Cambridge JC 3 July 2013 – R 3
ID: JCA14468
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Cambridge JC - 3 July 2013
Meet Chair:
AGodsalve
Meet Committee Member 1:
GTankard
Race Date:
2013/07/03
Race Number:
R3
Decision:
As the charge was admitted we find the breach proved.
Penalty:
Accordingly, we impose a $700 fine.
Charge:
Following the running of race 3, the Azamour Champion Racehorse & Proven Sire Juvenile, over 1200 metres, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(3)(b). The Informant, Mr J Oatham alleged that Apprentice Rider A Forbes used the whip in an excessive manner prior to the 200 metres on DILLY.
Rule 638(3)(b) reads: A rider shall not strike a horse with a whip in a manner or to an extent which is unnecessary, excessive or improper.
Facts:
Mr Stephen Marsh, Licensed Trainer, appeared for jockey A Forbes to whom he is apprenticed.
Mr Oatham requested that Mr Williamson display the available video films of the subject race.
Mr Williamson pointed out the position of the subject horse DILLY which was racing near the lead as it approached the 200 meters mark. The horse was racing in trainer Mr Marsh's stable colours. Mr Williamson identified 11 strikes with the whip by jockey Forbes in the period leading up to the 200 meters mark. He said that Mr Forbes had paused 3 times between these 11 strikes but in his opinion these pauses were for about 3 strides only. They were not the required 6 strides each. Mr Williamson added that the Stipendiary Stewards assessed the severity and number of strikes to be at the very low end on the scale of seriousness.
Mr Forbes said that he did not believe he was hitting the horse in an aggressive manner. He accepted that there were 11 strikes but he felt that the final of the 3 pauses he gave the horse was close to being 6 strides. He also stated that in his opinion most of the strikes could be called 'taps'.
Mr Marsh asked to view the film in slow motion and after seeing it stated that he felt the final pause was almost 6 strides and that in his opinion Mr Forbes had hit the horse just at the 200 metres mark as it was in the 6th stride of that pause period. He added that most of the strikes could be called 'light backhanders ' although there were a few behind the saddle. He added that the horse was well fancied to win the race and had a lot of punters money on it. He also said that he looked upon Mr Forbes as an apprentice rider who could be trusted to ride a horse under these circumstances as he was a good, aggressive rider.
In response to questions from the committee Mr Oatham stated that he did not accept Mr Marsh's submission about the final pause as he felt it was on the 4th stride at the time. He said there was no evidence of a clear 6 strides. Asked to clarify the rule by the committee, Mr Oatham said 6 clear strides are required in each pause between strikes and the rider is required to ride hands and heels, with his hands on the reins.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham submitted Mr Forbes' record in respect of breaches of this rule. He stated that it was a very poor record. He told the committee that Mr Forbes had 2 breaches of this rule in New Zealand and 6 breaches in Australia within the past 12 months. He did point out that the breaches in Australia were under a different jurisdiction and attracted fines only. He then outlined Mr Forbes' record starting on 8th September 2012 at Ellerslie when he was fined $200. On 29th April 2013 at Waipa he was suspended for a period of 4 days. In between these breaches he had 6 fines in Australia of $200 (2), $300 (2), and $400 (2). Mr Oatham acknowledged that there are different guidelines in Australia with respect to excess whip use but made the point that riders are expected to ride within the rules wherever they may be riding.
Regarding the breach today Mr Oatham said that while Mr Forbes' record is slightly confusing given the Australian matters, his most recent breach in New Zealand resulted in a suspension and normally the Stewards would submit that a further period of suspension would be incurred with any further breach. However he added that the breach on this occasion was low down on the scale of seriousness and while it was up to the committee to decide penalty, if a fine was to be considered the Stewards would submit that it should be a substantial one.
Mr Marsh on behalf of Mr Forbes stated that he had only recently signed up with him as an apprentice, and he acknowledged that Mr Forbes clearly had problems with his whip usage. He stated that it was something he wanted to work on with Mr Forbes, and would appreciate the opportunity to do so while Mr Forbes was continuing to race ride. He added that a good fine would hit him in the pocket harder than a suspension and that in his opinion, time off now from race riding was not going to help address the problem.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee has carefully considered the submissions of the parties in this matter.
The aggravating factors are:
1. The very poor record of Mr Forbes.
2. There were 11 strikes prior to the 200 meters mark without the required 6 stride respite.
The mitigating factors are:
1. The admission of the breach.
2. The attempt by Mr Forbes to give the horse the required 3 pauses between strikes, especially the final pause which was just outside the guidelines.
3. While the number of strikes was excessive they were not severe in that they were not punishing the horse or hurting it.
4. Mr Forbes was riding one of the favoured horses which had a very good chance of winning the race.
5. The 11 strikes were not continuous which can be classed as an aggravating factor in other circumstances.
The Committee has the ability to exercise discretion when it comes to assessing penalties.
Discretion could be termed the 'right or authority to make official decisions using reason and judgement to choose from among acceptable alternatives when assessing penalties'.
We accept the submissions from Mr Marsh that as the mentor of Mr Forbes he is in a position to make a firm attempt to correct the error of Mr Forbes' riding when it comes to whip matters. Mr Forbes, while reasonably experienced, is still an apprentice who requires guidance.
The Judicial Control Authority penalty guide in respect of these breaches does not give this Committee the ability to consider a combination of a suspension and a fine. So we have to make a decision as to penalty on either a fine or a suspension. It would be simplistic to adopt a view that since Mr Forbes had been suspended at his previous breach of this rule then we should follow that decision and suspend him again. The circumstances of this current matter are different.
This Committee does not believe that this breach is serious enough to warrant a period of suspension which, following his last suspension would see Mr Forbes suspended for at least 4 days. The guidelines state that for a 2nd breach of this rule, a rider could be suspended for 2 riding days or fined $500. Consideration would be given to the aggravating features and the mitigating features of each case at hand. In this case, Mr Forbes' 3rd breach in New Zealand, the mitigating features ie number of strikes, frequency of strikes, and severity of strikes assist us to make a decision to exercise the discretion available to us. We must also take into account that the effect of any penalty we impose does not outweigh the seriousness of the breach.
We therefore determine that a fine would be appropriate in this matter, and such fine would need to be substantial to indicate to other industry participants that the matter is being viewed with due regard to the seriousness of this situation. Mr Forbes must be made aware that we are showing some leniency because we do not view this breach as anything other than a low range breach, and the other circumstances outlined. He is being made aware that any further breach of this rule will result in a period of suspension.
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: 875330a3895c280a417fdad71f92d6f1
informantnumber: 4273
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 24/06/2013
hearing_title: Cambridge JC 3 July 2013 - R 3
charge:
Following the running of race 3, the Azamour Champion Racehorse & Proven Sire Juvenile, over 1200 metres, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(3)(b). The Informant, Mr J Oatham alleged that Apprentice Rider A Forbes used the whip in an excessive manner prior to the 200 metres on DILLY.
Rule 638(3)(b) reads: A rider shall not strike a horse with a whip in a manner or to an extent which is unnecessary, excessive or improper.
facts:
Mr Stephen Marsh, Licensed Trainer, appeared for jockey A Forbes to whom he is apprenticed.
Mr Oatham requested that Mr Williamson display the available video films of the subject race.
Mr Williamson pointed out the position of the subject horse DILLY which was racing near the lead as it approached the 200 meters mark. The horse was racing in trainer Mr Marsh's stable colours. Mr Williamson identified 11 strikes with the whip by jockey Forbes in the period leading up to the 200 meters mark. He said that Mr Forbes had paused 3 times between these 11 strikes but in his opinion these pauses were for about 3 strides only. They were not the required 6 strides each. Mr Williamson added that the Stipendiary Stewards assessed the severity and number of strikes to be at the very low end on the scale of seriousness.
Mr Forbes said that he did not believe he was hitting the horse in an aggressive manner. He accepted that there were 11 strikes but he felt that the final of the 3 pauses he gave the horse was close to being 6 strides. He also stated that in his opinion most of the strikes could be called 'taps'.
Mr Marsh asked to view the film in slow motion and after seeing it stated that he felt the final pause was almost 6 strides and that in his opinion Mr Forbes had hit the horse just at the 200 metres mark as it was in the 6th stride of that pause period. He added that most of the strikes could be called 'light backhanders ' although there were a few behind the saddle. He added that the horse was well fancied to win the race and had a lot of punters money on it. He also said that he looked upon Mr Forbes as an apprentice rider who could be trusted to ride a horse under these circumstances as he was a good, aggressive rider.
