Timaru HRC 26 May 2024 – R6 – Seth Hill

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 6 at the Timaru Harness Racing Club’s Meeting on 26 May 2024, Stipendiary Steward Mr Matt Sole presented an Information alleging a breach of Rule 868(2) by Junior Driver Mr Seth Hill.

Mr Matthew Williamson was present to assist Mr Hill.

Mr Hill stated he understood the Rule, the Charge and confirmed he did not admit the breach.

Rule 868(2) states:

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 obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.

EVIDENCE:

Mr Renault played the race video to identify Mr Hill (HI HOPES) drawn 1 on 10m in the standing start 2600m race. He pointed to HI HOPES gallop at the start and lose several lengths catching the field as it passed the 2400m, and remained at the tail of the field until the 400m.

Mr Renault said from the 400m, Mr Hill, who had trailed RESILIENT (S O’Reilly) the entire race, has followed RESILIENT out to a three wide and then a four wide position at the 300m, from where he has shifted inwards and has run into a wall of horses at the 150m, full of running. Mr Renault said Stewards believe Mr Hill has driven for luck and it was unreasonable to expect clear running by shifting inwards, when there was an opportunity to find clear air by shifting out.

Mr Williamson said Mr Hill has followed Ms O’Reilly out to be four wide and he would have to had shifted six or seven wide on the bend, which would have been a stiff task. He said Mr Hill was learning his craft and would have considered losing ground at the start and being in last position entering the last 400m, saving ground would have been his best option.

Mr Hill said losing ground at the start was a factor and in the two previous starts, he said he had shifted wider and should have taken the inside running. He said the horse had surprised himself and connections finishing the way it did.

Mr Sole, in summing up, said the Stewards believe Mr Hill should have waited behind Ms O’Reilly until straightening, where he would not have had to cover any extra ground and he would have found clear racing room. He said if there was a gap to the inside, Mr Hill’s explanations would be accepted, but he elected to run into a pocket where no run was on offer and therefore driven for luck.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Adjudicative Committee considered all the evidence, including numerous replays of videos, very carefully.

Several principles emerge from various cases decided under Rule 868(2) and they include:

• It is the quality of the drive in the circumstances of the case which must be judged.
• That judgement must be based on an objective assessment of the drive in the race.
• The Driver’s conduct must be culpable in the sense that, objectively judged. It is found to be blameworthy.

The Rule is wide ranging and has had many descriptions and interpretations applied when Adjudicative Committees assess the merits of a charge to a particular drive.

A Driver does not have the benefit of hindsight, multiple film angles with slow motion. Situations arise within a race where a Driver must make a split-second decision and when assessing such manoeuvres, an Adjudicative Committee must consider whether a Driver has taken a particular measure at the relevant time, with the purpose of finishing in the best possible position.

In this race, Mr Hill had three options open to him, with 300m to run. Firstly, he could have shifted wider than Miss O’Reilly’s horse and risk being forced wider on the track – a move which would have severely disadvantaged his horse. Secondly, he could have remained on Miss O’Reilly’s back until the straight, which the Stewards contend he should have done, a decision which would have required an inordinate amount of patience, given his position at the rear of the field, with 250m to run. Thirdly, switch to the inside to make up several lengths and look for an opening.

It is the Adjudicative Committee’s view, it was reasonable for Mr Hill to take the third option. Mr Hill’s decision did not come to fruition, but the Rule recognises this reality and does not hold a Driver to the standard of perfection.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, the charge against Mr Hill is dismissed.