Canterbury JC – 13 November 2004 – Race 6

Following the running of Race 6, HSBC Salver, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S C Ching, against Apprentice Jockey, Mr J R Todd, alleging that Mr Todd, as the rider of THUNDERSTRIKE in the Race, allowed his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear with approximately 1100 metres to run crowding AFTER SIX (J S Bullard), CUSACK (K Williams) and checking ROCKEUR (M T Coleman).

Mr Todd did not admit the breach. He was assisted at the hearing of the information by his employer, Licensed Trainer Mr H T Anderton.

Mr Ching called Mr J S Bullard to give evidence. Mr Bullard stated that his mount had jumped out fairly and was "rolling forward". There was movement from the outside and he had received calls from Ms Williams and Mr Coleman on his inside. He said that he then called to Mr Todd but the runners on his inside were "tightened up for a few strides". Mr Bullard said that he had to check back off the heels of Mr Todd's mount. He was about ? length behind Mr Todd. He could not avoid tightening the inside runners. Mr Bullard said that he did not believe that Mr Todd was his own length and another length clear.

Mr Ching then showed head-on and side-on video replays of the incident. Mr Ching pointed out the four horses involved. He also showed PERSONAL COLUMN (M J Walker) wider out but clear of the other runners. Mr Ching showed Mr Todd coming over and placing pressure on Mr Bullard who in turn put pressure on Ms Williams and, in turn, onto Mr Coleman who lost his position. Mr Todd had been 4-wide with three horses inside him and had finished up 3-wide, still with three horses inside him with the horse on the fence being checked out of it because of lack of room.

Mr Anderton submitted that Mr Bullard's mount had initially gone over and interfered with the runner inside it. Mr Todd's mount had always had a gap between it and Mr Bullard's mount before the initial interference took place. There was a doubt whether Mr Todd had caused the interference, he said. Mr Bullard had checked his horse, but not severely. He had eased back out of trouble. The problem had arisen earlier, Mr Anderton submitted. Mr Anderton said that it was conceded that a certain amount of interference had taken place but that Mr Todd should receive the benefit of the doubt. He said there had been a "shaving" by Mr Todd's mount. Mr Anderton submitted that the interference suffered by Mr Coleman's mount had take place after Mr Todd was clear.

The Committee delivered the following oral decision:

"The Committee has heard and listened to the evidence of Mr Bullard, the submissions of Mr Ching and also the submissions of Mr Anderton on behalf of Mr Todd. In addition, we have carefully looked at the video evidence. In arriving at our finding on the charge, we have had regard principally to the evidence of Mr Bullard. Mr Bullard was quite clear in his evidence that he was tightened by pressure from Mr Todd on his outside. Mr Bullard said in his evidence that, at the time, he was only ? length behind Mr Todd. Mr Bullard went on to say that this pressure from Mr Todd on his outside caused him to put pressure on the two runners inside of him and it was apparent from the video that there was consequential interference to those other runners ? the mounts of Ms Williams and Mr Coleman. On the basis of Mr Bullard's evidence, Mr Todd was clearly not his own length and another length clear as required by the Rules when he shifted ground inwards and, therefore, we find the charge of careless riding to be proved."

Mr Todd informed the Committee that Mr Todd has an "exemplary" race riding record with no previous careless riding breach. However, Mr Ching said, the Stipendiary Stewards contended that the interference had cost another runner a chance of finishing in a placing. Mr Ching submitted that a suspension should be imposed in this instance, as is the normal practice in dealing with apprentice riders.

Mr Anderton informed the Committee that Mr Todd had not been charge previously in the 18 months that he had been riding. He described Mr Todd as "an impeccable young man" with a very clean race riding record. He submitted that a suspension would be "extremely harsh" at this stage of his career and he asked for leniency with a fine.

Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision in relation to penalty:

"The Committee has considered the submissions of the parties in relation to penalty in this case. It is not the usual practice to fine apprentice jockeys on charges of careless riding, as Mr Ching rightly stated. In any event, we do not think that a fine is appropriate in this instance, notwithstanding Mr Todd's excellent race riding record. This was not careless riding at the bottom of the scale and it was a race at a premier meeting for a stake of $27,500. The Committee is of the view that a term of suspension of 3 days is the minimum term for a charge of careless riding on a premier day and we find that a 3-days suspension is appropriate in this instance.  Mr Todd, you will be suspended up to and including             4 December 2004 which is, effectively, 3 riding days."