Manawatu RC 26 December 2019 – R 4 – Chair, Mr T Utikere
ID: JCA10613
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Manawatu RC - 26 December 2019
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMcCutcheon
Race Date:
2019/12/26
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
The charge is dismissed.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 4 (Mad Butcher 1200), Information A11670 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 638(1)(d), in that : “...C O’Beirne allowed her mount to shift out near the 350 metres when not clear of MEHRTENS which clipped a heel and dislodged the rider”.
Rule 638(1)(d) states:
“A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be: ... (d) careless.”
Ms O’Beirne, assisted by Mrs K Clapperton, confirmed that she understood the Rule and denied the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Using the relevant films (side-on, head-on, 800m view and rear-view) Mr Balcombe pointed out the relevant runners before all angles were played without comment from either party.
Miss Z Moki was called to give evidence by the RIU. She identified that she rode the horse MEHRTENS and was approaching the home turn when she had decided to improve from that point. Entering the straight she was half a length behind Ms O’Beirne (DANA’S PROPHECY) who she believed did not look, pulled out and Miss Moki fell off as a result. She believed contact was made resulting in her horse “dropping a leg”, stumbling and her falling off. She had yelled “Oi” immediately prior to this incident to ensure Ms O’Beirne knew she was there. She believed there was sufficient room for herself to improve to her outside without any impediment.
Ms O’Beirne had no questions for Miss Moki. Mrs Clapperton asked whether Miss Moki believed her horse had “dipped and knuckled”, to which she replied “that’s what it felt like”. Mrs Clapperton asked whether Mr Singh’s (who was located to her outside) actions had any bearing on what had happened, to which she replied that she could not tell.
Mr Balcombe demonstrated the incident on the available films. He pointed out Ms O’Beirne positioned directly behind the Gary Vile runner (GOT THE CALL), that she had shifted out and as a result Miss Moki became unbalanced and fell off the side. He believed the head-on view confirmed that she was following GOT THE CALL (R Goldsbury) and that Mr Singh was half a length back on Miss Moki’s runner. The rear view, in his opinion, confirmed Mr Singh’s position, that he was chasing his mount, that Miss Moki had improved to the outside of Ms O’Beirne, and that Mr Singh was dictated wider out on the track. He pointed out that Mr Parkes (HE’S DONE A RUNNER) racing to Ms O’Beirne’s inside was approximately one to two horse widths clear of her. He also believed this view identified there was some distance between Ms O’Beirne and Ms Goldsbury.
In response to questions from Ms O’Beirne about possible pressure applied from the outside, he did not believe there was any pressure applied by Mr Singh, stating he was 100 percent certain of this. When pressed by Ms O’Beirne to explain this further he believed the rear view and side-on films established that Mr Singh was not in any position to have applied pressure at that time.
Mr Goodwin had no further evidence to call for the RIU
Ms O’Beirne called Apprentice Jockey Sarah Macnab to give evidence. She explained that she was riding SHANPARK and was positioned immediately behind Miss Moki and Ms O’Beirne. Whilst following Miss Moki she had observed Mr Singh to have come around Miss Moki’s outside and that he had “shaved her” as a result of the pressure he had applied from the outside. In response to a question from Mrs Clapperton she believed that Ms O’Beirne had not made much movement at all and that the gap had opened and then closed quite easily.
Under cross-examination Mr Goodwin asked Miss Macnab whether her observations would have been consistent with the available films, and her response relied upon her own observations. Under re-examination Miss Macnab believed the films may not have been clear, that Mr Singh had touched Miss Moki’s back end and she did not observe any clipping of heels.
Mrs Lisa Allpress was called to give evidence by the Respondent to provide a senior rider’s perspective on the incident. After reviewing the films Mrs Allpress stated that she could not see where Ms O’Beirne had moved, and that Miss Moki had been in an awkward position with the horse coming on its outside. She did not believe it was clear enough to see where Ms O’Beirne had moved out as the films were inconclusive. She did not believe Ms O’Beirne had come in front of Miss Moki and that Mr Singh had ridden “tight” around the bend. She advised the Committee that she had previously ridden MEHRTENS on one occasion and after winning on it, had advised that she did not want to ride it again. Her reason being that it was an awkward horse to ride. She did not believe that in this race MEHRTENS had clipped heels, but rather Miss Moki had just fallen off.
