Waikato BOP H 4 March 2025 – R7 (heard 15 April 2025 at Cambridge) – Nicola Chilcott

Background:

This charge arises from Race 7 on the 4th of March 2025. As the alleged breach occurred in the last race and the combination of Ms Chilcott having to attend to horses and choosing to defend the charge, a decision was made to open and adjourn the hearing to a more appropriate time.

Summary of Facts:

Following the running of Race 7 on the 4th of March 2025, the Respondent N Chilcott defended a breach of Rule 869(3)(b); namely that she drove carelessly by allowing her runner SHOWTYM GIRL to contact and puncture the sulky wheel of IDEAL CRUNCH.

The Respondent endorsed the Information ‘I do not admit the breach of the rule’ and confirmed she understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.

Rule 869(3)(b) provides:

No Driver in any race shall drive carelessly.

Stewards Evidence

Mr Mulcay said that following Race 7, Driver A Harrison advised Stipendiary Steward O Westerland, that she had received a punctured tyre when having her sulky wheel contacted on the home turn. Mr Mulcay said that Stewards identified Ms Harrsion looking down at her sulky wheel in the home straight, which indicated there was an issue with it.

Mr Mulcay said that the alleged contact to the wheel wasn’t necessarily apparent on the films and showed both the side on and back on films. He said it was the Stewards’ supposition that as Ms Chilcott shifted her drive off the back of IDEAL CRUNCH, she made contact with IDEAL CRUNCH’s offside sulky wheel, resulting in it puncturing. He said that while IDEAL CRUNCH was weakening, it didn’t do so markedly, and the onus lay with Ms Chilcott to ensure that any shifting of ground was done so without causing interference.

Mr Mulcay called Ms Harrison as a witness via phone. Ms Harrison advised that coming off the bend, her horse stopped quite quickly (it was making “bad” breathing noises).  She said as a result, it came back on the horse behind her, which ran into her.  She said there was contact to her wheel, and she identified Ms Chilcott’s horse as the offender. She said that the wheel came off pretty much immediately and that in no way, did her horse contribute to the incident, apart from coming back to the field quickly.

In response to a question from the Adjudicative Committee, Ms Harrison confirmed that she did feel the contact with her sulky wheel during the race.

In cross examination, Ms Chilcott asked Mr Mulcay whether he would have expected the contact with the wheel be significant (not just a brush), for it to have resulted in a puncture and coming off the rim. Ms Chilcott suggested that in 9 out of 10 cases when a wheel is struck and the Driver feels it, they immediately look down.  Ms Chilcott showed the Adjudicative Committee on the video recordings, that Ms Harrsion did not look down until into the home straight. Mr Mulcay re-affirmed the Stewards’ position by confirming that the Stewards weren’t alleging that SHOWTYM GIRL had made heavy contact with IDEAL CRUNCH’s sulky wheel, but due to a misjudgement, had made some contact, resulting in the puncture.

N Chilcott Evidence

Ms Chilcott showed the Adjudicative Committee the pacing action of SHOWTYM GIRL, advising that she was not a fluent pacer and any interference or contact with a wheel, would be noticeable in her action. Ms Chilcott said that the only possible place that she could have hit a wheel, was when she came off the back of IDEAL CRUNCH, which in her opinion, there was no contact made.

She said at the time when the contact may have occurred, Ms Harrison’s runner was coming back through the field, and those runners can be difficult to clear, however, at no stage did her drive falter, despite being jammed up. She said her drive didn’t dip, falter or change its gait.

Ms Chilcott put to the Adjudicative Committee that Ms Harrison’s wheel slowly deflated (“which can happen, they don’t necessarily have to be hit to deflate”) during the course of the race and didn’t come off the rim until the home straight.

Ms Chilcott said that she believed she hadn’t struck the wheel of IDEAL CRUNCH and suggested that in spite of Ms Harrison’s submission that contact did occur to her wheel, no other evidence supported the charge.

Summing up

In summary, Mr Mulcay said he had some empathy for Ms Chilcott, as the runner in front of her was weakening. However, he suggested this only provided mitigation in relation to the charge. He said that Ms Harrison had been upfront and under investigation, her recollection of events hadn’t waivered.

Ms Chilcott said she didn’t believe there was enough evidence to uphold the charge, apart from Ms Harrison’s reference to the fact her wheel was struck.

Decision:

The charge was found proved.

Reasons for Decision:

In making a decision as to the merits of this particular charge, the Adjudicative Committee needed to establish that contact had been made by Ms Chilcott’s runner to the sulky wheel of IDEAL CRUNCH and if contact had occurred, that it was a result of carelessness shown by Ms Chilcott in her drive. The requisite standard in determining the charge, is on the balance of probabilities.

The Adjudicative Committee took some time to view the films on numerous occasions and paid particular attention to the back on films at reduced speed.

Approaching the 300m, it was clear that SHOWTYM GIRL was hard on the back of IDEAL CRUNCH, which commenced to give ground. The films clearly showed that SHOWTYM GIRL’s legs where inside the sulky wheels of IDEAL CRUNCH. As Ms Chilcott looked to extract SHOWTYM GIRL off the back of IDEAL CRUNCH, the Adjudicative Committee identifies where the off fore leg of SHOWTYM GIRL clears the sulky wheel of IDEAL CRUNCH, however the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that at the next stride while continuing the outward movement, the near fore of SHOWTYM GIRL does make contact with the sulky wheel of IDEAL CRUNCH. Albeit the contact is light, the Adjudicative Committee is confident that contact has occurred, and this has resulted in IDEAL CRUNCH’s sulky wheel puncturing.  For the purpose of clarity, the exact time of the video evidence provided, was 2.41 when the incident occurred.

Having considered the evidence of both Drivers, in combination with the video evidence, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that the charge is proven to the requisite standard.

Ms Chilcott  was careless in that she allowed her drive to contact the wheel of IDEAL CRUNCH, when angling off its back to improve her position.

Submissions for Penalty:

Stipendiary Steward S Mulcay produced the Respondent’s record, which indicated no previous breaches within the reset period.

Mr Mulcay submitted the Guidelines pointed to a fine of $300 or a 2 day suspension as a starting  point and the Adjudicative Committee may wish to consider any mitigating factors it saw fit.

The Stewards saw the breach in the low range.

Ms Chilcott indicated her preference for a fine.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Penalty Guide provides a penalty starting point of a $300 fine (1st breach within reset period) for a breach of careless driving when any Driver strikes a wheel. This is for a mid range penalty.

In assessing an appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee identified that this was a low level breach and IDEAL CRUNCH was retreating back through the field at the time contact was made. It was a very slight misjudgement by Ms Chilcott, however the onus was on her as the Driver, to ensure that any shifting of ground occurs without interference to her own or any other runner.

Having considered the mitigating factors and the absence of aggravating factors, the Adjudicative Committee determined an appropriate penalty would be $200.

Conclusion:

Ms Chilcott is fined $200.