Waikato BOP H 22 October 2024 – R4 – Dylan Ferguson

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 4, an Information was filed by Senior Stipendiary Steward, Steve Mulcay, against Licensed Driver, Dylan Ferguson, alleging that he breached Rule 869(3)(b). The Information read that as the Driver of MENTALIST, he was careless when shifting his gelding inwards when not sufficiently clear of TOPAZ CASTLETON which was checked and broke losing all chance.

Rule 869(3)(b) provides:

No Driver any race shall drive carelessly.

At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Ferguson confirmed that he wished to defend the charge and advised he understood the Rule.

EVIDENCE

Stewards’ Submissions

Mr Mulcay outlined the Stewards’ case. He commenced by showing the films of both the side on and head on view down the back straight, identifying the horses MENTALIST and TOPAZ CASTLETON.

He said that Mr Ferguson (Driver of MENTALIST) was sitting to the outer of the leader and back behind them was TOPAZ CASTLETON (T Mitchell) who was travelling in 3rd place. He said approaching the mile, Mr Ferguson commences to ease his runner to shift down and trail the leader, but in the Stewards’ opinion, Mr Mitchell had improved his position and established a position to the inside of MENTALIST. He said that TOPAZ CASTLETON broke at around the 1500m and it was the Stewards’ submission that this was as a result of being crowded by MENTALIST. Referring to the head on film, Mr Mulcay displayed Mr Ferguson shifting down towards the marker line and asked the Adjudicative Committee to watch the left wheel of Mr Ferguson’s sulky, which got very close to the legs of TOPAZ CASTLETON. He said that it wasn’t apparent if contact had occurred, but TOPAZ CASTLETON was most certainly placed in restricted room. Mr Mulcay asked the Adjudicative Committee to note that the leader ELIZABETH HILL was racing about half a cart width off the fence, and Mr Ferguson was able to shift down onto its back, which as a result, placed TOPAZ CASTLETON in restricted room, being crowded and broke.

The Adjudicative Committee asked Mr Mulcay to split screen the video and show the interference in “Sync”  to better establish where TOPAZ CASTLETON was in relation to MENTALIST, when the interference occurred and how much room was available on the running line when Mr Ferguson shifted onto the leader’s back.

The Stewards called Mr Mitchell as a witness.

Mr Mitchell said that Mr Ferguson was outside of him and applying pressure to the leader, which opened a gap between his horse and the leader. He said at that point, Mr Ferguson has attempted to come down to the rail and his horse got squeezed up. He said he wasn’t aware of contact, but it was a tight squeeze. Mr Mitchell said that watching the video when Mr Ferguson got onto the leader’s back, there was probably two horses in one gap. He confirmed that his horse didn’t shift up the track and got closer to the pylons than would be normally expected.

Respondent’s Submissions

Mr Ferguson commenced his submissions by saying he had outlined his concerns to Mr Dooley and Mr Mulcay, in that the footage available to work with, doesn’t represent real life situations. He said the films don’t show what he can see and the side on camera wasn’t directly side on. He said for those two reasons, it was his word against the Stewards.

He said he applied pressure to the leader, which provided him with a space to come down behind the leader and the time he shifted inwards, he felt he had established a run onto the leader’s back before Mr Mitchell progressed up to the inside of his runner. He said that the leader had been shifting inwards and outwards up the back straight.

Stewards’ Summary

Mr Mulcay said the onus is with the horse shifting ground to do so, without causing interference throughout the entire manoeuvre. He said that Mr Mitchell was entitled to improve (where he had room) along the peg line, and while Mr Ferguson was entitled to also be on the leader’s back, the Stewards felt, that on this occasion, that he had placed TOPAZ CASTLETON in restricted room, causing it to break.

Respondent’s Summary

Mr Ferguson said that during the race, he felt he had established a run on the leader’s back, prior to Mr Mitchell coming up to the inside of him.

DECISION

The Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved, the reasons are set out below.

The Adjudicative Committee took the opportunity to view the films independently and play the head on and side on replays in synchro.

The Adjudicative Committee identified that prior to Mr Ferguson commencing to shift down to the back of the leader, Mr Mitchell’s runner’s head was to the inside of the sulky wheel of Mr Ferguson’s runner.  A further 4 strides on, Mr Ferguson is now positioning himself squarely on the back of the leader. At this point, Mr Mitchell’s runner’s head is in line with the rump of Mr Ferguson’s runner, clearly Mr Mitchell has established himself on the marker line and to the inner of Mr Ferguson.  Two strides later, Mr Mitchell’s runner is tightened and breaks. At the time of the incident, there is not enough room for a horse to the inside of Mr Ferguson to race freely (it is too tight).

Having listened to all the submissions, in particular Mr Mitchell’s, (which was very helpful) and analysing the videos, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that Mr Ferguson was careless in shifting down the track and not allowing enough room for the runner to his inside, who had established a position on the running line.

On this basis, the Adjudicative Committee finds the charge of careless driving proved.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

Mr Mulcay produced Mr Ferguson’s record, which indicated 1 previous breach within the reset period.

Mr Mulcay said that the degree of carelessness was low, but the consequential effects was at the higher end, due to TOPAZ CASTLETON losing all chance. Mr Mulcay said that the penalty range for low to high breaches, ranged from 3 days to 7 days and would leave it up to the Adjudicative Committee to provide a penalty it saw fit.

Mr Ferguson said that he wasn’t opposed to it being regarded as a low level breach with a three day suspension. Mr Ferguson asked for a deferment until after racing on 25 October 2024.

CONCLUSION

Mr Ferguson is suspended for 5 driving days, the reasons are set out below.  A deferment is granted and the suspension commences after racing on 25 October 2024 and concludes after racing on 11 November 2024.

While the shift of Mr Ferguson was low, in that it was gradual and not abrupt, it did place TOPAZ CASTLETON in restricted room, causing it to break. TOPAZ CASTLETOWN failed to regain its gait in sufficient time to be competitive, therefore extinguishing its chances, which determines a high level outcome. The Adjudicative Committee believes that the most appropriate starting point, balancing these two factors, is a 5 day suspension and sees no discernible mitigating or aggravating factors to deviate from the starting point.