In response to questions from Mr Goodwin, Mrs Allpress believed that Mr Singh was in a position to put pressure on Miss Moki and that he was not simply attempting to hold his spot. She agreed that Miss Moki was already improving, and was entitled to do so, but that there had been plenty of room for Ms O’Beirne.
In response to a question from the Committee, she identified that if Mr Singh had touched the hindquarters of MEHRTENS, that it was possible to see that on the films by the horse’s sidewards movement/action, adding that when a horse became unbalanced it could very easily throw a rider.
The Respondent had no further witnesses to call.
The Committee asked Mr Goodwin why he was not intending to call Mr Singh to give evidence, to which he indicated that would have no bearing on the incident as Mr Singh was holding his own line during what had happened.
In summing up Mr Goodwin stated that coming around the home turn Ms O’Beirne was racing to the outside of Mr Parkes and that there was no degree of separation between the two. Ms O’Beirne had then angled her mount out when not the required distance clear. He believed the films at this point demonstrated a clear degree of separation and that she had come out approximately one horse width. Mr Singh was never in a position to have any bearing on the incident and neither was Miss Goldsbury as both had always been clear. Ms O’Beirne had come out into Miss Moki’s line and while he accepted that it was an unusual fall, he submitted that it would not have happened if Ms O’Beirne had not shifted ground at the time. For these reasons he believed the charge should be upheld.
Ms O’Beirne submitted that the films were inconclusive and that they were not able to show everything that “could” have happened at the time. She pointed out that the evidence from Miss Macnab and Mrs Allpress both indicated agreement that there may have been movement from both sides, and that Ms O’Beirne’s movement was minimal at best. She submitted that the Committee could not know whether there was any pressure applied from Mr Singh and that his absence from the Hearing was not helpful. She believed the films did not show that the horse had clipped heels as in such a situation one would expect the horse to have dipped. Instead the films clearly demonstrated that the horse’s head had stayed in the same position prior, during and after the incident.
Mrs Clapperton in closing confirmed that Miss Moki was improving around Ms O’Beirne and that the evidence of Miss Macnab clearly demonstrated her belief that Mr Singh had touched Miss Moki’s back end. This had unbalanced the horse which had never clipped heels at any stage.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee considered all of the evidence presented during the Hearing. The available films do show what happened prior to, and after, Miss Moki’s fall. However, they do not show us with some accuracy or clarity the incident in its entirety. This is particularly so where the incident has happened on the point of the home turn. This leads us to accept and form the view that the available films are inconclusive on this occasion. We agree that Ms O’Beirne has shifted off her own line, however to a minimal extent. It is clear to us that there is a real possibility that Mr Singh may have touched the hindquarters of Miss Moki’s mount at the same time that Ms O’Beirne made her minimal movement. This combination may have unbalanced MEHRTENS, and in the absence of any evidence directly from Mr Singh there is still uncertainty around the blame resting fully with the Respondent.
In presenting their case, it remained open to the RIU to call Mr Singh to give evidence, however the RIU had elected not to do so even when questioned on this by the Committee. We have also considered Miss Macnab’s evidence which we consider to be genuine and to carry much weight. This is because her view of what unfolded came from a position where she was directly behind the horses involved. It is because of her position at the time, that this provides a more reliable view of what was likely to have occurred. Given the lack of certainty we cannot be satisfied that Ms O’Beirne can be fully to blame of riding in a careless manner. Therefore there is only one safe course of action which must follow.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 0478742008d5c0cd9498890224d1ff0d
informantnumber: A11670
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 28/12/2019
hearing_title: Manawatu RC 26 December 2019 - R 4 - Chair, Mr T Utikere
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 4 (Mad Butcher 1200), Information A11670 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 638(1)(d), in that : “...C O’Beirne allowed her mount to shift out near the 350 metres when not clear of MEHRTENS which clipped a heel and dislodged the rider”.
