You are here: Home / Race Days / Geraldine TC - 1 February 2020 / Geraldine TC 1 February 2020 - R 1 - Chair, Mr S Ching

Geraldine TC 1 February 2020 - R 1 - Chair, Mr S Ching

Created on 03 February 2020

SChing (chair)
Mrs C Negus - Amateur Driver
Mr B Negus - Public Trainer
J Langbehn - Observer
Mr S Renault - Stipendiary Steward
Information Number
Breach of Rule 869(4)(6)(b)(c) - the push out rule

Following the running of Race 1, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S Renault against Amateur driver Mrs C Negus alleging a breach of Rule 869(4)(6)(b) (c), in that when driving FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ, she shifted ground outwards passing the 1600m forcing DOC SEELSTER to race wider on the track.

Rule 869(4)(6) (b)(c) reads as follows.

(4) No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.

(6) “Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:-

(b) a horse making a forward moment during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track;

(c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.”

Mrs Negus had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted and that she understood the rule the charge was brought under. Mrs Negus was assisted at the hearing by Mr B Negus, Public Trainer.

Submission For Decision:

Mr Renault gave evidence and used video coverage to show that approaching the 1600m, FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ, driven by Mrs Negus was racing 4 back on the pylons with DOC SEELSTER, driven by Mr D Reardon, racing 2 off the pylons, in the trail of NUI BA DEN and a length behind Mrs Negus. He pointed out Mrs Negus shift out at the 1600m and force Mr Reardon out into the 3-wide line. Mr Renault stated that thereafter Mr Reardon shifted down into a position on the pylons and Mrs Negus in the trail of the favourite NUI BA DEN, a position that Mr Reardon was entitled to. He added that with this manoeuvre, Mrs Negus has gained a better run for herself at the expense of Mr Reardon.

Mr Negus in defence stated that Mr Reardon was restraining DOC SEELSTER when looking to shift down nearer the pylons and was going backwards at the time. He said that the position was made available to Mrs Negus when Mr Reardon was easing back to find a position on the pylons. Mr Negus conceded that Mrs Negus should have waited a couple more strides before attempting to take up the position being vacated by Mr Reardon which she could have done without causing Mr Reardon out to the 3 wide line.

Reasons For Decision:

We carefully considered the evidence and video replays presented. We were satisfied that passing the 1600m Mrs Negus shifted from a position on the pylons to a 2 wide position and when doing so was not clear of Mr Reardon who was forced wider on the track to a 3-wide position. We found this incident to be a clear case of the push out rule and accordingly found the charge proved.


The charge was found to be proved.

Submission For Penalty:

Mr Renault informed the Committee that Mrs Negus had driven on 8 occasions so far this season, with 27 drives last season. He stated that Mrs Negus had a clear record in relation to this rule over the previous 12 months and that the level of the breach was low. Mr Renault stated that the JCA Penalty Guide showed a starting point for a breach of this Rule was a fine of $250 or a 5-drive suspension. The aggravating factor, he said, was that Mrs Negus ended up in a position she was not entitled to. Mr Renault submitted that a fine between $200 and $250 be considered as penalty in this case.

Mr Negus submitted that a warning should be imposed or a minimal fine of $50 if a fine was to be penalty.

Reasons For Penalty:

The JCA Penalty Guide provides a starting point of a 5-drive suspension or a $250 fine for a breach of this rule. We assessed the breach as low level and after taking into consideration the aggravating factor as mentioned above and Mrs Negus’s good record, determined that a $200 fine was an appropriate penalty in this case.


Accordingly, Mrs Negus was fined the sum of $200.

Document Actions