Hawkes Bay RI 30 January 2019 – R 2 – Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
ID: JCA17495
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Hawkes Bay RI - 30 January 2019
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
TCastles
Race Date:
2019/01/30
Race Number:
R 2
Decision:
Accordingly, the charge of careless riding against Mr Harris was found proved.
Penalty:
Mr Harris is suspended from the close of racing on Sunday, February 3rd up to and including racing on Wednesday, February 13th.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 2 (PROFRUIT 1200m), an information was lodged by Mr D Balcombe alleging a breach of Rule 638(1) (d) in that Troy Harris (VIRTUOSO LAD) allowed his mount to shift inwards over the final stages when not clear.
Submissions for Decision:
At the outset, Mr Harris acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge and confirmed that he did not admit the breach.
Mr Balcombe asked Mr Goodwin to show the films and explain the incident. The head and side-on films were played. At the top of the straight Mr Harris (VIRTUOSO LAD) was racing widest of the three horses involved with Mr Hannam (MISS OAHU) to his inside and Ms Allpress (MCPHOEBE) closest to the rail.
Mr Goodwin estimated Mr Harris’ position at this time was 3-3 ½ horse widths off the rail. Riding with vigour, Mr Harris gradually moved inwards. At the 100m he placed pressure on Mr Hannam who in turn placed pressure on Ms Allpress who, as a consequence, ran out of room. Mr Harris was only ¾ of a length in front when he dictated Mr Hannam inwards. Mr Goodwin said, due to there being not enough room, Mr Hannam could not relieve the pressure on Ms Allpress.
Mr Goodwin reiterated that Mr Harris’ movement had not been sudden, but he had started from 3 ½ widths off the fence to being one-off the rail at the end of the race. At this stage of the hearing, the rear-view video was played. It became clear to the Committee that until this point no one, including Mr Harris, had seen this video angle. The Committee directed that the rear view was played twice and then again to each witness before giving their evidence.
Mr Harris asked Mr Goodwin if, in his opinion, Ms Allpress was right up hard against the fence or if there was a horse width between her mount and the fence. Mr Goodwin said while she wasn’t directly against the rail, in racing parlance she was “racing on the fence”. Mr Goodwin also agreed with Mr Harris that Ms Allpress had shifted out marginally, but said it was only for one stride and had very little impact on the interference.
Using the head-on film, Mr Harris asked Mr Goodwin if he accepted that the running rail came out slightly at the 100m mark and Mr Goodwin agreed that it wasn’t completely straight. Finally, Mr Harris asked Mr Goodwin if he thought there had been contact between his own and Mr Hannam’s mounts. Mr Goodwin said it appeared there may have been some contact.
Mr Hannam and Ms Allpress gave evidence for the Stewards. Mr Hannam said there had been no contact between himself and Mr Harris’ mount however Mr Harris had moved in slightly and as a result, he had been dictated inwards onto Ms Allpress. Mr Hannam said Mr Harris was outside of him and ¾ length in front when this happened. In response to questions from the Stewards, Mr Hannam said he was unable to relieve the pressure on Ms Allpress because they were all racing very tightly.
Ms Allpress said she was well established in a position on the rail, where she had been for the entire race. She had an unimpeded run until such time that she could feel pressure coming from Mr Hannam on her outside. Just inside the 100m, she was forced to check her mount when the horse on her outside moved in. Ms Allpress said the films were clear in showing she ran out of room.
Mr Harris asked Ms Allpress if she thought her mount had run out at all over the final stages. She said it didn’t feel like it during the race and even after looking at the films she wasn’t convinced her horse had moved out. Ms Allpress said it might appear that way because her horse became unbalanced as a result of Mr Hannam moving in and making contact. Ms Allpress acknowledged her horse was tiring, but due to the tight quarters, she was unable to maintain her run.
Mr Harris defended the charge on the basis that there was movement outwards, away from the rail, from Ms Allpress. He paused the films at different stages and pointed to the gap between himself and Mr Hannam. He said although Ms Allpress’shift was marginal it provided enough doubt that he was not responsible for the interference that occurred to her mount.
In response to questioning from the Stewards, Mr Harris conceded that he had shifted inwards when not clear of Mr Hannam however Mr Harris said he never crossed in front of him. He said they were all racing side by side and there was room for all three runners.
Mr Balcombe summed up for the Stewards. He said the gradual inward movement from Mr Harris dictated Mr Hannam inwards onto Ms Allpress making contact with that runner. This forced Ms Allpress to take hold of her mount which then shifted out slightly contacting Mr Hannam. He said at no point was Mr Hannam able to relieve the pressure that Mr Harris put on him. Any slight outward movement from Ms Allpress did not contribute significantly to the incident.
Mr Harris said they were all racing very tightly from the 150m and Ms Allpress ran out at the same time that he moved in slightly. Mr Harris said there was no contact between his mount and Mr Hannam's and he believed there was always room for Ms Allpress. He said it was his opinion that Ms Allpress checked her mount because she thought Mr Hannam was going to come across further, rather than because she had to.
Reasons for Decision:
In coming to a decision, the Committee revisited all available video angles and had careful regard to the evidence presented by the Stewards, their witnesses and Mr Harris.
Around the 200m all three runners were alongside each other. Mr Harris mounted a strong finish down the outside and under a vigorous ride went on the win the race.
The side-on film showed an incident at the 100m where Ms Allpress’ mount was checked and lost considerable ground. At this point, Mr Harris was only approximately ¾ length ahead of Mr Hannam’s mount.
We heard from both Mr Hannam and Mr Harris that there was no contact between them however interference can also be defined as forcing another runner off its rightful line of running by dictating its line.
The head-on film clearly showed Mr Harris moving gradually inwards on a slight angle and, for a few strides near the 100m, he dictated the line of Mr Hannam forcing him in onto Ms Allpress.
Mr Harris, in his defence, inferred that Ms Allpress was the author of her own misfortune by moving off the rail towards Mr Hannam and by checking back when there was still room between her mount and the running rail.
The Committee looked closely at the head-on film, particularly the relationship between the running rail and Ms Allpress’ mount. The rail is not straight, which made it difficult to assess any slight deviation from a direct line of running. We were not satisfied however that Ms Allpress moved out sufficiently, if at all, to cause the incident. Addressing the issue of whether there was enough room for her on the rail, Ms Allpress was established on this line of running and was entitled to an unimpeded run which she was denied.
The Committee was of the opinion that the incident occurred as a result of Mr Harris dictating Mr Hannam inwards, albeit slightly when not the required 2 lengths clear. This was confirmed by Mr Hannam ’s evidence to the Committee. Mr Harris quickly went past Mr Hannam and although he straightened his mount it was too late. The initial interference was sufficient to put Ms Allpress’ mount off balance, and this caused buffeting between Mr Hannam and Ms Allpress which resulted in the sharp check backwards of her horse.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Balcombe produced Mr Harris’ riding record which showed three suspensions for careless riding over the last 12 months:
6/10/18 6 days
25/4/18 6 days
8/4/18 6 days
He said the Stewards placed the level of carelessness in the low range and submitted that a suspension in line with that was appropriate.
Mr Harris asked the Committee to take into account his good record and advised of riding commitment up until Sunday, February 3rd.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee accepted the Stewards’ assessment that Mr Harris’ level of carelessness sat at the low end. He neglected to straighten his mount up when he went past Mr Hannam, but his inward movement was not abrupt or deliberate, rather a gradual drift inwards. While the interference suffered by Ms Allpress was significant, she advised the Committee that her mount was tiring at the time and believed the horse to her outside (QUICK CHOICE), who finished third may well have beaten her regardless.
We adopted a starting point of 6 days suspension as provided by the Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees. Mr Harris has incurred only one suspension for careless riding in the last 9 months, and for that, we give him some credit.
Taking into account all matters we considered an appropriate penalty was one of five riding days.
