Auckland RC 28 November 2015 – R 4 – Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
ID: JCA13601
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 28 November 2015
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2015/11/28
Race Number:
R 4
Decision:
As Mr Innes admitted the breach we found the charge proved.
Penalty:
Mr Innes advised of riding engagements through until next Saturday and requested a deferment of any suspension until after that date. It was clearly explained by the Committee that any suspension imposed had to include “genuine” riding days, days that Mr Innes would likely be riding at.
Mr Innes, and his agent Mr Rodley, were afforded substantial time to put forward submissions as to which days should be included in any suspension. They submitted that two upcoming Central Districts’ days, Waipukurau (Sunday December 6th) and Hastings (Thursday December 10th) should be included. In essence Mr Innes said he was a Central Districts rider due to the fact he rode yesterday (Friday) at Otaki and is intending to ride next Thursday at Taranaki.
Mr Rodley spoke of a recent conversation he had with the Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward where Mr Neal indicated that if a rider rode once in the Central Districts that would be enough to say they were a Central Districts rider. The Committee referred Mr Rodley to the recent Parkes and Johnson Appeals which clearly set out the factors to be considered by Judicial Committees when setting penalties.
Mr Rodley was not familiar with these appeal decisions.
The Committee asked Mr Innes if he had a recent history of riding at Central Districts’ industry days. He replied that he did not. We accept that Mr Innes rides regularly at major race meetings throughout the country and yesterday’s Otaki meeting (Premier status) could be classified as a major meeting, however the fact he rode at Otaki yesterday, and his intention to ride at Taranaki next week, were not, in our opinion, sufficient reasons to have all Central Districts race days included in his suspension.
This from the recent Appeal decision of Parkes v RIU (2015), “To make a penalty “genuine” there can be no other way than looking at a jockey’s recent riding history and determining where a jockey habitually rides.”
Mr Innes further submitted that he had an engagement to ride at the Waipukurau meeting on Sunday December 6th. He said he had been asked to ride a horse for Mr Pike in a fillies’ race on that day. Mr Pike was called to give evidence. He told the Committee he had a filly called Ywahoo which he intended running in an NZB Insurance Pearl Series Race for 3yr old fillies ($12,000) at Waipukurau on December 6th. Mr Innes is his stable rider; he rode the horse at its previous start and would be on it again for the bonus race. Based on this specific evidence put before us we were satisfied that Mr Innes would have been riding at Waipukurau on December 6th therefore this day was included in the penalty.
Accordingly Mr Innes is suspended from the close of racing on Saturday December 5th up to and including racing on Saturday December 12th. Days included in this suspension are:
06/12/15 Waipukurau
09/12/15 Auckland
11/12/15 Tauranga
12/12/15 Waikato
Facts:
Following the running of Race 4, Swiss Deli 1400, an Information was lodged by Mr J Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) in that L Innes permitted his mount LONG HARBOUR to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of SHOW LOVER which was checked near the 250 metres.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
Mr Coles showed all the available films of the incident, four in total. Mr Innes was racing in a position directly behind WHO’S QUEEN (A Schwerin) with SHOW LOVER, ridden by Ms Spratt, to his inside closest to the running rail. Mr Innes angled his mount inwards looking for a run but was only half a length clear of Ms Spratt when he did so. As a result SHOW LOVER was checked with Ms Spratt being forced to take a hold of her mount.
Mr Innes admitted the breach of careless riding saying it was quite clear his mount rolled in on SHOW LOVER. He explained that his horse moved in half a horse-width further than he intended but he did try to relieve the pressure on Ms Spratt and didn’t believe the interference had affected her chances.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham presented Mr Innes’ riding record for the previous 12 months which showed suspensions on the following occasions:
28/2/15 6 days
12/09/15 4 days
28/10/15 3 days + $750
Mr Oatham submitted that Mr Innes rode regularly at all major race meetings and his record could be considered a neutral factor when deciding on penalty. He said the Stewards placed the degree of carelessness in the midrange. The Judicial Committee asked Mr Oatham for his opinion on how much the interference had affected Ms Spratt and if he agreed that Mr Innes had made an effort to correct his mount and relieve the pressure on Ms Spratt. Mr Oatham replied that SHOW LOVER had been badly checked with Ms Spratt telling him she believed she would have “weighed in” had she had a clear run. He said Mr Innes had corrected his mount “to a degree”.
Mr Innes disagreed with the assertion that Ms Spratt would have weighed in, saying she finished many lengths back in the field.
Reasons for Penalty:
In coming to a decision on penalty the committee took into account all of the submissions. We adopted as a starting point, a five day suspension as outlined in the Judicial Control Authority Penalty Guide.
In relation to Mr Innes’ record, we consider four suspensions over a 12 month period, for a busy rider, neither an excellent record nor a poor record. (Following a question from the Committee Mr Innes confirmed there had been two careless riding charges on 28/2/15, not one).
We therefore assessed his record as a neutral factor.
In assessing the degree of carelessness we viewed all the films. These showed Mr Innes angling inwards for a run where clearly there was not room for two horses. Evidence was produced confirming Mr Innes made an attempt to lessen the effect on Ms Spratt but nonetheless SHOW LOVER received a substantial check. It was difficult to assess where that horse may have finished, had the interference not occurred, as we did not hear directly from Ms Spratt.
We placed the degree of careless in the midrange but, had there been more than just one horse affected, this assessment would have been higher.
Finally we have given Mr Innes credit for his ready admission of the breach. Balancing up all of the factors it was the Committee’s opinion that a four day suspension was an appropriate penalty on this occasion. We noted that the last day of the suspension was a premier day.
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: 4be8fc19a66ed2779cc946222b3eb5fd
informantnumber: A6927
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 30/11/2015
hearing_title: Auckland RC 28 November 2015 - R 4 - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 4, Swiss Deli 1400, an Information was lodged by Mr J Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) in that L Innes permitted his mount LONG HARBOUR to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of SHOW LOVER which was checked near the 250 metres.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
Mr Coles showed all the available films of the incident, four in total. Mr Innes was racing in a position directly behind WHO’S QUEEN (A Schwerin) with SHOW LOVER, ridden by Ms Spratt, to his inside closest to the running rail. Mr Innes angled his mount inwards looking for a run but was only half a length clear of Ms Spratt when he did so. As a result SHOW LOVER was checked with Ms Spratt being forced to take a hold of her mount.
Mr Innes admitted the breach of careless riding saying it was quite clear his mount rolled in on SHOW LOVER. He explained that his horse moved in half a horse-width further than he intended but he did try to relieve the pressure on Ms Spratt and didn’t believe the interference had affected her chances.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
As Mr Innes admitted the breach we found the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham presented Mr Innes’ riding record for the previous 12 months which showed suspensions on the following occasions:
28/2/15 6 days
12/09/15 4 days
28/10/15 3 days + $750
Mr Oatham submitted that Mr Innes rode regularly at all major race meetings and his record could be considered a neutral factor when deciding on penalty. He said the Stewards placed the degree of carelessness in the midrange. The Judicial Committee asked Mr Oatham for his opinion on how much the interference had affected Ms Spratt and if he agreed that Mr Innes had made an effort to correct his mount and relieve the pressure on Ms Spratt. Mr Oatham replied that SHOW LOVER had been badly checked with Ms Spratt telling him she believed she would have “weighed in” had she had a clear run. He said Mr Innes had corrected his mount “to a degree”.
Mr Innes disagreed with the assertion that Ms Spratt would have weighed in, saying she finished many lengths back in the field.
reasonsforpenalty:
In coming to a decision on penalty the committee took into account all of the submissions. We adopted as a starting point, a five day suspension as outlined in the Judicial Control Authority Penalty Guide.
In relation to Mr Innes’ record, we consider four suspensions over a 12 month period, for a busy rider, neither an excellent record nor a poor record. (Following a question from the Committee Mr Innes confirmed there had been two careless riding charges on 28/2/15, not one).
We therefore assessed his record as a neutral factor.
In assessing the degree of carelessness we viewed all the films. These showed Mr Innes angling inwards for a run where clearly there was not room for two horses. Evidence was produced confirming Mr Innes made an attempt to lessen the effect on Ms Spratt but nonetheless SHOW LOVER received a substantial check. It was difficult to assess where that horse may have finished, had the interference not occurred, as we did not hear directly from Ms Spratt.
We placed the degree of careless in the midrange but, had there been more than just one horse affected, this assessment would have been higher.
Finally we have given Mr Innes credit for his ready admission of the breach. Balancing up all of the factors it was the Committee’s opinion that a four day suspension was an appropriate penalty on this occasion. We noted that the last day of the suspension was a premier day.
penalty:
Mr Innes advised of riding engagements through until next Saturday and requested a deferment of any suspension until after that date. It was clearly explained by the Committee that any suspension imposed had to include “genuine” riding days, days that Mr Innes would likely be riding at.
Mr Innes, and his agent Mr Rodley, were afforded substantial time to put forward submissions as to which days should be included in any suspension. They submitted that two upcoming Central Districts’ days, Waipukurau (Sunday December 6th) and Hastings (Thursday December 10th) should be included. In essence Mr Innes said he was a Central Districts rider due to the fact he rode yesterday (Friday) at Otaki and is intending to ride next Thursday at Taranaki.
Mr Rodley spoke of a recent conversation he had with the Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward where Mr Neal indicated that if a rider rode once in the Central Districts that would be enough to say they were a Central Districts rider. The Committee referred Mr Rodley to the recent Parkes and Johnson Appeals which clearly set out the factors to be considered by Judicial Committees when setting penalties.
Mr Rodley was not familiar with these appeal decisions.
The Committee asked Mr Innes if he had a recent history of riding at Central Districts’ industry days. He replied that he did not. We accept that Mr Innes rides regularly at major race meetings throughout the country and yesterday’s Otaki meeting (Premier status) could be classified as a major meeting, however the fact he rode at Otaki yesterday, and his intention to ride at Taranaki next week, were not, in our opinion, sufficient reasons to have all Central Districts race days included in his suspension.
This from the recent Appeal decision of Parkes v RIU (2015), “To make a penalty “genuine” there can be no other way than looking at a jockey’s recent riding history and determining where a jockey habitually rides.”
Mr Innes further submitted that he had an engagement to ride at the Waipukurau meeting on Sunday December 6th. He said he had been asked to ride a horse for Mr Pike in a fillies’ race on that day. Mr Pike was called to give evidence. He told the Committee he had a filly called Ywahoo which he intended running in an NZB Insurance Pearl Series Race for 3yr old fillies ($12,000) at Waipukurau on December 6th. Mr Innes is his stable rider; he rode the horse at its previous start and would be on it again for the bonus race. Based on this specific evidence put before us we were satisfied that Mr Innes would have been riding at Waipukurau on December 6th therefore this day was included in the penalty.
Accordingly Mr Innes is suspended from the close of racing on Saturday December 5th up to and including racing on Saturday December 12th. Days included in this suspension are:
06/12/15 Waipukurau
09/12/15 Auckland
11/12/15 Tauranga
12/12/15 Waikato
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr L Innes - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mr A Rodley - Rider Agent, Mr T Pike - Trainer, Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: adc121623d294dc5d653cf1efb9953fe
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 764e9fc5529f7ac64b3347a4e091b025
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 28/11/2015
meet_title: Auckland RC - 28 November 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC