Cambridge JC 30 April 2016 – R 4 – Chair, Mr A Dooley
ID: JCA16999
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Cambridge JC - 30 April 2016
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
RSeabrook
Race Date:
2016/04/30
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
For the reasons detailed above we find the charge proved.
The Committee note that “interference” is defined as: a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.
Penalty:
The Committee grant Mr Innes’ request to seek a deferment to his suspension as per Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Mr Innes had his license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 7 May and conclude after racing on 25 May 2016 (5 days).
The meetings involved in this suspension are:
11 May Te Awamutu or Brisbane
14 May Rotorua (Premier 2)
18 May Ruakaka,
21 May Te Rapa
25 May Counties.
Facts:
Following the running of race 4, The Clubhouse Café & Sports Bar Cambridge Premier, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Oatham, alleged that Mr Innes allowed his mount LANCIATO to shift in over the final 400 metres causing interference to a number of runners.
Mr Innes acknowledged that he understood the Rule and confirmed that he denied the breach.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Oatham told the Committee he would be calling 4 witnesses namely Stipendiary Steward Mr Coles, and riders Mrs Allpress, Ms A Collett and Mr Cameron.
The following are the salient points of this very lengthy hearing which did not commence until after the last race.
Mr Coles identified all the horses involved in the alleged incident by using the available video footage. He demonstrated that near the 400 metres Mr Innes was racing wide out on the track when he moved in and clearly crowded Mrs Allpress' mount. He said Mr Innes continued to allow his mount to shift inwards and at no stage did he stop riding his mount forward. He pointed out on the video that near the 200 metres Mr Innes' mount LANCIATO crowded OUR ABBADEAN (M Cameron) ARCHDUCHESS (B Hutton), RAGHU (M McNab), VANILLA MOON (M Coleman) and HEAD OFFICE (A Collett). He said that Ms Collett had to take a hold of her mount because of the tightening just past the 200 metres. Mr Coles stated the gradual inward movement by Mr Innes went on for a total of 300 metres. He emphasised the inward shift on the video by highlighting the grass mown strips.
Mr Innes questioned Mr Coles if Mr Cameron had moved out at the 400 metres and checked Mr Du Plessis' mount. Mr Coles responded by saying that Mr Cameron moved out slightly but it was separate to this charge.
Mr Oatham then called Mrs Alpress the rider of DIVINE DUKE as a witness. Mrs Allpress stated that she had to take a hold of her mount when she received pressure from her outside. She said that Mr Innes was a length in front of her and going past her when she was checked. She added that there was some movement outwards from Mr Cameron onto Mr Du Plessis.
Under cross examination Mrs Allpress confirmed to Mr Innes that there was some movement from her inside. Mrs Allpress also confirmed to Mr Oatham that Mr Innes shifted in 1 horse width at the 400 metres.
Mr Innes sought clarification from Mr Oatham as to which horses he was alleged to have caused interference to because the charge did not outline the horses involved. Mr Oatham stated there were a number of incidents that were tied together. He specified Mr Innes continued to cause interference when he kept shifting in and stated none of it would have occurred if he had straightened up his mount.
Mr Oatham then called Ms Collett the rider of HEAD OFFICE as a witness. She stated that at the 250 metres she was receiving pressure from her outside and she had called out to her fellow riders. Ms Collett said she had to take a hold of her mount because she ran out of racing room after being crowded.
Ms Collett told Mr Oatham that she “could have run a train up the inside” before the crowding occurred.
Mr Innes did not wish to cross examine Ms Collett.
Mr Oatham then called Mr Cameron the rider of OUR ABBADEAN as his final witness. Mr Cameron stated that Mr Innes had come in slightly but added there was no contact. Mr Cameron said his mount was green and Mr Innes was a bare length clear of him when he had to come out and across his heels at the 100 metres.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Cameron advised that he looked to his inside near the 200 metres because he heard yelling from the riders on his inside when racing room was tight.
Mr Innes stated that at the 400 metres Mr Cameron had come out crowding Mr Du Plessis' mount out onto Mrs Allpress' mount. He said Mr Cameron’s mount was timid and he believed it ducked in near the 200 metres. Mr Innes said that he did not cause the interference and was of the view that if Mr Cameron’s mount had run straight then there would have been no interference.
Mr Oatham in summing up submitted that at the 400 metres Mr Innes allowed his mount to shift in 1 horse width when only a bare length clear. He said this resulted in Mrs Allpress having to take a strong hold of her mount and come off the heels of Mr Innes' mount for a few strides. He said Mr Innes continued on an inward movement from the 400 metres until the 100 metres when not the required distance clear. He said Mr Innes had not made sufficient effort to keep his mount on a straight running line. He reiterated that Mr Innes continued to shift in and consequently at the 100 metres Mr Cameron had to steady his mount and come outwards across the heels of Mr Innes' mount.
Mr Innes in summing up submitted that Mr Cameron’s mount has shied and ducked away in the final straight. He said the incident at the top of the straight (400 metres) was as a result of Mr Cameron shifting out onto Mr Du Plessis and said that it was not his fault that Mrs Allpress was checked. He asked the Committee to review the back on film.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. We were able to synchronise the relevant video footage which included the back on and studied them frame by frame. We established at the 400 metres Mr Innes was racing in a 7 wide position when he permitted his mount to shift in 1 horse which resulted in Mrs Allpress having to take a hold of her mount when it was checked. Mr Innes was only 1 length clear of Mrs Allpress when the interference occurred. It is important to note that Mrs Allpress was already taking a hold of her mount prior to Mr Cameron shifting out at the 400 metres. After that point the video footage clearly showed that Mr Innes allowed his mount to progressively shift in approximately a total of 4 horse widths when riding forward and not the required distance clear. Just past the 200 metres a number of horses to Mr Innes’ inside were crowded for racing room. The horses involved were OUR ABBADEAN, ARCHDUCHESS, RAGHU, VANILLA MOON and HEAD OFFICE. The worst affected horse was HEAD OFFICE who was racing adjacent to the running rail with Ms Collett having to restrain her mount when she ran out of racing room. In conclusion near the 100 metre mark Mr Cameron had to steady his mount to come out across the heels of Mr Innes’ mount.
The evidence presented by Mr Oatham, Mr Coles and Ms Collett was supported by the video footage.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham produced Mr Innes’ record which showed 4 previous breaches under this Rule in the last 12 months, the most recent being 10 April which incurred a 4 day suspension. He said this was an average record and deemed Mr Innes' carelessness to be low to mid – range because it went on for a long period. He described the level of interference as low range and a suspension in line with that would be appropriate. Mr Oatham submitted a penalty in the 4 to 5 day range.
Mr Innes requested a deferment to his proposed suspension because he had engagements in the next 7 days. Mr Innes declared that he had engagements at Matamata 4 May, Counties 6 May and Te Rapa 7 May. Mr Innes added that he may go to Brisbane to ride some members of Mr Pike’s team on 11 May and PROVOCATIVE in the Oaks.
The Committee asked Mr Oatham to provide Mr Innes’ recent riding history, he specified Mr Innes had not ridden in the Central Districts on an Industry day this year. Mr Innes acknowledged that he did not have a recent history of riding in the Central Districts on an Industry day.
The Committee read aloud to Mr Innes the JCA Penalty Guide policy regarding calculation of days for Northern and Central Region riders. We were mindful this policy has been well documented in Mr Innes’ previous suspensions.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension for this careless riding charge. The Committee advised Mr Innes that he was not penalised for denying the breach but he loses the benefit of a discount on penalty that might otherwise have been given for an admission of a breach. We consider Mr Innes’ record under this Rule to be only average and a neutral factor. We considered the level of interference to be low range however this has to be balanced against the level of carelessness which was closer to mid – range than low. This was based on the fact that the 3 separate incidents carried on from the 400 metres until the 100 metres notwithstanding there was only 1 careless riding charge filed by the Stipendiary Stewards. Mr Innes failed to make the necessary effort to prevent his mount from shifting in when it did show signs of shifting ground.
The Committee referred Mr Innes to the RIU v J Parkes and RIU v C Johnson Appeals which clearly set out the factors to be considered by Judicial Committees when setting penalties.
This from the Appeal decision of J 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 did not provide any specific evidence to demonstrate that he would be riding at either Industry race meeting at Otaki on 12 May or Hastings on 19 May.
Mr Innes has no recent history of riding in the Central Districts on Industry days. It was relevant that Mr Innes acknowledged this fact. Consequently these 2 dates were not included in the penalty.
In our opinion there were no compelling or exceptional circumstances placed before us to merit a combined penalty in this particular case. We note the Queensland Oaks is scheduled for 28 May.
After taking into account all of the above the Committee considered an appropriate penalty was a 5 day 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: bf784ae2f39917072e0ee72bdf593000
informantnumber: A6952
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 02/05/2016
hearing_title: Cambridge JC 30 April 2016 - R 4 - Chair, Mr A Dooley
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 4, The Clubhouse Café & Sports Bar Cambridge Premier, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Oatham, alleged that Mr Innes allowed his mount LANCIATO to shift in over the final 400 metres causing interference to a number of runners.
