Canterbury JC – 27 February 2010 – Race 4
ID: JCA18987
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Canterbury JC - 27 February 2010
Race Date:
2010/02/27
Race Number:
Race 4
Decision:
CANTERBURY JOCKEY CLUB
--27TH FEBRUARY 2010
--RACE 4
--Information 0781 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 638(1)(d) in that Ms A Denby (Apprentice Jockey) allowed her mount “WAITUI GOLD” to shift out near the 350m dictating the line of running of “ASTHECROWFLYS” (D Mo), “DR DEE BEE” (J Laking), “ABELARD” (C Spittles), and “PRINCESS SHYLA” (S Muniandy) all of which were buffeted for some distance.
--Informant: Mr M Davidson, Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Ms A Denby (Apprentice Jockey) accompanied by Mr M Pitman (Licensed Trainer)
THE FACTS
--As a result of an incident in Race 4, Ms Denby, Apprentice Jockey, was charged with careless riding pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing. It was alleged that she allowed her mount, “WAITUI GOLD”, to shift out near the 350m mark dictating the line of running of “ASTHECROWFLYS” (D Mo), “DR DEE BEE” (J Laking), “ABELARD” (C Spittles) and “PRINCESS SHYLA” (S Muniandy) all of which were buffeted for some distance.
--
CANTERBURY JOCKEY CLUB
--27TH FEBRUARY 2010
--RACE 4
--Information 0781 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 638(1)(d) in that Ms A Denby (Apprentice Jockey) allowed her mount “WAITUI GOLD” to shift out near the 350m dictating the line of running of “ASTHECROWFLYS” (D Mo), “DR DEE BEE” (J Laking), “ABELARD” (C Spittles), and “PRINCESS SHYLA” (S Muniandy) all of which were buffeted for some distance.
--Informant: Mr M Davidson, Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Ms A Denby (Apprentice Jockey) accompanied by Mr M Pitman (Licensed Trainer)
THE FACTS
--As a result of an incident in Race 4, Ms Denby, Apprentice Jockey, was charged with careless riding pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing. It was alleged that she allowed her mount, “WAITUI GOLD”, to shift out near the 350m mark dictating the line of running of “ASTHECROWFLYS” (D Mo), “DR DEE BEE” (J Laking), “ABELARD” (C Spittles) and “PRINCESS SHYLA” (S Muniandy) all of which were buffeted for some distance.
--Ms Denby did not admit the charge.
--THE EVIDENCE
--Mr J McLaughlin, Assistant Stipendiary Steward, indicated the position of the horses at the relevant time, on the video film.
--Evidence was called from Mr S Muniandy (Apprentice Jockey) who told the hearing that at the relevant time, his horse became unbalanced as a result of pressure from the inside.
--We then heard from Mr Laking (Licensed Jockey) who said that he received pressure from his inside from Mr Mo. He said that Mr Mo was going well. However, he also said that he received a bump from his outside, and believed that there had been an overreaction on the part of horse or horses. In particular, he believed that Mr Muniandy’s horse may have overreacted.
--However, he did say quite clearly, that if Ms Denby had not run out, then Mr Mo would have had a clear run. He said that he was tightened from both sides and that
--Mr Muniandy did not help.
--Mr Laking was questioned by Mr Pitman on behalf of Ms Denby, with the focus of his line of questions being on the pressure that came from Mr Muniandy from the outside. Essentially, it was Mr Pitman’s contention that Mr Muniandy had been responsible for the incident, and that Ms Denby should not have been charged.
--Evidence was then heard from Mr D Mo (Apprentice Jockey). He said that as a result of Ms Denby coming across his line that he had to take hold of his mount. He said that Ms Denby was not her own length and another length clear at the time that she moved across, and that she was not more than one half of a length at the relevant time.
--He said there was no contact, but that he needed to avoid her heels. Mr Mo also said that the incident would not have happened, had Ms Denby not moved off her line in the manner that she did. Mr Pitman did not challenge Mr Mo’s evidence that she was not her own length and another length clear when she moved across in front of him.
--Mr Pitman then made submissions on Ms Denby’s behalf alleging that the interference was caused by Mr Muniandy, and that Mr Mo had overreacted. He did, however, concede that Ms Denby did move across off her line and in particular, crossed Mr Mo when not her own length and another length clear. He believed that he should not have been charged, but instead warned for not keeping on her line.
--INTERIM DECISION
--We delivered the following interim decision.
--Interim Decision
The incident on which we have focussed in determining whether or not Ms Denby rode carelessly, is the outward movement that she undertook at approximately the 350m mark. The evidence from the video film, and from Mr Mo, is quite clear. Ms Denby moved across in front of Mr Mo when not her own length and another length clear. Mr Mo had to move and to restrain his mount in order to avoid heels. That evidence was accepted by Mr Pitman on Ms Denby’s behalf and, in itself, constitutes careless riding as it was in breach of the fundamental Rule of Racing that she moved across the line of another horse when not her own length and another length clear.
What happened on the outside with Mr Laking, Mr Muniandy and Ms Spittles, occurred after the interference by Ms Denby to Mr Mo. Whilst it looked bad, it really has no relevance to the initial careless riding by Ms Denby.
--Thus, we find the charge of careless riding proved but find as a fact, that the degree of carelessness was low.
--In reaching our interim decision, we gave careful consideration to the evidence of Messrs Mo, Laking and Muniandy and studied the video film carefully.
--There was unquestionably a degree of tightening involving Ms Denby when she went across Mr Mo’s line when not her own length and another length clear. That was conceded by Mr Pitman on Ms Denby’s behalf, and thus there can be no doubt in our minds that, at that particular stage, Ms Denby rode carelessly.
--The evidence that we have heard satisfies us that she rode carelessly, albeit in a minor manner. The fact of the matter, however, is that she rode carelessly at that particular point.
--The incident going on on the outside really bears no particular relevance to the charge against Ms Denby.
--PENALTY SUBMISSIONS
--Mr Davidson told the hearing that Ms Denby is a busy rider, and that she has not been charged with careless riding before. Mr Davidson agreed that the Stipendiary Stewards were of the view that the degree of carelessness was low.
--Mr Pitman urged us to take into account Ms Denby’s good record, and the fact that she is a busy rider and considered that a suspension of one day only should be imposed.
--Application was made for a deferment of any period of suspension to enable Ms Denby to ride at Omakau on Friday 5 March. Mr Pitman said that she had a full book of rides for that day.
--The starting point for imposing a penalty for careless riding is a suspension of three or four riding days. Judicial Committees have a discretion to increase or decrease the number of days for suspension depending on mitigating or aggravating factors.
--In this case, we have focussed on two particular aspects, which are by way of mitigation of penalty. Those matters are:
--a) The low degree of carelessness; and
b) Ms Denby’s excellent record.
Taking those factors into account, the penalty to be imposed will be for two days racing only. We grant Ms Denby’s application for a deferment of the coming into effect of the period of suspension.
--Thus, Ms Denby will be suspended from race riding from the conclusion of racing on Friday 5 March 2010 until the conclusion of racing on Thursday 11 March 2010.
--
Ms Denby will be free to resume race riding on Saturday 13 March 2010 at the Otago Racing Club’s meeting at Wingatui on that day.
KG Hales R G McKenzie
CHAIR Committee Member
0781
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: 204bb5b0e934e8c278b6c0f597681199
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 27/02/2010
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 27 February 2010 - Race 4
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
CANTERBURY JOCKEY CLUB
--27TH FEBRUARY 2010
--RACE 4
--Information 0781 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 638(1)(d) in that Ms A Denby (Apprentice Jockey) allowed her mount “WAITUI GOLD” to shift out near the 350m dictating the line of running of “ASTHECROWFLYS” (D Mo), “DR DEE BEE” (J Laking), “ABELARD” (C Spittles), and “PRINCESS SHYLA” (S Muniandy) all of which were buffeted for some distance.
--Informant: Mr M Davidson, Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Ms A Denby (Apprentice Jockey) accompanied by Mr M Pitman (Licensed Trainer)
THE FACTS
--As a result of an incident in Race 4, Ms Denby, Apprentice Jockey, was charged with careless riding pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing. It was alleged that she allowed her mount, “WAITUI GOLD”, to shift out near the 350m mark dictating the line of running of “ASTHECROWFLYS” (D Mo), “DR DEE BEE” (J Laking), “ABELARD” (C Spittles) and “PRINCESS SHYLA” (S Muniandy) all of which were buffeted for some distance.
--
CANTERBURY JOCKEY CLUB
--27TH FEBRUARY 2010
--RACE 4
--Information 0781 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 638(1)(d) in that Ms A Denby (Apprentice Jockey) allowed her mount “WAITUI GOLD” to shift out near the 350m dictating the line of running of “ASTHECROWFLYS” (D Mo), “DR DEE BEE” (J Laking), “ABELARD” (C Spittles), and “PRINCESS SHYLA” (S Muniandy) all of which were buffeted for some distance.
--Informant: Mr M Davidson, Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Ms A Denby (Apprentice Jockey) accompanied by Mr M Pitman (Licensed Trainer)
THE FACTS
--As a result of an incident in Race 4, Ms Denby, Apprentice Jockey, was charged with careless riding pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing. It was alleged that she allowed her mount, “WAITUI GOLD”, to shift out near the 350m mark dictating the line of running of “ASTHECROWFLYS” (D Mo), “DR DEE BEE” (J Laking), “ABELARD” (C Spittles) and “PRINCESS SHYLA” (S Muniandy) all of which were buffeted for some distance.
--Ms Denby did not admit the charge.
--THE EVIDENCE
--Mr J McLaughlin, Assistant Stipendiary Steward, indicated the position of the horses at the relevant time, on the video film.
--Evidence was called from Mr S Muniandy (Apprentice Jockey) who told the hearing that at the relevant time, his horse became unbalanced as a result of pressure from the inside.
--We then heard from Mr Laking (Licensed Jockey) who said that he received pressure from his inside from Mr Mo. He said that Mr Mo was going well. However, he also said that he received a bump from his outside, and believed that there had been an overreaction on the part of horse or horses. In particular, he believed that Mr Muniandy’s horse may have overreacted.
--However, he did say quite clearly, that if Ms Denby had not run out, then Mr Mo would have had a clear run. He said that he was tightened from both sides and that
--Mr Muniandy did not help.
--Mr Laking was questioned by Mr Pitman on behalf of Ms Denby, with the focus of his line of questions being on the pressure that came from Mr Muniandy from the outside. Essentially, it was Mr Pitman’s contention that Mr Muniandy had been responsible for the incident, and that Ms Denby should not have been charged.
--Evidence was then heard from Mr D Mo (Apprentice Jockey). He said that as a result of Ms Denby coming across his line that he had to take hold of his mount. He said that Ms Denby was not her own length and another length clear at the time that she moved across, and that she was not more than one half of a length at the relevant time.
--He said there was no contact, but that he needed to avoid her heels. Mr Mo also said that the incident would not have happened, had Ms Denby not moved off her line in the manner that she did. Mr Pitman did not challenge Mr Mo’s evidence that she was not her own length and another length clear when she moved across in front of him.
--Mr Pitman then made submissions on Ms Denby’s behalf alleging that the interference was caused by Mr Muniandy, and that Mr Mo had overreacted. He did, however, concede that Ms Denby did move across off her line and in particular, crossed Mr Mo when not her own length and another length clear. He believed that he should not have been charged, but instead warned for not keeping on her line.
--INTERIM DECISION
--We delivered the following interim decision.
--Interim Decision
The incident on which we have focussed in determining whether or not Ms Denby rode carelessly, is the outward movement that she undertook at approximately the 350m mark. The evidence from the video film, and from Mr Mo, is quite clear. Ms Denby moved across in front of Mr Mo when not her own length and another length clear. Mr Mo had to move and to restrain his mount in order to avoid heels. That evidence was accepted by Mr Pitman on Ms Denby’s behalf and, in itself, constitutes careless riding as it was in breach of the fundamental Rule of Racing that she moved across the line of another horse when not her own length and another length clear.
What happened on the outside with Mr Laking, Mr Muniandy and Ms Spittles, occurred after the interference by Ms Denby to Mr Mo. Whilst it looked bad, it really has no relevance to the initial careless riding by Ms Denby.
--Thus, we find the charge of careless riding proved but find as a fact, that the degree of carelessness was low.
--In reaching our interim decision, we gave careful consideration to the evidence of Messrs Mo, Laking and Muniandy and studied the video film carefully.
--There was unquestionably a degree of tightening involving Ms Denby when she went across Mr Mo’s line when not her own length and another length clear. That was conceded by Mr Pitman on Ms Denby’s behalf, and thus there can be no doubt in our minds that, at that particular stage, Ms Denby rode carelessly.
--The evidence that we have heard satisfies us that she rode carelessly, albeit in a minor manner. The fact of the matter, however, is that she rode carelessly at that particular point.
--The incident going on on the outside really bears no particular relevance to the charge against Ms Denby.
--PENALTY SUBMISSIONS
--Mr Davidson told the hearing that Ms Denby is a busy rider, and that she has not been charged with careless riding before. Mr Davidson agreed that the Stipendiary Stewards were of the view that the degree of carelessness was low.
--Mr Pitman urged us to take into account Ms Denby’s good record, and the fact that she is a busy rider and considered that a suspension of one day only should be imposed.
--Application was made for a deferment of any period of suspension to enable Ms Denby to ride at Omakau on Friday 5 March. Mr Pitman said that she had a full book of rides for that day.
--The starting point for imposing a penalty for careless riding is a suspension of three or four riding days. Judicial Committees have a discretion to increase or decrease the number of days for suspension depending on mitigating or aggravating factors.
--In this case, we have focussed on two particular aspects, which are by way of mitigation of penalty. Those matters are:
--a) The low degree of carelessness; and
b) Ms Denby’s excellent record.
Taking those factors into account, the penalty to be imposed will be for two days racing only. We grant Ms Denby’s application for a deferment of the coming into effect of the period of suspension.
--Thus, Ms Denby will be suspended from race riding from the conclusion of racing on Friday 5 March 2010 until the conclusion of racing on Thursday 11 March 2010.
--
Ms Denby will be free to resume race riding on Saturday 13 March 2010 at the Otago Racing Club’s meeting at Wingatui on that day.
KG Hales R G McKenzie
CHAIR Committee Member
0781
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 638.1.d
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 6d350b9de63b6ada3b64965b1f384843
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 6cc52c4f3cd906bee4c7a3125a8c86ce
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 27/02/2010
meet_title: Canterbury JC - 27 February 2010
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Canterbury JC