Thames JC 4 January 2014 – R 4
ID: JCA16254
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Thames JC - 4 January 2014
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
RSeabrook
Race Date:
2014/01/04
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
The standard of proof has been met and accordingly the Committee is satisfied on the basis of credible evidence that this charge has been proved.
Penalty:
Accordingly, we impose a suspension on Ms Spratt which will commence after racing on 13 January 2014 and conclude after racing on 25 January 2014 (6 North Island race days).
Facts:
Following the running of Race No 4, the Grahamstown Bar and Diner, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1) (d). The Informant, Mr Coles, alleged that Ms Spratt permitted her mount DENMARK to shift outwards in the final straight causing interference to LION ROCK HILL which was forced off its rightful line of running.
Ms Spratt acknowledged that she understood the nature of the charge and the Rule. She also confirmed that she did not admit the breach.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides that:
A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
Submissions for Decision:
Stipendiary Steward, Mr Oatham identified the alleged incident using available video footage which provided four different angles. Referring to the head-on footage Mr Oatham said that DENMARK ridden by Ms Spratt allowed her mount to shift out 4 horse-widths, making contact with LION ROCK HILL on 3 or 4 occasions. He said that the contact was minimal, but LION ROCK HILL had its running line dictated and was hampered. He conceded that the interference to LION ROCK HILL was not great but it did result in DENMARK being relegated from 1st to 2nd place. Mr Oatham added that Ms Spratt did not make sufficient effort to straighten her mount.
Using back on video footage Mr Oatham said that Ms Spratt continued to ride forward until contact was made between the two horses. Using side-on film he said that DENMARK was always ahead of LION ROCK HILL but never the required distance to enable her to shift ground.
Ms Spratt did not raise any questions or queries of the Stewards evidence in cross examination.
Ms Spratt conceded that she pushed LION ROCK HILL outwards but was adamant that there was no contact at any stage between the two horses. She referred to the head on video footage and stated that there was always a gap, “daylight”, between DENMARK and LION ROCK HILL. Ms Spratt told the Committee that as the horses entered the home straight LION ROCK HILL ran in slightly on DENMARK. She also said that her mount had not caused LION ROCK HILL to shift outwards.
Ms Spratt was asked by the Committee whether she agreed that LION ROCK HILL moved outwards due to being dictated to by her mount. In response she said that this happens in any race, particularly when horses shift out entering the home straight.
In summing up Mr Cole said that Mr Oatham had covered off the main points in his evidence. He said that the main points in support of proving the charge are that contact was made and if Ms Spratt had stayed on her right line after the initial outward movement her mount would not have shifted LION ROCK HILL out 4 horse-widths.
In summing up Ms Spratt said that she does not understand how her actions could constitute careless riding because she was entitled to shift outwards. She said this happens many times during races, particularly on corners.
Reasons for Decision:
Having carefully considered the evidence of both Informant and Defendant and after reviewing films of the incident the Committee is satisfied that the requisite standard of proof has been met. There is credible evidence that Ms Spratt did allow DENMARK to shift outwards at least 3 to 4 horse-widths and impede the progress of LION ROCK HILL. At no time during this manoeuvre was DENMARK the required distance in front of LION ROCK HILL. On this point, the Committee believes it is significant that Ms Spratt did not challenge or contest the Stewards evidence.
The Committee rejects Ms Spratt’s contention that there was no contact, but the Committee does accept the contact was minimal. The Committee believes that the only reason LION ROCK HILL shifted outwards was because its line was being dictated by DENMARK.
The Committee notes that Ms Spratt did not stop riding her mount out until after the first point of contact and had she done so and straightened her mount up, LION ROCK HILL would not have run out.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Cole produced Ms Spratt’s record which showed 5 previous breaches under this Rule in the last 12 months, the most recent being on 1 January 2014 at Ellerslie which attracted a 6 day suspension. He said that Ms Spratt was riding under a deferment and was due to commence her suspension after racing on 4 January 2014 and recommence riding after racing on 13 January 2014.
Mr Cole said that the level of carelessness was low to mid end, but it resulted in a relegation and that was a factor for the Committee to consider. He said Ms Spratt’s recent riding record was not great. He submitted that the matter be dealt with by way of suspension in the vicinity of mid-range, but not low end.
Ms Spratt said that she had nothing to say in relation to penalty submissions.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in consideration of a term of suspension. We find no mitigating factors in Ms Spratt’s favour. The aggravating factors are Ms Spratt’s poor record, given that this breach Ms Spratt’s 6th in that past 12 months. The Committee reviewed the film and assessed the level of carelessness as mid-range but a key determinant in assessing penalty is that the interference resulted in Ms Spratt’s mount being relegated from 1st to 2nd place.
Ms Spratt elected not to appear at the sentencing hearing.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a 6 day suspension and have treated Ms Spratt as a North Island (North and Central districts) rider.
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: d00d433db198b26de85cf17fd64f0d22
informantnumber: A2791
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 02/01/2014
hearing_title: Thames JC 4 January 2014 - R 4
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race No 4, the Grahamstown Bar and Diner, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1) (d). The Informant, Mr Coles, alleged that Ms Spratt permitted her mount DENMARK to shift outwards in the final straight causing interference to LION ROCK HILL which was forced off its rightful line of running.
Ms Spratt acknowledged that she understood the nature of the charge and the Rule. She also confirmed that she did not admit the breach.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides that:
A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Stipendiary Steward, Mr Oatham identified the alleged incident using available video footage which provided four different angles. Referring to the head-on footage Mr Oatham said that DENMARK ridden by Ms Spratt allowed her mount to shift out 4 horse-widths, making contact with LION ROCK HILL on 3 or 4 occasions. He said that the contact was minimal, but LION ROCK HILL had its running line dictated and was hampered. He conceded that the interference to LION ROCK HILL was not great but it did result in DENMARK being relegated from 1st to 2nd place. Mr Oatham added that Ms Spratt did not make sufficient effort to straighten her mount.
Using back on video footage Mr Oatham said that Ms Spratt continued to ride forward until contact was made between the two horses. Using side-on film he said that DENMARK was always ahead of LION ROCK HILL but never the required distance to enable her to shift ground.
Ms Spratt did not raise any questions or queries of the Stewards evidence in cross examination.
Ms Spratt conceded that she pushed LION ROCK HILL outwards but was adamant that there was no contact at any stage between the two horses. She referred to the head on video footage and stated that there was always a gap, “daylight”, between DENMARK and LION ROCK HILL. Ms Spratt told the Committee that as the horses entered the home straight LION ROCK HILL ran in slightly on DENMARK. She also said that her mount had not caused LION ROCK HILL to shift outwards.
Ms Spratt was asked by the Committee whether she agreed that LION ROCK HILL moved outwards due to being dictated to by her mount. In response she said that this happens in any race, particularly when horses shift out entering the home straight.
In summing up Mr Cole said that Mr Oatham had covered off the main points in his evidence. He said that the main points in support of proving the charge are that contact was made and if Ms Spratt had stayed on her right line after the initial outward movement her mount would not have shifted LION ROCK HILL out 4 horse-widths.
In summing up Ms Spratt said that she does not understand how her actions could constitute careless riding because she was entitled to shift outwards. She said this happens many times during races, particularly on corners.
reasonsfordecision:
Having carefully considered the evidence of both Informant and Defendant and after reviewing films of the incident the Committee is satisfied that the requisite standard of proof has been met. There is credible evidence that Ms Spratt did allow DENMARK to shift outwards at least 3 to 4 horse-widths and impede the progress of LION ROCK HILL. At no time during this manoeuvre was DENMARK the required distance in front of LION ROCK HILL. On this point, the Committee believes it is significant that Ms Spratt did not challenge or contest the Stewards evidence.
The Committee rejects Ms Spratt’s contention that there was no contact, but the Committee does accept the contact was minimal. The Committee believes that the only reason LION ROCK HILL shifted outwards was because its line was being dictated by DENMARK.
The Committee notes that Ms Spratt did not stop riding her mount out until after the first point of contact and had she done so and straightened her mount up, LION ROCK HILL would not have run out.
Decision:
The standard of proof has been met and accordingly the Committee is satisfied on the basis of credible evidence that this charge has been proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Cole produced Ms Spratt’s record which showed 5 previous breaches under this Rule in the last 12 months, the most recent being on 1 January 2014 at Ellerslie which attracted a 6 day suspension. He said that Ms Spratt was riding under a deferment and was due to commence her suspension after racing on 4 January 2014 and recommence riding after racing on 13 January 2014.
Mr Cole said that the level of carelessness was low to mid end, but it resulted in a relegation and that was a factor for the Committee to consider. He said Ms Spratt’s recent riding record was not great. He submitted that the matter be dealt with by way of suspension in the vicinity of mid-range, but not low end.
Ms Spratt said that she had nothing to say in relation to penalty submissions.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in consideration of a term of suspension. We find no mitigating factors in Ms Spratt’s favour. The aggravating factors are Ms Spratt’s poor record, given that this breach Ms Spratt’s 6th in that past 12 months. The Committee reviewed the film and assessed the level of carelessness as mid-range but a key determinant in assessing penalty is that the interference resulted in Ms Spratt’s mount being relegated from 1st to 2nd place.
Ms Spratt elected not to appear at the sentencing hearing.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a 6 day suspension and have treated Ms Spratt as a North Island (North and Central districts) rider.
penalty:
Accordingly, we impose a suspension on Ms Spratt which will commence after racing on 13 January 2014 and conclude after racing on 25 January 2014 (6 North Island race days).
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms S Spratt – Class A Rider
Otherperson: Mr J Otham - Senior Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 45cf2cb5d6a2ff023ba03f038c44f8a1
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: 69a9968e506d3bb5392eeb377ca64406
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 04/01/2014
meet_title: Thames JC - 4 January 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: thames-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: RSeabrook
meet_pm2: none
name: Thames JC