In response to questions from the committee Mr Oatham stated that he did not accept Mr Marsh's submission about the final pause as he felt it was on the 4th stride at the time. He said there was no evidence of a clear 6 strides. Asked to clarify the rule by the committee, Mr Oatham said 6 clear strides are required in each pause between strikes and the rider is required to ride hands and heels, with his hands on the reins.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
As the charge was admitted we find the breach proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham submitted Mr Forbes' record in respect of breaches of this rule. He stated that it was a very poor record. He told the committee that Mr Forbes had 2 breaches of this rule in New Zealand and 6 breaches in Australia within the past 12 months. He did point out that the breaches in Australia were under a different jurisdiction and attracted fines only. He then outlined Mr Forbes' record starting on 8th September 2012 at Ellerslie when he was fined $200. On 29th April 2013 at Waipa he was suspended for a period of 4 days. In between these breaches he had 6 fines in Australia of $200 (2), $300 (2), and $400 (2). Mr Oatham acknowledged that there are different guidelines in Australia with respect to excess whip use but made the point that riders are expected to ride within the rules wherever they may be riding.
Regarding the breach today Mr Oatham said that while Mr Forbes' record is slightly confusing given the Australian matters, his most recent breach in New Zealand resulted in a suspension and normally the Stewards would submit that a further period of suspension would be incurred with any further breach. However he added that the breach on this occasion was low down on the scale of seriousness and while it was up to the committee to decide penalty, if a fine was to be considered the Stewards would submit that it should be a substantial one.
Mr Marsh on behalf of Mr Forbes stated that he had only recently signed up with him as an apprentice, and he acknowledged that Mr Forbes clearly had problems with his whip usage. He stated that it was something he wanted to work on with Mr Forbes, and would appreciate the opportunity to do so while Mr Forbes was continuing to race ride. He added that a good fine would hit him in the pocket harder than a suspension and that in his opinion, time off now from race riding was not going to help address the problem.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee has carefully considered the submissions of the parties in this matter.
The aggravating factors are:
1. The very poor record of Mr Forbes.
2. There were 11 strikes prior to the 200 meters mark without the required 6 stride respite.
The mitigating factors are:
1. The admission of the breach.
2. The attempt by Mr Forbes to give the horse the required 3 pauses between strikes, especially the final pause which was just outside the guidelines.
3. While the number of strikes was excessive they were not severe in that they were not punishing the horse or hurting it.
4. Mr Forbes was riding one of the favoured horses which had a very good chance of winning the race.
5. The 11 strikes were not continuous which can be classed as an aggravating factor in other circumstances.
The Committee has the ability to exercise discretion when it comes to assessing penalties.
Discretion could be termed the 'right or authority to make official decisions using reason and judgement to choose from among acceptable alternatives when assessing penalties'.
We accept the submissions from Mr Marsh that as the mentor of Mr Forbes he is in a position to make a firm attempt to correct the error of Mr Forbes' riding when it comes to whip matters. Mr Forbes, while reasonably experienced, is still an apprentice who requires guidance.
The Judicial Control Authority penalty guide in respect of these breaches does not give this Committee the ability to consider a combination of a suspension and a fine. So we have to make a decision as to penalty on either a fine or a suspension. It would be simplistic to adopt a view that since Mr Forbes had been suspended at his previous breach of this rule then we should follow that decision and suspend him again. The circumstances of this current matter are different.
This Committee does not believe that this breach is serious enough to warrant a period of suspension which, following his last suspension would see Mr Forbes suspended for at least 4 days. The guidelines state that for a 2nd breach of this rule, a rider could be suspended for 2 riding days or fined $500. Consideration would be given to the aggravating features and the mitigating features of each case at hand. In this case, Mr Forbes' 3rd breach in New Zealand, the mitigating features ie number of strikes, frequency of strikes, and severity of strikes assist us to make a decision to exercise the discretion available to us. We must also take into account that the effect of any penalty we impose does not outweigh the seriousness of the breach.
We therefore determine that a fine would be appropriate in this matter, and such fine would need to be substantial to indicate to other industry participants that the matter is being viewed with due regard to the seriousness of this situation. Mr Forbes must be made aware that we are showing some leniency because we do not view this breach as anything other than a low range breach, and the other circumstances outlined. He is being made aware that any further breach of this rule will result in a period of suspension.
penalty:
Accordingly, we impose a $700 fine.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 638(3)(b)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr A Forbes - Apprentice Jockey, Mr S Marsh - Licensed Trainer
Otherperson: Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 25d007ced8b83563bba2c10fcbd3f175
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 9b5043cac6d9e0eed67760e69a646d0e
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 03/07/2013
meet_title: Cambridge JC - 3 July 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: cambridge-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: AGodsalve
meet_pm1: GTankard
meet_pm2: none
name: Cambridge JC