Canterbury R 23 March 2013 – R 8
ID: JCA11258
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 23 March 2013
Meet Chair:
KHales
Meet Committee Member 1:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2013/03/23
Race Number:
R8
Decision:
As a consequence of the reasons given we find the charge proved.
Penalty:
Mrs Pitman’s application for a deferment is granted. She is suspended from race riding from the conclusion of racing on Saturday 30th March 2013 until the conclusion of racing on Saturday 6th April 2013 – two South Island days.
Charge:
Careless riding.
Facts:
The Stipendiary Stewards alleged that as the field was passing the 250 metres mark, that the respondent directed her mount to shift outwards when not clear of “Bremusa” (R Bishop), which was checked.
As a consequence of the Stipendiary Stewards allegations, Mrs Pitman was charged with careless riding pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing which reads:
“A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be
(d) Careless
Mr Zarb showed the incident which gave rise to the charge using the head on and side on camera views.
Mr Zarb called Mr Ryan Bishop, the rider of “Bremusa”, to give evidence.
Mr Bishop told the hearing that his horse had been racing “greenly”, with its head to one side, for approximately 800 metres, and by the 250 metres mark, it was tiring quickly. However, about the 250 metres mark, Mrs Pitman on “Miss Maximuss” “rolled out on top of him”. He advised the hearing that “Miss Maximuss” was approximately one half of its length clear at the point of crossing his line, which caused him to “check” his mount.
Mrs Pitman was assisted in the hearing by her employer, Mr M Pitman, Licensed Trainer. She confirmed that she was aware of her obligations in terms of ensuring that she was her own length and another length clear, when passing another horse. However, she said that there was no contact between her horse and “Bremusa”.
Mr Pitman maintained that there was not a lot of “angling out” and said that there was no actual contact between the horses in question. He pointed to the actions of other horses in proximity and how a gap had presented itself, which Mrs Pitman took advantage of. He said that Mrs Pitman had been questioned earlier in the day, as to why she had not taken a gap in Race 5, and said that was probably on her mind when the gap appeared in the race in question.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Zarb said that the Stipendiary Stewards were of the view that Mrs Pitman caused the “check” to “Bremusa” by directing her horse outwards when not her own length and another horse length clear.
Mrs Pitman submitted through her employer, that to all intents and purposes she rode competitively and that the interference caused by her to a tiring horse was not significant.
Reasons for Decision:
In considering this charge, we must carefully take into account the actions of Mrs Pitman, and not what was going on around her in terms of other horses which were unaffected by this incident. The fact of the matter is that Mrs Pitman directed her horse outwards when not her own horse length and another horse length clear of “Bremusa”. That is fundamental to a charge of careless riding, as the rule is, among other things, designed to protect horse and rider safety.
The evidence in this regard was clear and not disputed by Mrs Pitman, notwithstanding that that the consequences were not great.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Zarb told the hearing that Mrs Pitman had not in her riding career, appeared before a Judicial Committee on such a charge before. He said that she was co-operative with the Stipendiary Stewards. He submitted that a suspension of three riding days should be imposed.
Mr Pitman told us that Mrs Pitman had had 542 rides in her career without incident, and is a promising rider.
Mrs Pitman applied for a deferment of the coming into effect of a suspension for seven days.
Reasons for Penalty:
The starting point in terms of the Judicial Control Authority’s penalty guide is a suspension of five riding days.
We must then look at aggravating and mitigating features.
In this case there are no matters which we consider as aggravating, in order to warrant an uplift on our starting point.
By way of mitigating features, we observe that “Bremusa” was racing “greenly” and by the 250 metre mark was a beaten horse. There was no contact between the horses. To a degree, Mrs Pitman’s actions were competitive, and she went on to finish 3rd in the race. We note that she has had 542 rides in her career, and that she has not appeared before a Judicial Committee on such a charge before. She is a South Island rider only.
These mitigating factors allow us to give Mrs Pitman a significant discount on penalty, namely three days, making the penalty that of a two day suspension.
In setting this penalty, we have not overlooked the fact that this race was a Listed Stakes race for a purse of $70,000.00. However, for the reason given above in relation to mitigation, we are satisfied that a two day suspension is a proper penalty in this case.