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: e9f3ddff8eb28173ee225bbe751684c5
informantnumber: A9242
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 01/02/2019
hearing_title: Hawkes Bay RI 30 January 2019 - R 2 - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 2 (PROFRUIT 1200m), an information was lodged by Mr D Balcombe alleging a breach of Rule 638(1) (d) in that Troy Harris (VIRTUOSO LAD) allowed his mount to shift inwards over the final stages when not clear.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
At the outset, Mr Harris acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge and confirmed that he did not admit the breach.
Mr Balcombe asked Mr Goodwin to show the films and explain the incident. The head and side-on films were played. At the top of the straight Mr Harris (VIRTUOSO LAD) was racing widest of the three horses involved with Mr Hannam (MISS OAHU) to his inside and Ms Allpress (MCPHOEBE) closest to the rail.
Mr Goodwin estimated Mr Harris’ position at this time was 3-3 ½ horse widths off the rail. Riding with vigour, Mr Harris gradually moved inwards. At the 100m he placed pressure on Mr Hannam who in turn placed pressure on Ms Allpress who, as a consequence, ran out of room. Mr Harris was only ¾ of a length in front when he dictated Mr Hannam inwards. Mr Goodwin said, due to there being not enough room, Mr Hannam could not relieve the pressure on Ms Allpress.
Mr Goodwin reiterated that Mr Harris’ movement had not been sudden, but he had started from 3 ½ widths off the fence to being one-off the rail at the end of the race. At this stage of the hearing, the rear-view video was played. It became clear to the Committee that until this point no one, including Mr Harris, had seen this video angle. The Committee directed that the rear view was played twice and then again to each witness before giving their evidence.
Mr Harris asked Mr Goodwin if, in his opinion, Ms Allpress was right up hard against the fence or if there was a horse width between her mount and the fence. Mr Goodwin said while she wasn’t directly against the rail, in racing parlance she was “racing on the fence”. Mr Goodwin also agreed with Mr Harris that Ms Allpress had shifted out marginally, but said it was only for one stride and had very little impact on the interference.
Using the head-on film, Mr Harris asked Mr Goodwin if he accepted that the running rail came out slightly at the 100m mark and Mr Goodwin agreed that it wasn’t completely straight. Finally, Mr Harris asked Mr Goodwin if he thought there had been contact between his own and Mr Hannam’s mounts. Mr Goodwin said it appeared there may have been some contact.
Mr Hannam and Ms Allpress gave evidence for the Stewards. Mr Hannam said there had been no contact between himself and Mr Harris’ mount however Mr Harris had moved in slightly and as a result, he had been dictated inwards onto Ms Allpress. Mr Hannam said Mr Harris was outside of him and ¾ length in front when this happened. In response to questions from the Stewards, Mr Hannam said he was unable to relieve the pressure on Ms Allpress because they were all racing very tightly.
Ms Allpress said she was well established in a position on the rail, where she had been for the entire race. She had an unimpeded run until such time that she could feel pressure coming from Mr Hannam on her outside. Just inside the 100m, she was forced to check her mount when the horse on her outside moved in. Ms Allpress said the films were clear in showing she ran out of room.
Mr Harris asked Ms Allpress if she thought her mount had run out at all over the final stages. She said it didn’t feel like it during the race and even after looking at the films she wasn’t convinced her horse had moved out. Ms Allpress said it might appear that way because her horse became unbalanced as a result of Mr Hannam moving in and making contact. Ms Allpress acknowledged her horse was tiring, but due to the tight quarters, she was unable to maintain her run.
Mr Harris defended the charge on the basis that there was movement outwards, away from the rail, from Ms Allpress. He paused the films at different stages and pointed to the gap between himself and Mr Hannam. He said although Ms Allpress’shift was marginal it provided enough doubt that he was not responsible for the interference that occurred to her mount.
In response to questioning from the Stewards, Mr Harris conceded that he had shifted inwards when not clear of Mr Hannam however Mr Harris said he never crossed in front of him. He said they were all racing side by side and there was room for all three runners.
Mr Balcombe summed up for the Stewards. He said the gradual inward movement from Mr Harris dictated Mr Hannam inwards onto Ms Allpress making contact with that runner. This forced Ms Allpress to take hold of her mount which then shifted out slightly contacting Mr Hannam. He said at no point was Mr Hannam able to relieve the pressure that Mr Harris put on him. Any slight outward movement from Ms Allpress did not contribute significantly to the incident.
