Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v P T Holmes – Decision dated 27 October 2014

hearingid: 7cc16a5244b52477a6be8ad720cc1f77

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 17/10/2014

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v P T Holmes - Decision dated 27 October 2014

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

Non Race Day Judicial Committee:

Mr Richard Seabrook, Chair - Mr Adrian Dooley, Committee Member

VENUE: Te Rapa Racecourse

DATE: 27 October 2014

INFORMATION NUMBER: 3556

INFORMANT:

Racing Integrity Unit - Mr M Williamson, Stipendiary Steward

RESPONDENT:

Mr Patrick Thomas Holmes – Licensed Rider

PERSONS PRESENT:

Mr A Coles, Stipendiary Steward

CHARGE: That on 11 October 2014 at Matamata Racing Club in race 1 The Fairview Motors Matamata 1600 under Rule 638 (1) (c) Mr P Holmes used unnecessary and unreasonable force when restraining ALL GOOD THINGS from near the 200 metres and that he is liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon him pursuant to the provisions of rule 803 of the said rules.

RULE: Rule 638 (1) (c)

This Rule reads as follows:

“a rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be improper”

PLEA: Admitted

As Mr Holmes is presently residing in Australia he elected not to be present at the inquiry. He confirmed to Mr Williamson that he had received a copy of the charge and that he agreed with the submissions as presented.

EVIDENCE

Mr Coles demonstrated the video films which showed, at a point passing the 300 metre mark, Mr Holmes was riding with the whip and when his mount started to weaken he took hold of his head in an aggressive and an unnecessary manner in the run to the post. Mr Coles submitted that Mr Holmes was still sawing on the horse’s mouth going past the post. He said he should have just let his horse run to the post in the normal way.

SUBMISSIONS by Mr M Williamson

1. On Saturday 11th October 2014 at Matamata Racing Club, the Respondent Mr P Holmes was the rider of ALL GOOD THINGS in Race 1 the FAIRVIEW MOTORS MATAMATA 1600.

2. Following the race the Stipendiary Stewards commenced an investigation into Mr P Holmes' handling of ALL GOOD THINGS over the final stages where he aggressively restrained ALL GOOD THINGS when there appeared no reason for him to do so.

3. When questioned as to the reasons for his actions Mr Holmes simply responded “he annoyed me”.

4. The outcome of the Stewards' investigation was that it was determined that Mr Holmes has been charged with a breach of Rule 638 (1)(c) with an Information subsequently lodged with the Judicial Control Authority on Friday 17 October 2014.

5. The thrust of the Stewards' submissions are that near the 200 metres, Mr Holmes restrained ALL GOOD THINGS, with unreasonable and unnecessary force and continued to do so until the horse had been pulled up to practically a standstill.

6. ALL GOOD THINGS was free of any interference throughout the last 200 metres of the race.

7. A post-race veterinary examination of ALL GOOD THINGS failed to find any abnormalities, other than a minor laceration to the off hind leg.

8. Stewards acknowledge that while ALL GOOD THINGS was a beaten runner at the time, and was not going to finish in a dividend or stakes bearing place there was absolutely no justification for Mr Holmes to restrain the horse with such force.

9. Actions such as those displayed by Mr Holmes, and in particular the point of the race they occurred (in full public view) are detrimental to interests of racing and have the potential to draw undue and negative criticism to the racing industry.

10. Additionally the force applied to the mouth of ALL GOOD THINGS can only be perceived that Mr Holmes obviously had a dislike for the horse at that point of the race.

SUBMISSIONS by Mr P Holmes

Mr Holmes submitted that he was very remorseful of his action. He said he was deeply embarrassed as he prided himself on being a good and kind horseman throughout his twelve years of riding. He said on this occasion he let both himself down, his sister, who was the trainer of the horse, and the public who may have witnessed it. He added the horse did not deserve it.

SUMMARY

11. In summary the Stewards contend that the manner in which Mr Holmes restrained ALL GOOD THINGS fell well below what is expected of any jockey in a similar circumstance such as that which Mr Holmes found himself in.

12. He should, in the Stewards view, simply have let ALL GOOD THINGS run to the line, very much like all jockeys let any runner who has come to the end of its run finish off their races.

13. However Mr Holmes let his emotions get the better of him at the time and his actions were both a poor reflection on Racing, and a poor reflection of himself.

DECISION

As the breach was admitted we find the charge proved.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS by Mr M Williamson

14. Stewards submit that Mr Holmes’ must be penalised for his actions in order to protect and maintain the standards set by racing authorities in relation to participants' conduct.

15. The Stewards submit that this offence could be dealt with by way of monetary penalty, with a fine in the $300 to $500 range.

16. In support of this submissions the Stewards refer to Stewards vs. D in May 2013 where the brief particulars were that Jockey D lashed out in anger with his foot at a horse’s neck when it was in the barriers. On that occasion Jockey D was fined $500.00.

17. It is submitted that this offence falls slightly below that of Mr D’s.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

The committee carefully considered all the evidence and all the submissions and reviewed the video films as presented. Mitigating factors include Mr Holmes’ admission of the breach, his clear record under this rule and his obvious remorse as documented in an email from Mr Holmes to Mr Williamson.

Aggravating factors which were clearly apparent on the films include the actions of Mr Holmes. He showed unnecessary aggression in taking such a strong hold of his mount which resulted in the horse throwing its head in the air for some distance. As the horse was well beaten at the time these actions were unjustified and unbecoming of a senior rider.

PENALTY

After taking all the above into account we fine Mr Holmes a sum of $400.

R Seabrook      A Dooley

Chair               Committee Member

27 October 2014

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: