Rangiora HRC 3 March 2024 – R2 – Matt Purvis

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 2, Keith Woolley Fencing Trot, Open Driver, Matt Purvis, as the Driver of LIVING THE MOMENT in the race, denied that he drove carelessly near the 1250 metres when allowing his horse to contact the sulky of TRANSTASMAN BUBBLE (Jim Curtin) resulting in his horse breaking and losing ground.

Rule 869 provides:

(3)  No driver in any race shall drive:- 

       (b) carelessly

EVIDENCE:

Stipendiary Steward, Matt Sole, had Steward, Shane Renault, show video replays of the incident, which occurred in the home straight with approximately 1250 metres to run. Mr Renault pointed out LIVING THE MOMENT, driven by the Respondent, racing three places back in the running line following TRANSTASMAN BUBBLE, driven by Jim Curtin, as the field turned into the straight.

Mr Renault showed that LIVING THE MOMENT got close to Mr Curtin, who had to adjust his helmet. Mr Purvis then again got close to Mr Curtin and “up over the back of him” and, as a result, Mr Purvis’ runner broke and lost ground. Mr Curtin was being inconvenienced by Mr Purvis’ horse’s head, and Stewards were alleging that Mr Purvis had allowed his horse to get too close and make contact with Mr Curtin’s sulky, and break.

Mr Sole said that it was quite clear that the Respondent had been travelling too close to Mr Curtin.

The Respondent said that it was clear that his inexperienced mare was over racing and was hard on Mr Curtin’s helmet. He then pointed out on the video replay that HOOFN IT (Steve Trotter) was improving forward to the parked position past KERRALLY (John Dunn). He said that Mr Curtin, who was trailing Mr Dunn, was not quite on Mr Dunn’s helmet. Mr Dunn had eased to let Mr Trotter go and, at the same time, the leader had galloped. He submitted that the slight easing of the pace at that point, caused his runner to make contact with the back of Mr Curtin’s sulky. This would not have happened had his mare not been over racing, he said. She was also inexperienced, having only her fifth start. He had taken a hold of his mare when she had earlier contacted Mr Curtin’s helmet.

In response to a question from Mr Sole, the Respondent said that he had taken more of a hold after that contact and the horse had gone slightly rough. Had he grabbed on her mouth, he said, she would have got keener.

Mr Sole concluded by submitting that the Respondent should have been doing more to ensure that his horse did not make contact with Mr Curtin’s sulky.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Adjudicative Committee was comfortably satisfied that the Respondent had driven carelessly in allowing his runner to contact the sulky of Mr Curtin. The Adjudicative Committee was not persuaded by his explanation.

The simple fact of the matter is that he had an obligation to ensure that it did not happen. A Driver has an obligation to ensure that contact is not made with the runner in front and, in most instances, there are actions a Driver can take to avoid it happening. The obvious measure is to not trail too closely or, if a horse is racing too keenly, to pull it out into clear racing room – an option which was open to the Respondent on this occasion. The Adjudicative Committee was not convinced that the Respondent’s horse was over racing to the extent that he could not fully control it.

Any easing of the pace, as alleged by the Respondent, was slight and, in the Adjudicative Committee’s view, was not responsible for the incident, which could have been avoided had the Respondent been exercising due care.

The Respondent’s defence to the charge was, effectively, to blame the horse. The Adjudicative Committee was not convinced that it was the horse’s fault, and it was part of the Respondent’s task as its Driver to control the horse. The Respondent failed to do so on this occasion. He had allowed his horse to contact the sulky of Mr Curtin, as alleged in the Information.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Mr Sole said that the Respondent has had 720 lifetime drives – 10 drives this season and 36 drives in the 2023 season just ended. He has a clear record under the Rule.

The Penalty Guide starting point for a first, mid-level breach is a $500 fine or a 2-days suspension, Mr Sole said. Stewards saw the breach as being mid-level – “where the breach causes interference which impacts on own or another horse’s chances”.

The Respondent told the Adjudicative Committee that he would prefer a fine.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The Adjudicative Committee agreed that the breach was mid-level. LIVING THE MOMENT lost considerable ground after breaking, before making up a large stretch of ground to finish in 4th placing. The interference to the Respondent’s own runner clearly impacted on its chances. The Penalty Guide starting point for a mid-level, first breach is a $500 fine or a 2-days suspension.

The Respondent has expressed a preference for a fine rather than a suspension. A fine is a fair penalty for the breach. From the Penalty Guide starting point of $500, the Adjudicative Committee allows a discount of $100 for the Respondent’s good record.

CONCLUSION:

The Respondent, Open Driver, Matt Purvis is fined the sum of $400.