Waikouaiti TC 5 February 2023 – R3 – John Patterson

Mr Munro alleged that in Race 3, Mr Patterson (KID GLOVES) drove in a manner capable of diminishing his chances of winning when racing three wide throughout.

Rule 869(3)(g) provides: “No driver in any race shall drive in any manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning.”

Mr Munro called Mr Renault as a witness, who referred to the incident on the videos. Mr Renault first pointed out that KID GLOVES had broken in the score up and had had to work hard to catch up with the field at the time of release from the mobile. KID GLOVES had then gone forward at the start 3-wide. Mr Patterson had tried to take the one one but had stayed 3-wide as a gap had not fully appeared. He then maintained his position from the 1400 metres outside and behind Mr Shand (AIRIES GOLD), who was racing one out, for the rest of the race. He said the Respondent had not urged his horse from that time and had remained motionless in the cart. Eventually the 9 horse (SANTERIA) had shifted out and come round. KID GLOVES then lost ground. KID GLOVES finished last 16 lengths behind the winner.

The Stewards believed that in racing 3-wide for the whole of the race, Mr Patterson had diminished the chances of  KID GLOVES winning. In the back straight, the Respondent had the option of pushing forward to the parked position or to restrain his horse and obtain cover. Mr Patterson did neither of these things, but rather simply maintained his position 3-wide. He had never chased his horse forward to get to the parked spot. Had he pulled back and got cover, his horse would have had some respite and may have been able to take a short-cut home.

Mr Munro stated it was a sweeping bend and that in electing to sit 3-wide, the Respondent had covered extra ground and had set his horse too difficult a task.

Mr Patterson opened his defence by stating he had been warned last week for not being up on the gate. His horse had run second in the previous race and had been swabbed. That had left him with little time between races and the person whom he thought was going to help him on the day had not turned up. He was thus running short of time. KID GLOVES was keen behind the gate and had had a “hissy fit” and he had to chase her up to the gate from a long way back. He had caught up with the gate by the start. He had thought he could get the one one but there was no gap. He also thought he could get the one out, but Mr Shand had pushed up and he could not get that. Mr Patterson said Mr Shand had said to him that his horse had got on the bit when Mr Patterson had tried to come alongside and was fired up. That was why he could not get up to the one out position. He believed the horse racing behind Mr Shand, dropping back, demonstrated this.

Mr Patterson said KID GLOVES was a dour sort of a horse and did not have a lot of speed. He doubted had he pulled back and obtained cover, she would have been able to sprint at the end of the race. He thought what he did was his best option in the circumstances. He did not think he would have a chance from the back, so he thought he was better to sit where he was and to just wait and see what happened. He thought if the speed dropped off a horse might have come around.

Mr Munro questioned Mr Patterson as to whether Ms O’Reilly’s horse (KAWATIRI CREEK), which was trailing Mr Shand, was pacing roughly and that was why she could not keep up on Mr Shand’s back. He accepted that might have been the case.

Mr Munro summed up stating that the Stewards accepted that Mr Shand’s horse was over-racing and was being difficult to drive, but they believed the reason for the gap back to Ms O’Reilly, was that her horse was pacing roughly. He emphasised that after giving up trying to get the one out position at about the 1400 metres, Mr Patterson had just sat 3-wide when he knew KID GLOVES  had lost a lot of ground before the start and had worked hard to catch up. He believed the Respondent had failed to take this matter into account. The option was clearly there for Mr Patterson to ease KID GLOVES to the back of the field and give the horse some respite, rather than remaining 3-wide for the duration of the race.

Mr Patterson reiterated in summing up that KID GLOVES was a plodder and not a speed horse. He agreed he had not given the horse any respite, but he believed he would have had no chance had he dropped to the rear and he had a better chance by staying out where he was. He did not believe he had diminished KID GLOVES’ chances by that aspect of the drive.  Mr Patterson disputed whether the extra distance was excessive on the bend. He believed it was more of an issue sitting 3-wide on an all-weather track with a tight bend, than it was on a sweeping bend on a grass track. Mr Patterson concluded by acknowledging it was not a great drive, but he questioned whether he was in breach of the Rule.

Reasons for Decision

Mr Patterson has said Mr Shand’s horse was racing on the bit, and he had tried to go forward but could not get to the one out position.  While Mr Shand’s horse was racing keenly, Mr Patterson never got fully alongside at any point. On a couple of occasions he is at the wheel of Mr Shand’s cart, but he has progressed no further. He has never pushed his horse KID GLOVES forward with any clear intent.

KID GLOVES had already worked hard to catch the mobile gate, and sitting out 3-wide for the duration of the race was never an option. Once Mr Patterson had decided he could not get past AIRIES GOLD, which appears to be at around the 1400 metres, he had the option to ease his horse and find cover. Mr Patterson said he did not believe this was a good choice, but KID GLOVES would have got some respite which clearly the horse needed after having already worked hard. While the Adjudicative Committee has no reason to doubt Mr Patterson’s statement that KID GLOVES is a dour horse without a quick sprint, having obtained cover and looking to run on from the back was the better option in the circumstances, once he had decided he was not going to get the one out position off Mr Shand. Not only would KID GLOVES have obtained respite, she would have saved ground, which given the earlier efforts of the horse, was a significant factor for the Respondent to have considered.  In simple terms, Mr Patterson needed to do something other than sitting out in no-man’s land 3-wide down the back with the wide sweeping bend coming up.

Decision

It is the Adjudicative Committee’s view that by electing to sit 3-wide without cover, after having already worked hard before the start, Mr Patterson has driven in a manner capable of diminishing the chances of his horse winning. Thus, the charge is proved.

Submissions as to Penalty

Mr Munro produced the Respondent’s record which evidenced 352 lifetime drives, 7 last season and 4 this. Mr Patterson confirmed he had 2 horses in racing trim and would have at best 2 drives per meeting. Mr Munro emphasised that in these circumstances, it was important that the suspension be real days. The Stewards believed the breach was mid-range and submitted a penalty at the starting point in the new Penalty Guide of 8 days’ suspension was appropriate. Mr Patterson replied that he believed that was too harsh.

Reasons for Penalty

The Adjudicative Committee views the breach as low to mid-range. Mr Patterson has asked too much of his horse having regard to her having been used a lot prior to the race and having options other than simply sitting out 3-wide for the duration of the race. From a 7-day starting point, there is a day’s reduction for Mr Patterson’s excellent record.

Conclusion

Mr Patterson is suspended from the end of the meeting today, up to and including 26 February. This is the equivalent of 6 meetings.