Mr Innes acknowledged that he understood the Rule and confirmed that he denied the breach.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Oatham told the Committee he would be calling 4 witnesses namely Stipendiary Steward Mr Coles, and riders Mrs Allpress, Ms A Collett and Mr Cameron.
The following are the salient points of this very lengthy hearing which did not commence until after the last race.
Mr Coles identified all the horses involved in the alleged incident by using the available video footage. He demonstrated that near the 400 metres Mr Innes was racing wide out on the track when he moved in and clearly crowded Mrs Allpress' mount. He said Mr Innes continued to allow his mount to shift inwards and at no stage did he stop riding his mount forward. He pointed out on the video that near the 200 metres Mr Innes' mount LANCIATO crowded OUR ABBADEAN (M Cameron) ARCHDUCHESS (B Hutton), RAGHU (M McNab), VANILLA MOON (M Coleman) and HEAD OFFICE (A Collett). He said that Ms Collett had to take a hold of her mount because of the tightening just past the 200 metres. Mr Coles stated the gradual inward movement by Mr Innes went on for a total of 300 metres. He emphasised the inward shift on the video by highlighting the grass mown strips.
Mr Innes questioned Mr Coles if Mr Cameron had moved out at the 400 metres and checked Mr Du Plessis' mount. Mr Coles responded by saying that Mr Cameron moved out slightly but it was separate to this charge.
Mr Oatham then called Mrs Alpress the rider of DIVINE DUKE as a witness. Mrs Allpress stated that she had to take a hold of her mount when she received pressure from her outside. She said that Mr Innes was a length in front of her and going past her when she was checked. She added that there was some movement outwards from Mr Cameron onto Mr Du Plessis.
Under cross examination Mrs Allpress confirmed to Mr Innes that there was some movement from her inside. Mrs Allpress also confirmed to Mr Oatham that Mr Innes shifted in 1 horse width at the 400 metres.
Mr Innes sought clarification from Mr Oatham as to which horses he was alleged to have caused interference to because the charge did not outline the horses involved. Mr Oatham stated there were a number of incidents that were tied together. He specified Mr Innes continued to cause interference when he kept shifting in and stated none of it would have occurred if he had straightened up his mount.
Mr Oatham then called Ms Collett the rider of HEAD OFFICE as a witness. She stated that at the 250 metres she was receiving pressure from her outside and she had called out to her fellow riders. Ms Collett said she had to take a hold of her mount because she ran out of racing room after being crowded.
Ms Collett told Mr Oatham that she “could have run a train up the inside” before the crowding occurred.
Mr Innes did not wish to cross examine Ms Collett.
Mr Oatham then called Mr Cameron the rider of OUR ABBADEAN as his final witness. Mr Cameron stated that Mr Innes had come in slightly but added there was no contact. Mr Cameron said his mount was green and Mr Innes was a bare length clear of him when he had to come out and across his heels at the 100 metres.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Cameron advised that he looked to his inside near the 200 metres because he heard yelling from the riders on his inside when racing room was tight.
Mr Innes stated that at the 400 metres Mr Cameron had come out crowding Mr Du Plessis' mount out onto Mrs Allpress' mount. He said Mr Cameron’s mount was timid and he believed it ducked in near the 200 metres. Mr Innes said that he did not cause the interference and was of the view that if Mr Cameron’s mount had run straight then there would have been no interference.
Mr Oatham in summing up submitted that at the 400 metres Mr Innes allowed his mount to shift in 1 horse width when only a bare length clear. He said this resulted in Mrs Allpress having to take a strong hold of her mount and come off the heels of Mr Innes' mount for a few strides. He said Mr Innes continued on an inward movement from the 400 metres until the 100 metres when not the required distance clear. He said Mr Innes had not made sufficient effort to keep his mount on a straight running line. He reiterated that Mr Innes continued to shift in and consequently at the 100 metres Mr Cameron had to steady his mount and come outwards across the heels of Mr Innes' mount.
Mr Innes in summing up submitted that Mr Cameron’s mount has shied and ducked away in the final straight. He said the incident at the top of the straight (400 metres) was as a result of Mr Cameron shifting out onto Mr Du Plessis and said that it was not his fault that Mrs Allpress was checked. He asked the Committee to review the back on film.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. We were able to synchronise the relevant video footage which included the back on and studied them frame by frame. We established at the 400 metres Mr Innes was racing in a 7 wide position when he permitted his mount to shift in 1 horse which resulted in Mrs Allpress having to take a hold of her mount when it was checked. Mr Innes was only 1 length clear of Mrs Allpress when the interference occurred. It is important to note that Mrs Allpress was already taking a hold of her mount prior to Mr Cameron shifting out at the 400 metres. After that point the video footage clearly showed that Mr Innes allowed his mount to progressively shift in approximately a total of 4 horse widths when riding forward and not the required distance clear. Just past the 200 metres a number of horses to Mr Innes’ inside were crowded for racing room. The horses involved were OUR ABBADEAN, ARCHDUCHESS, RAGHU, VANILLA MOON and HEAD OFFICE. The worst affected horse was HEAD OFFICE who was racing adjacent to the running rail with Ms Collett having to restrain her mount when she ran out of racing room. In conclusion near the 100 metre mark Mr Cameron had to steady his mount to come out across the heels of Mr Innes’ mount.
The evidence presented by Mr Oatham, Mr Coles and Ms Collett was supported by the video footage.
Decision:
For the reasons detailed above we find the charge proved.
The Committee note that “interference” is defined as: a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham produced Mr Innes’ record which showed 4 previous breaches under this Rule in the last 12 months, the most recent being 10 April which incurred a 4 day suspension. He said this was an average record and deemed Mr Innes' carelessness to be low to mid – range because it went on for a long period. He described the level of interference as low range and a suspension in line with that would be appropriate. Mr Oatham submitted a penalty in the 4 to 5 day range.
Mr Innes requested a deferment to his proposed suspension because he had engagements in the next 7 days. Mr Innes declared that he had engagements at Matamata 4 May, Counties 6 May and Te Rapa 7 May. Mr Innes added that he may go to Brisbane to ride some members of Mr Pike’s team on 11 May and PROVOCATIVE in the Oaks.
The Committee asked Mr Oatham to provide Mr Innes’ recent riding history, he specified Mr Innes had not ridden in the Central Districts on an Industry day this year. Mr Innes acknowledged that he did not have a recent history of riding in the Central Districts on an Industry day.
The Committee read aloud to Mr Innes the JCA Penalty Guide policy regarding calculation of days for Northern and Central Region riders. We were mindful this policy has been well documented in Mr Innes’ previous suspensions.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension for this careless riding charge. The Committee advised Mr Innes that he was not penalised for denying the breach but he loses the benefit of a discount on penalty that might otherwise have been given for an admission of a breach. We consider Mr Innes’ record under this Rule to be only average and a neutral factor. We considered the level of interference to be low range however this has to be balanced against the level of carelessness which was closer to mid – range than low. This was based on the fact that the 3 separate incidents carried on from the 400 metres until the 100 metres notwithstanding there was only 1 careless riding charge filed by the Stipendiary Stewards. Mr Innes failed to make the necessary effort to prevent his mount from shifting in when it did show signs of shifting ground.
The Committee referred Mr Innes to the RIU v J Parkes and RIU v C Johnson Appeals which clearly set out the factors to be considered by Judicial Committees when setting penalties.
This from the Appeal decision of J 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 did not provide any specific evidence to demonstrate that he would be riding at either Industry race meeting at Otaki on 12 May or Hastings on 19 May.
Mr Innes has no recent history of riding in the Central Districts on Industry days. It was relevant that Mr Innes acknowledged this fact. Consequently these 2 dates were not included in the penalty.
In our opinion there were no compelling or exceptional circumstances placed before us to merit a combined penalty in this particular case. We note the Queensland Oaks is scheduled for 28 May.
After taking into account all of the above the Committee considered an appropriate penalty was a 5 day suspension.
penalty:
The Committee grant Mr Innes’ request to seek a deferment to his suspension as per Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Mr Innes had his license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 7 May and conclude after racing on 25 May 2016 (5 days).
The meetings involved in this suspension are:
11 May Te Awamutu or Brisbane
14 May Rotorua (Premier 2)
18 May Ruakaka,
21 May Te Rapa
25 May Counties.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr L Innes - Rider of LANCIATO
Otherperson: Ms A Collett - Rider of HEAD OFFICE, Mrs L Allpress - Rider of DIVINE DUKE, Mr M Cameron - Rider of OUR ABBADEAN, Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d92a411758f97ff2b2b5b23b8dfab1a1
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: fd33fb4d2785a259b76bf066dcc63e63
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 30/04/2016
meet_title: Cambridge JC - 30 April 2016
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: cambridge-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: RSeabrook
meet_pm2: none
name: Cambridge JC