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: 22ccd0c469708a226d6c7d1ba6458cff
informantnumber: A4925
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 01/04/2013
hearing_title: Canterbury R 23 March 2013 - R 8
charge:
Careless riding.
facts:
The Stipendiary Stewards alleged that as the field was passing the 250 metres mark, that the respondent directed her mount to shift outwards when not clear of “Bremusa” (R Bishop), which was checked.
As a consequence of the Stipendiary Stewards allegations, Mrs Pitman was charged with careless riding pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing which reads:
“A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be
(d) Careless
Mr Zarb showed the incident which gave rise to the charge using the head on and side on camera views.
Mr Zarb called Mr Ryan Bishop, the rider of “Bremusa”, to give evidence.
Mr Bishop told the hearing that his horse had been racing “greenly”, with its head to one side, for approximately 800 metres, and by the 250 metres mark, it was tiring quickly. However, about the 250 metres mark, Mrs Pitman on “Miss Maximuss” “rolled out on top of him”. He advised the hearing that “Miss Maximuss” was approximately one half of its length clear at the point of crossing his line, which caused him to “check” his mount.
Mrs Pitman was assisted in the hearing by her employer, Mr M Pitman, Licensed Trainer. She confirmed that she was aware of her obligations in terms of ensuring that she was her own length and another length clear, when passing another horse. However, she said that there was no contact between her horse and “Bremusa”.
Mr Pitman maintained that there was not a lot of “angling out” and said that there was no actual contact between the horses in question. He pointed to the actions of other horses in proximity and how a gap had presented itself, which Mrs Pitman took advantage of. He said that Mrs Pitman had been questioned earlier in the day, as to why she had not taken a gap in Race 5, and said that was probably on her mind when the gap appeared in the race in question.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Zarb said that the Stipendiary Stewards were of the view that Mrs Pitman caused the “check” to “Bremusa” by directing her horse outwards when not her own length and another horse length clear.
Mrs Pitman submitted through her employer, that to all intents and purposes she rode competitively and that the interference caused by her to a tiring horse was not significant.
reasonsfordecision:
In considering this charge, we must carefully take into account the actions of Mrs Pitman, and not what was going on around her in terms of other horses which were unaffected by this incident. The fact of the matter is that Mrs Pitman directed her horse outwards when not her own horse length and another horse length clear of “Bremusa”. That is fundamental to a charge of careless riding, as the rule is, among other things, designed to protect horse and rider safety.
The evidence in this regard was clear and not disputed by Mrs Pitman, notwithstanding that that the consequences were not great.
Decision:
As a consequence of the reasons given we find the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Zarb told the hearing that Mrs Pitman had not in her riding career, appeared before a Judicial Committee on such a charge before. He said that she was co-operative with the Stipendiary Stewards. He submitted that a suspension of three riding days should be imposed.
Mr Pitman told us that Mrs Pitman had had 542 rides in her career without incident, and is a promising rider.
Mrs Pitman applied for a deferment of the coming into effect of a suspension for seven days.
reasonsforpenalty:
The starting point in terms of the Judicial Control Authority’s penalty guide is a suspension of five riding days.
We must then look at aggravating and mitigating features.
In this case there are no matters which we consider as aggravating, in order to warrant an uplift on our starting point.
By way of mitigating features, we observe that “Bremusa” was racing “greenly” and by the 250 metre mark was a beaten horse. There was no contact between the horses. To a degree, Mrs Pitman’s actions were competitive, and she went on to finish 3rd in the race. We note that she has had 542 rides in her career, and that she has not appeared before a Judicial Committee on such a charge before. She is a South Island rider only.
These mitigating factors allow us to give Mrs Pitman a significant discount on penalty, namely three days, making the penalty that of a two day suspension.
In setting this penalty, we have not overlooked the fact that this race was a Listed Stakes race for a purse of $70,000.00. However, for the reason given above in relation to mitigation, we are satisfied that a two day suspension is a proper penalty in this case.
penalty:
Mrs Pitman’s application for a deferment is granted. She is suspended from race riding from the conclusion of racing on Saturday 30th March 2013 until the conclusion of racing on Saturday 6th April 2013 – two South Island days.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr M Zarb - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mrs B Pitman - Apprentice Jockey
Otherperson: Mr M Pitman - Licensed Trainer assisting Mrs Pitman, Mr R Bishop - Rider of BREMUSA
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: fb468f467579ca3159243a82da52851f
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 36ad872b6d5cac05e0cb03b0288a704a
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 23/03/2013
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 23 March 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: KHales
meet_pm1: RMcKenzie
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury Racing