Mr Harris said they were all racing very tightly from the 150m and Ms Allpress ran out at the same time that he moved in slightly. Mr Harris said there was no contact between his mount and Mr Hannam's and he believed there was always room for Ms Allpress. He said it was his opinion that Ms Allpress checked her mount because she thought Mr Hannam was going to come across further, rather than because she had to.
reasonsfordecision:
In coming to a decision, the Committee revisited all available video angles and had careful regard to the evidence presented by the Stewards, their witnesses and Mr Harris.
Around the 200m all three runners were alongside each other. Mr Harris mounted a strong finish down the outside and under a vigorous ride went on the win the race.
The side-on film showed an incident at the 100m where Ms Allpress’ mount was checked and lost considerable ground. At this point, Mr Harris was only approximately ¾ length ahead of Mr Hannam’s mount.
We heard from both Mr Hannam and Mr Harris that there was no contact between them however interference can also be defined as forcing another runner off its rightful line of running by dictating its line.
The head-on film clearly showed Mr Harris moving gradually inwards on a slight angle and, for a few strides near the 100m, he dictated the line of Mr Hannam forcing him in onto Ms Allpress.
Mr Harris, in his defence, inferred that Ms Allpress was the author of her own misfortune by moving off the rail towards Mr Hannam and by checking back when there was still room between her mount and the running rail.
The Committee looked closely at the head-on film, particularly the relationship between the running rail and Ms Allpress’ mount. The rail is not straight, which made it difficult to assess any slight deviation from a direct line of running. We were not satisfied however that Ms Allpress moved out sufficiently, if at all, to cause the incident. Addressing the issue of whether there was enough room for her on the rail, Ms Allpress was established on this line of running and was entitled to an unimpeded run which she was denied.
The Committee was of the opinion that the incident occurred as a result of Mr Harris dictating Mr Hannam inwards, albeit slightly when not the required 2 lengths clear. This was confirmed by Mr Hannam ’s evidence to the Committee. Mr Harris quickly went past Mr Hannam and although he straightened his mount it was too late. The initial interference was sufficient to put Ms Allpress’ mount off balance, and this caused buffeting between Mr Hannam and Ms Allpress which resulted in the sharp check backwards of her horse.
Decision:
Accordingly, the charge of careless riding against Mr Harris was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Balcombe produced Mr Harris’ riding record which showed three suspensions for careless riding over the last 12 months:
6/10/18 6 days
25/4/18 6 days
8/4/18 6 days
He said the Stewards placed the level of carelessness in the low range and submitted that a suspension in line with that was appropriate.
Mr Harris asked the Committee to take into account his good record and advised of riding commitment up until Sunday, February 3rd.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee accepted the Stewards’ assessment that Mr Harris’ level of carelessness sat at the low end. He neglected to straighten his mount up when he went past Mr Hannam, but his inward movement was not abrupt or deliberate, rather a gradual drift inwards. While the interference suffered by Ms Allpress was significant, she advised the Committee that her mount was tiring at the time and believed the horse to her outside (QUICK CHOICE), who finished third may well have beaten her regardless.
We adopted a starting point of 6 days suspension as provided by the Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees. Mr Harris has incurred only one suspension for careless riding in the last 9 months, and for that, we give him some credit.
Taking into account all matters we considered an appropriate penalty was one of five riding days.
penalty:
Mr Harris is suspended from the close of racing on Sunday, February 3rd up to and including racing on Wednesday, February 13th.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr D Balcombe - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr T Harris - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mr R Hannam - Licensed Rider, Ms L Allpress - Licensed Rider, Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 79f61532a9c84bb5d51d5826f98917bf
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: dc7acb7cce80494356bd27cc5f5a9346
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 30/01/2019
meet_title: Hawkes Bay RI - 30 January 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: hawkes-bay-ri
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: TCastles
meet_pm2: none
name: Hawkes Bay RI