Rule 638(1)(d) states:
“A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be: ... (d) careless.”
Ms O’Beirne, assisted by Mrs K Clapperton, confirmed that she understood the Rule and denied the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Using the relevant films (side-on, head-on, 800m view and rear-view) Mr Balcombe pointed out the relevant runners before all angles were played without comment from either party.
Miss Z Moki was called to give evidence by the RIU. She identified that she rode the horse MEHRTENS and was approaching the home turn when she had decided to improve from that point. Entering the straight she was half a length behind Ms O’Beirne (DANA’S PROPHECY) who she believed did not look, pulled out and Miss Moki fell off as a result. She believed contact was made resulting in her horse “dropping a leg”, stumbling and her falling off. She had yelled “Oi” immediately prior to this incident to ensure Ms O’Beirne knew she was there. She believed there was sufficient room for herself to improve to her outside without any impediment.
Ms O’Beirne had no questions for Miss Moki. Mrs Clapperton asked whether Miss Moki believed her horse had “dipped and knuckled”, to which she replied “that’s what it felt like”. Mrs Clapperton asked whether Mr Singh’s (who was located to her outside) actions had any bearing on what had happened, to which she replied that she could not tell.
Mr Balcombe demonstrated the incident on the available films. He pointed out Ms O’Beirne positioned directly behind the Gary Vile runner (GOT THE CALL), that she had shifted out and as a result Miss Moki became unbalanced and fell off the side. He believed the head-on view confirmed that she was following GOT THE CALL (R Goldsbury) and that Mr Singh was half a length back on Miss Moki’s runner. The rear view, in his opinion, confirmed Mr Singh’s position, that he was chasing his mount, that Miss Moki had improved to the outside of Ms O’Beirne, and that Mr Singh was dictated wider out on the track. He pointed out that Mr Parkes (HE’S DONE A RUNNER) racing to Ms O’Beirne’s inside was approximately one to two horse widths clear of her. He also believed this view identified there was some distance between Ms O’Beirne and Ms Goldsbury.
In response to questions from Ms O’Beirne about possible pressure applied from the outside, he did not believe there was any pressure applied by Mr Singh, stating he was 100 percent certain of this. When pressed by Ms O’Beirne to explain this further he believed the rear view and side-on films established that Mr Singh was not in any position to have applied pressure at that time.
Mr Goodwin had no further evidence to call for the RIU
Ms O’Beirne called Apprentice Jockey Sarah Macnab to give evidence. She explained that she was riding SHANPARK and was positioned immediately behind Miss Moki and Ms O’Beirne. Whilst following Miss Moki she had observed Mr Singh to have come around Miss Moki’s outside and that he had “shaved her” as a result of the pressure he had applied from the outside. In response to a question from Mrs Clapperton she believed that Ms O’Beirne had not made much movement at all and that the gap had opened and then closed quite easily.
Under cross-examination Mr Goodwin asked Miss Macnab whether her observations would have been consistent with the available films, and her response relied upon her own observations. Under re-examination Miss Macnab believed the films may not have been clear, that Mr Singh had touched Miss Moki’s back end and she did not observe any clipping of heels.
Mrs Lisa Allpress was called to give evidence by the Respondent to provide a senior rider’s perspective on the incident. After reviewing the films Mrs Allpress stated that she could not see where Ms O’Beirne had moved, and that Miss Moki had been in an awkward position with the horse coming on its outside. She did not believe it was clear enough to see where Ms O’Beirne had moved out as the films were inconclusive. She did not believe Ms O’Beirne had come in front of Miss Moki and that Mr Singh had ridden “tight” around the bend. She advised the Committee that she had previously ridden MEHRTENS on one occasion and after winning on it, had advised that she did not want to ride it again. Her reason being that it was an awkward horse to ride. She did not believe that in this race MEHRTENS had clipped heels, but rather Miss Moki had just fallen off.
In response to questions from Mr Goodwin, Mrs Allpress believed that Mr Singh was in a position to put pressure on Miss Moki and that he was not simply attempting to hold his spot. She agreed that Miss Moki was already improving, and was entitled to do so, but that there had been plenty of room for Ms O’Beirne.
In response to a question from the Committee, she identified that if Mr Singh had touched the hindquarters of MEHRTENS, that it was possible to see that on the films by the horse’s sidewards movement/action, adding that when a horse became unbalanced it could very easily throw a rider.
The Respondent had no further witnesses to call.
The Committee asked Mr Goodwin why he was not intending to call Mr Singh to give evidence, to which he indicated that would have no bearing on the incident as Mr Singh was holding his own line during what had happened.
In summing up Mr Goodwin stated that coming around the home turn Ms O’Beirne was racing to the outside of Mr Parkes and that there was no degree of separation between the two. Ms O’Beirne had then angled her mount out when not the required distance clear. He believed the films at this point demonstrated a clear degree of separation and that she had come out approximately one horse width. Mr Singh was never in a position to have any bearing on the incident and neither was Miss Goldsbury as both had always been clear. Ms O’Beirne had come out into Miss Moki’s line and while he accepted that it was an unusual fall, he submitted that it would not have happened if Ms O’Beirne had not shifted ground at the time. For these reasons he believed the charge should be upheld.
Ms O’Beirne submitted that the films were inconclusive and that they were not able to show everything that “could” have happened at the time. She pointed out that the evidence from Miss Macnab and Mrs Allpress both indicated agreement that there may have been movement from both sides, and that Ms O’Beirne’s movement was minimal at best. She submitted that the Committee could not know whether there was any pressure applied from Mr Singh and that his absence from the Hearing was not helpful. She believed the films did not show that the horse had clipped heels as in such a situation one would expect the horse to have dipped. Instead the films clearly demonstrated that the horse’s head had stayed in the same position prior, during and after the incident.
Mrs Clapperton in closing confirmed that Miss Moki was improving around Ms O’Beirne and that the evidence of Miss Macnab clearly demonstrated her belief that Mr Singh had touched Miss Moki’s back end. This had unbalanced the horse which had never clipped heels at any stage.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee considered all of the evidence presented during the Hearing. The available films do show what happened prior to, and after, Miss Moki’s fall. However, they do not show us with some accuracy or clarity the incident in its entirety. This is particularly so where the incident has happened on the point of the home turn. This leads us to accept and form the view that the available films are inconclusive on this occasion. We agree that Ms O’Beirne has shifted off her own line, however to a minimal extent. It is clear to us that there is a real possibility that Mr Singh may have touched the hindquarters of Miss Moki’s mount at the same time that Ms O’Beirne made her minimal movement. This combination may have unbalanced MEHRTENS, and in the absence of any evidence directly from Mr Singh there is still uncertainty around the blame resting fully with the Respondent.
In presenting their case, it remained open to the RIU to call Mr Singh to give evidence, however the RIU had elected not to do so even when questioned on this by the Committee. We have also considered Miss Macnab’s evidence which we consider to be genuine and to carry much weight. This is because her view of what unfolded came from a position where she was directly behind the horses involved. It is because of her position at the time, that this provides a more reliable view of what was likely to have occurred. Given the lack of certainty we cannot be satisfied that Ms O’Beirne can be fully to blame of riding in a careless manner. Therefore there is only one safe course of action which must follow.
Decision:
The charge is dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Sitpendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms C O'Beirne - Apprentice Rider
Otherperson: Mr D Balcombe - Stipendiary Steward, Miss Z Moki - Rider of MEHRTENS, Miss S Macnab - Rider of SHANPARK, Mrs L Allpress - Licensed Jockey, Mrs K Clapperton - Apprentice Jockey Mentor assisting Ms O'Beirne
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 429a70ccf341e17fba424f4777ce1bed
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 250ece1172bb7fd2d41e18cbb314a685
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/12/2019
meet_title: Manawatu RC - 26 December 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: manawatu-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: NMcCutcheon
meet_pm2: none
name: Manawatu RC