Auckland RC – 10 March 2007 –

hearingid: 6615fddf3219abfe42592903335a662e

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 10/03/2007

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Auckland RC - 10 March 2007 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Hearing of information number 7873 filed under Rule 871(1)(d) by Mr Cameron George alleging that Mr Leith Innes (Licensed Jockey) had permitted his mount "Keepa Cruisin" to shift in near the 1000 metres when not sufficiently clear 

Following the running of Race 7 at the Auckland Racing Club's meeting on Saturday 10 March, the Ford Diamond Stakes, a Group 1 event, Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Cameron George preferred an information pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) against Mr Leith Innes. It was alleged that Mr Innes had permitted his mount "Keepa Cruisin" to shift in near the 1,000 metres when not sufficiently clear of "The Pooka" (M du Plessis) who was taken in on to "Pierre Joseph" (L Cropp) who was checked.

Mr George, with the assistance of the video cameras, alleged that shortly after the start, when the field was near the 1,000 metre mark, that Mr Innes ("Keepa Cruisin") was racing in a three wide position. "Jacob" (S Spratt) then moved outwards and as a consequence, "Keepa Cruisin" was then put in to a position four horse widths out from the rail. At this point, "The Pooka", "Pierre Joseph" and one other horse, improved in to the inside of Mr Innes. It was Mr George's case that there was ample room for three horses to improve in to the gap that was left as a result of Mr Innes being pushed out to the four wide position and that, in fact, not only did "The Pooka" improve in to that position but so did "Pierre Joseph" and one other horse that was on the rails.

Mr George showed how the three horses concerned maintained that position inside of Mr Innes for approximately 8 strides but that after approximately 8 strides tightening occurred with the result being that Ms Cropp on "Pierre Joseph" was checked out of the running, as a result of some inwards pressure by Mr du Plessis's mount, "The Pooka". Mr George alleged that "The Pooka" was taken in on to "Pierre Joseph" by Mr Innes attempting to regain a three wide running position. Mr George stated that as a result of "The Pooka", "Pierre Joseph" and one other horse improving on Mr Innes's inside as they did, that Mr Innes had "lost ownership" of the three wide running line that he had prior to being pushed out to the four wide position.

Mr Innes challenged Mr George's interpretation of the situation stating, in essence, that he had not, at any time, lost the three wide position.

Mr Innes was then given the opportunity to present his defence. His own evidence was quite straightforward in that he said that he did not lose the three wide running position at any time. He called three witnesses to support his case. He called Ms Samantha Spratt who was riding "Jacob". Ms Spratt confirmed that he had been responsible for causing Mr Innes to be moved outwards as a result of her horse lugging out, which she confirmed when cross examined by Mr George. However, she seemed to think that Mr Innes was left in a three wide position. Mr Innes then called Ms Lisa Cropp who was the victim of the incident in that after improving in to the gap inside Mr Innes along with Mr du Plessis's mount, "The Pooka", she was, after a number of strides then checked and lost ground as a result. She was of the opinion that Mr du Plessis's mount had compressed her situation but could not be unequivocal as to the extent that Mr Innes had been responsible for placing pressure on Mr du Plessis. Mr du Plessis gave evidence and did confirm that he received a little pressure from Mr Innes and that as a consequence there may have been some inward movement by him on to Ms Cropp.

Each party was then invited to summarise their case. Mr Innes maintained his position that he was running in a three wide position at all material times. He said that Mr du Plessis had "kicked up" in to a gap and that, in his opinion, a summary of Ms Cropp's evidence was that it was entirely Mr du Plessis who caused the check to her.

Mr George maintained his opinion that the ownership of the three wide position belonged to Mr du Plessis as a consequence of Mr Innes having been moved out. His view of Ms Cropp's evidence was that she did not know where the pressure came from but that Mr du Plessis had received pressure from the outside.

It is this Committee's opinion that Mr Innes was moved in to a four wide position as alleged. The video evidence was quite clear in that it showed three horses improve inside Mr Innes very quickly after he was moved out by the actions of Ms Spratt's mount. The video evidence confirmed Mr George's view that "The Pooka", "Pierre Joseph" and one other horse were inside of Mr du Plessis for at least eight strides. Mr du Plessis's mount then moved inwards. The amount of movement may have been slight but the fact of the matter is that that movement placed pressure on Mr du Plessis who then was taken in on to "Pierre Joseph" with the consequential check occurring.

We are satisfied, after considering all of the evidence, that Mr Innes's riding was careless albeit at the lower end of the scale, but careless just the same. Thus, the charge is duly proved.

Whilst Mr Innes's carelessness may have been at the lower end of the scale, the fact of the matter is that Rule 1122(2) of the Rules of Racing dictates that certain matters should be taken into account in determining penalty.

In this case, the incident occurred in a Group 1 status race for a stake of $175,000.

Notwithstanding the position of the race at which the incident occurred, the fact is that Ms Cropp did receive quite a significant check and lost ground as a result. This was a sprint race and Ms Cropp was denied the opportunity of improving further from the position that she had managed to obtain as a result of Mr Innes being moved to a four wide position.

In all of the circumstances, a suspension is the only penalty that is appropriate. We have given Mr Innes credit for his good riding record. However, in terms of consistency with regard to the imposition of penalty, a suspension of five days is called for. In assessing this penalty, we have carefully noted that the degree of carelessness was, in our opinion, at the lower end of the scale and the fact that Mr Innes is a busy rider, having only received one suspension, of four days in the past 12 months.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d, 1122.2

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: