been drawn at 6.

3. TIGER TAYLOR (John Morrison) was sent forward from the parked position at approximately the 2200m and challenged for the lead from the 2100m for a period. Both TIGER TAYLOR and MIGHTY REACTOR were under a drive at this point. Mr Morrison then settled his horse parked, approximately 6 lengths from the leader.

4. MIGHTY REACTOR was again challenged for the lead near the 1200m as FRANCO CORNEL came around 3-wide to challenge successfully for the lead and established this position near the 1000m.

5. Mr Orange (SKY VALE), having sat in the trail up to this point, elected to shift out into the one-out line and, in doing so, forced Wilson House (FRANCO HOFFMAN) wider on the track, allowing a hole for Miss Cameron to follow into, which she successfully did.

6. Mr House pushed forward from his 3-wide position, giving cover to Mr Orange. It is worth noting at this point that neither Mr Orange (SKY VALE) nor Miss Cameron (RUBY MALONE) has had to do any work to establish these positions, having had cover the entire race. The leader (FRANCO CORNEL) had worked 3-wide into the lead. The parked horse (FRANCO HOFFMAN) had worked 3-wide to be parked, then had been pushed 3-wide to be parked again, and the trailing horse (MIGHTY REACTOR) has been challenged for the lead multiple times in the running.

7. Inside the final 450 metres, Mr Orange elected to shift 3-wide around FRANCO HOFFMAN and, at this point, Miss Cameron elected to shift her horse down the track onto the back of MIGHTY REACTOR which, at this point, was being held up by the tiring FRANCO CORNEL. She then shifted one-out onto the back of FRANCO HOFFMAN where she was held up for a run until the 100 metres mark, where she was able to force SKY VALE wider on the track to gain clear running. Miss Cameron had been without a clear run for at least 300m at this point. Miss Cameron, again, was without a clear run near the 50m and finished in third place.

8. Stewards have concerns with the way Miss Cameron has driven on the final bend when electing to shift down the track, rather than follow SKY VALE wider. Miss Cameron must have known at this point in the race that SKY VALE and her runner, RUBY MALONE, had done no work up until this point while the horse parked, and the two horses on the markers, had worked hard to establish their positions.

9. Miss Cameron made a clear and obvious pull on the left rein to shift her horse down the track. Shortly after this, she directed her horse outwards to obtain the back of Mr House and, after being held up for a distance, was able to direct her horse outwards again near the 100 metres. At three points in the race, Miss Cameron had been able to shift her horse outwards with no issue, two of those times being on the bends, so it was unreasonable for her to not shift outwards to follow Mr Orange on the final bend.

10. Miss Cameron would have had a clear and unobstructed run to the line had she shifted wider on the track.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE INFORMANT:

11. There is a clear obligation on the part of a Driver, that he or she must leave no doubt in the minds of the viewers of the race (whether that is the Stewards, the public or the Adjudicative Committee) that the horse is given every opportunity to finish in the best possible position.

12. A quote from the Hon Justice Mr W R Haylen in relation to a Ruling dated 20 May 2009 said.

“Perhaps to throw my interpretation into the mix I might view it this way – that the sort of culpable action that is required to amount to a breach of this Rule might be such that in normal circumstances a reasonable and knowledgeable harness racing spectator might be expected to exclaim with words to the effect “what on earth is he doing “or “my goodness look at that” or some such explanation”.

13. Any spectator or punter watching the race, and then looking at the replay following the race, would have every right to say “what was Miss Cameron doing?” There is an opportunity for her to gain an unobstructed run to the line. However, she has shifted down onto tiring runners.

14. A quote from the Judicial Committee in RIU v H (2005) said

“A breach of this particular Rule (the Rule Miss Cameron has been charged under) is one that invariably jeopardises the integrity of harness racing for reasons which are self-evident. Harness races are based on the requirement that all contestants in a race are given every opportunity by their drivers and that, when the race has been run, all contestants have been fully tested and been asked to do the best that they can do. This has to be the case in order that the betting public, so important to the industry, can have confidence that they have had a run for their money when they have invested their money on contestants in a harness race. Any suggestion that a horse has not been given every possible opportunity and has not been asked to do the best that it can, for whatever reason, will result in loss of public confidence in harness racing. As stated, it is the primary function of the Judicial Committees, in dealing with penalty, to maintain integrity and public confidence in harness racing”.

15. It is the view of the Stewards that Miss Cameron’s actions fell well short of what a reasonable-minded person would expect, especially when taking into account that it was entirely permissible to shift outwards and gain an unobstructed run to the finish. The ongoing confidence in the Harness Racing Industry needs constant reinforcement, including the displaying of driving using reasonable and permissible measures at all times to ensure a horse is given every opportunity to win a race or finish in the best possible position. Miss Cameron’s actions on this occasion have clearly failed to meet that threshold.

EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT:

1. Mr Purvis referred to the video replay in which Mr Sole had alleged that Miss Cameron had made a clear and obvious pull on the left rein to shift her horse down the track. He submitted that, although her left hand did move, there was always tension on the right rein. Any attempt to shift outwards would be detrimental to the horse’s gait, he submitted.

2. At that point, Mr Purvis submitted, Mr Orange’s runner, SKY VALE, was travelling the best. Miss Cameron had tried to come out, but Mr Orange’s run had put her in restricted room. Further on, her horse was still significantly laying in and Miss Cameron had to fight for a spot to get off and then release the right rein to go forward. She had incurred a suspension for careless driving for this. The horse had a record of steering difficulties, he said.

3. Miss Cameron was an inexperienced Junior Driver and much of what happened could be put down to the horse, Mr Purvis submitted, rather than any lack of judgement on her part. It would have been difficult for her to have shifted out “a cart and a half” to obtain a clear run, even though she still had time.

4. Mr Orange’s horse was a $2 favourite with better form than most in the field. It could be expected that, after a good run, it was travelling well and would peel out. Miss Cameron had ample time to get out, but Mr Orange’s runner had failed to go anywhere. She would not have expected, at the time, that Mr Orange’s runner would not continue to progress. Miss Cameron had then been held up in the straight and was denied a run. She served a 3-days suspension for later shifting ground abruptly, when she gave her horse its head.

5. Mr Purvis referred to the gear that the horse was wearing to make it more tractable – D Spreaders, Murphy Blind, boring pole and a bit burr.

6. Miss Cameron said that she had not wanted to go back to the markers, but the horse was “locked on that line so badly”. She would have followed Mr Orange. Had she improved onto the back of FRANCO HOFFMAN, and Mr Orange’s runner kept going forward as it should have, she would have obtained a run, but Mr Orange’s runner had “gone nowhere”.

7. Mr Sole referred to the point of the race, at the 1000 metres, where Miss Cameron had come off the markers to follow SKY VALE. He put it to her that she had no steering difficulties at that point. Mr Purvis responded that the movement only required her to shift out about half a cart. Miss Cameron added that the speed of the race at that point, was completely different from that later in the race.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

1. It is a common situation in cases of charges under this Rule – failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures – for the Driver charged to lay the blame on the manners of the horse. It is usually a difficult defence to establish because, at the end of the day, it is the Driver who has control and it is seldom the fault of the horse. In short, the Adjudicative Committee in this case, is not satisfied that the manners of RUBY MALONE can justify the lack of action by the Respondent.

2. Turning to the present case, the Adjudicative Committee finds that the Respondent, driving RUBY MALONE, had enjoyed an economical run, firstly, on the markers and, from the 1000 metres, in the one-out line, three places back, following Mr Orange’s runner, SKY VALE.

3. Approaching the home turn, a clear opportunity existed for the Respondent to get onto the back of Mr Orange, when he pulled his runner out to improve 3-wide. It was conceded by Mr Purvis, on behalf of the Respondent, that such opportunity did exist. The Respondent did not pull out to follow Mr Orange, which would have been both reasonable and permissible, Mr Purvis said, because her runner was giving her steering problems. It would have been difficult for her to shift out the necessary “cart and a half” (his own words) without the horse galloping. Instead, the Stewards alleged, the Respondent elected to shift down, briefly, onto the back of Mr Williamson (MIGHTY REACTOR) before shifting out onto the back of Mr House (FRANCO HOFFMAN) which was tiring, having raced parked for the last lap. By this time, her opportunity to follow Mr Orange had gone.

4. Having missed the opportunity to come out and follow Mr Orange, the race did not turn out favourably thereafter for the Respondent. She was denied clear racing room until the 100 metres, prior to forcing a run to her inside when full of running, an action that resulted in a suspension for driving carelessly.

5. The Adjudicative Committee noted that RUBY MALONE finished an unlucky 3rd in the race, beaten by a ½ length and a ½ length. It appeared to the Adjudicative Committee that 3rd was not the likely highest possible finishing position for the horse, had the Respondent taken the run available to her nearing the home turn.

6. The test for whether a breach of the Rule has been committed is an objective one. The focus is on the intention of a reasonable and competent Driver under the same circumstances and what tactics could reasonably be expected of him or her by a reasonable and knowledgeable viewer. Any intent on the part of the Respondent is subjective. It is subjective that the Respondent believed that SKY VALE would continue going forward and thereby give her a run.

7. The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the manner in which the Respondent drove RUBY MALONE, at the critical stage of the race, fell well short of what would reasonably be expected of a Driver in that situation.

8. The Adjudicative Committee noted the comments of the Adjudicative Committee in the case of RIB v C (2021):

The question is did the Respondent display culpable behaviour and was his drive blameworthy viewed on an objective basis. Was the manner in which he drove the horse reasonable to ensure that he met the obligation to ensure that the horse competed in the finish of the race and was not denied the opportunity to compete?

9. The Adjudicative Committee has applied that test in finding that the Respondent has failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures during the relevant part of the race.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Stipendiary Steward, Matt Sole, told the Adjudicative Committee that the Respondent had 300 drives in the extended 2022 season and, in the current season, has had 64 drives. He submitted that a penalty of a 7-days suspension, as per the Penalty Guide, would be an appropriate penalty.

The Respondent requested a deferment until after 30 July 2023.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The RIB Harness Racing Penalty Guide (February 2023) suggests a starting point for penalty for a breach of the Rule of a 7-days suspension. That, of course, is for a mid-level breach. The breach in this case could fairly be regarded as being below mid-level. The circumstances of the breach were not the worst conceivable. The Adjudicative Committee has reduced the starting point by 1day, to 6 days.

The Respondent is a relatively inexperienced Junior Driver and has not previously breached the Rule. For those factors, the Adjudicative Committee gives a discount of 1 day from the reduced starting point.

CONCLUSION:

The Respondent’s application for a deferment is granted.

The Respondent, Alana Cameron, is suspended for 5 days, such suspension to commence after racing on 30 July 2023 and conclude after racing on 18 August 2023.