Auckland RC – 1 March 2009 –

hearingid: 29ff0eef6febcaa69846164b9ad57dd2

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/03/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Auckland RC - 1 March 2009 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following race 9 an information was lodged pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) when it was alleged by the informant, Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr R Sanders that Mr Ormsby committed a breach of that rule when he permitted his mount JUICE to shift inwards near the winning post on the first occasion when not sufficiently clear dictating FEARS NOTHING (L Innes) into the line of THE SPANIARD (R Hannam) who was checked.

Following race 9 an information was lodged pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) when it was alleged by the informant, Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr R Sanders that Mr Ormsby committed a breach of that rule when he permitted his mount JUICE to shift inwards near the winning post on the first occasion when not sufficiently clear dictating FEARS NOTHING (L Innes) into the line of THE SPANIARD (R Hannam) who was checked.

Mr Ormsby did not admit the charge.

Because of technical difficulties with the video Mr L Innes, rider of FEARS NOTHING was called to give his evidence.  Mr Innes said he was racing 2 off the rail as they went past the winning post the first time when he was taken into the fence by Mr Ormsby. He said Mr Ormsby was only 1 length clear of him when this occurred.  When asked by Mr Sanders whether he had any option other than to move in Mr Innes said he did not.

At this stage Mr J Oatham demonstrated the video films.  As the field passed the post the 1^st time Mr Ormsby, riding JUICE, was racing 4 wide.  It clearly showed that Mr Ormsby moved in and finished one off the running rail.  This movement tightened Mr Innes who in turn was dictated into the line of THE SPANIARD (R Hannam) who was severely checked which caused further problems for following runners.  The side on film confirmed Mr Ormsby was a bare length clear of Mr Innes.  When moving in Mr Oatham conceded that Mr Ormsby did turn his mount’s head out but that was to get off the heels of the horse in front of him.

Mr Ormsby, in beginning his defence, admitted he was closer to Mr Innes when moving in than he originally thought.  However when questioned he said that he did not wish to change his plea.  He said he was having trouble with his mount and got inside the heels of the horse in front of him.  He said that the pace slowed and, having moved in and inside the horse in front of him he said he was committed to moving in further.

In his submissions Mr Sanders said that Mr Ormsby had put himself in a difficult position but his option was to pull back and move out.  He reminded the committee that Mr Innes was clear that his line had been taken by Mr Ormsby.

DECISION

The committee carefully considered all evidence and reviewed the video films.  We are clearly satisfied that Mr Ormsby was not the required distance clear of Mr Innes when he moved in.  We have no doubt that Mr Ormsby was solely responsible for the position he found himself in as he was originally racing 4 wide with no one on his outside.

Taking all of these factors into account we find the charge proven.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

Mr Ormsby said he had commitments until March 7 but he did not believe this was at the higher end of carelessness.

Mr Sanders said this was a case of severe interference to 2 horses with further interference to 2 others.  He believed that this offence was at the higher end of the scale. He produced Mr Ormsby’s record which showed 2 charges in the previous 12 months. He asked for a suspension of not less than 1 month and a fine of $2-3000.  He pointed out to the committee that in that month there were 3 Premier meetings and this was taken into account in his penalty submissions.

PENALTY

 The committee carefully considered all the submissions and took into account the following before reaching our decision :

1.         Mr Ormsby’s record.

2.         The status of the race and the implications of Rule 1122, namely the consequences as defined in (2) of this rule

3.         The level of carelessness and the resultant checks received by several runners.

4.         The fact that a months suspension does contain 3 Premier days.

Finally the committee must be cognisant of the fact that this is New Zealand’s richest race and along with the above factors consider that a deterrent penalty must be imposed.

Accordingly we impose a suspension to start after the finish of racing on March 7 and conclude after racing on April 7 2009.  In addition we impose a fine of $2500.

R M Seabrook                       D C Johnstone

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: