Hawkes Bay RI – 28 October 2004 – Race 8

hearingid: 3bcbe7ae05cc0c8d8998151720ece6af

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 28/10/2004

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Hawkes Bay RI - 28 October 2004 - Race 8

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Approximately 40 minutes after the running of Race 8 L Innes , the rider of TRIAGE in Race 8 was charged in that he allowed his mount to shift inward when not clear of SHERBERTS BEAU ( L Cheshire) NIGHTBEAT (C Lammas) and ROYAL PHANTOM ( B Herd) who was tightened.    Jockey B Herd was called to give evidence.        He informed the committee that he was tightened right up.      He lost his balance, not his footing.      He did not have to check.     He was asked if the tightening could have come from Miss Cheshire's mount on his outside.      Jockey Herd agreed it could have.

Nightbeat's jockey C.Lammas told the committee that after the start he got pressured.      He thought it was from Miss Cheshire's mount.    He felt she came across and made contact with his and Mr Herd's mount.

Mr Innes, by way of a question, asked Mr Lammas if his mount Triage was above and clear of Miss Cheshire's mount.          Jockey Lammas agreed that was probably correct.       He felt the pressure was coming from Miss Cheshire who was trying to get in.

Miss Cheshire (Sherberts Beau) told the committee she jumped quickly. The horse was pulling really hard.     Mr Innes came across.        She indicated that there was room even though she was under a ride.She was entitled to the line but was finding it difficult to take a hold. Jockey Lammas was yelling at her.      She did not call at Innes.

Mr Innes, by way of a question, asked , if when his mount came across did he clear her.       He felt he was at least 1 ?  lengths clear.     Miss Cheshire agreed that her horse was cleared.

Stipendiary steward B Bateup showed the head and side on films. He told the committee that he felt Mr Innes was not sufficiently clear when he came across.    He felt he moved in 1-1 ? lengths and believed Miss Cheshire had to avoid heels. He agreed that there was no interference but buffeting did occur.

Stipendiary steward K Hawea told the committee that he believed the inward movement of Innes's mount happened and he was not sufficiently clear.

Mr Innes informed the committee that no horses were checked and no interference took place. He jumped 2 lengths clear . Tony Allan's mount crossed and then he crossed. He felt that he was at least 1 ?  lengths clear at the point of the alleged incident. There was, he agreed, a little tightening but felt Miss Cheshire was under a ride and could not hold her horse. He believed Miss Cheshire eased back due to her horse pulling, putting pressure on the inside horses.

The committee spent considerable time considering the evidence.

The side on film showed that there was distance between Miss Cheshire's mount and Mr Innes at the point of the alleged incident Miss Cheshire was clearly under a ride and the tightening that did occur to the horses concerned happened at the time Mr Innes came across. The head on film showed the tightening and Mr Herd, in particular, having in his words ?lost his balance?

All of the verbal evidence presented reinforced the view that tightening occurred. There were conflicting thoughts amongst the witnesses on where that tightening came from and to what degree Miss Cheshire's mount Sherberts Beau contributed, by in her words ?I was under a ride?

 DECISION AND REASON

We have viewed the films both side and head on and carefully considered the evidence.

We find there are a number of conflicting  views on this incident. The films, especially the head on, shows clearly that there was tightening. This took place at the time Mr Innes crossed over.

Miss Cheshire's evidence was lack lustre and the side on film contributed little towards our deliberations.

Mr Innes action may well have been a contributing factor to the general buffeting but there remains an element of doubt that his actions were the only contributing factor.

The committee is of the opinion that where doubts exist, however small, the charge should be dismissed.

The charge against Mr L Innes is dismissed.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 26e683ab0c77cf443a5e10f5239fbd4c

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 8

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 5fdd7d8bc1541ca93e6f3cb6ecf15ff0

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 28/10/2004

meet_title: Hawkes Bay RI - 28 October 2004

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: hawkes-bay-ri

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Hawkes Bay RI