Omakau RC – 4 January 2007 – Race 7
ID: JCA19945
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Omakau RC - 4 January 2007
Race Date:
2007/01/04
Race Number:
Race 7
Decision: --
Mr Bates you?ve been charged with a breach of rule 871(1)(d) in race 7 in that you permitted your mount TANZIA to shift in when not clear of KOMPRESSOR
--
Mr Bates you?ve been charged with a breach of rule 871(1)(d) in race 7 in that you permitted your mount TANZIA to shift in when not clear of KOMPRESSOR ridden by Mr Johnson, resulting in that runner being checked near the 100 metre mark.
----Mr Ching had Mr George, senior stipendiary steward, demonstrate on 3 video angles that you shifted off the fence looking for a run on the outside of LEGALLY WHITE about 150 metres from the finish. He says you were disappointed for a run and moved back onto the fence and, in so doing, took the line of Mr Johnson causing him to check his mount. Mr George emphasised Mr Johnson was entitled to take the run on the fence and that when Mr Bates moved back to the rail he was not his length plus another clear of Mr Johnson.
----Mr Bates, you?ve initially said that Mr Johnson was not there when you moved back to the inner of LEGALLY WHITE. However, after viewing the back straight angle you conceded Mr Johnson had improved into the gap before you came across. You have indicated that you believe the cause of the incident was movement by LEGALLY WHITE. You said it was only a stride but it was sufficient to close the gap that had presented itself between LEGALLY WHITE and NOR?WEST on its outer. You said you clipped heels with NOR?WEST as a consequence and were pushed back into the line of Mr Johnson on KOMPRESSOR.
----DECISION
--We have carefully studied the videos and in particular the head-on. You were correct to abandon the defence that Mr Johnson was not in the gap between LEGALLY WHITE and the fence when you moved back. The back straight video demonstrates he was there some 5 or 6 strides before you moved back. It is our view that a gap had presented itself on the outer of LEGALLY WHITE and that you were entitled to move out and look for that run. Unfortunately the gap that had initially presented itself, closed simultaneously with your outwards movement. Nonetheless, you pressed forward for a few strides before, as you state, you clipped heels with NOR?WEST. There is nothing on the video to support this, but equally we see no reason not to accept your statement to this effect. Where we disagree with you is your statement that you were pushed into the line of KOMPRESSOR as a consequence of the clipping of heels. In our view once you were disappointed for a run you had the opportunity to take hold of your mount and to ease off the heels of NOR?WEST and LEGALLY WHITE. Your response was to attempt to immediately return to your position on the rail that you had just vacated. Unfortunately Mr Johnson had pushed up into the gap and in moving when you were not your length and another length clear you moved into Mr Johnson's line and forced him to check.
----We accept LEGALLY WHITE did contribute to the incident by moving out slightly at the relevant time. However, this simply removed the option of a run on the outer of that horse. You had the option, indeed the obligation, to take hold of your mount and to wait until a further gap presented itself, should it do so. Your movement back to the fence in our view was a deliberate action on your part. In so doing, when not your length and another clear, your actions were careless, We thus find the charge proved.
----PENALTY
--Mr Ching has said that the breach was medium to high range and that a suspension of 3 to 4 days is appropriate. You have questioned Mr Ching's evaluation of the gravity of the breach and have said that a fine rather than a suspension is appropriate.
----In our view the breach is mid range. We note that you felt slightly aggrieved (with some justification in our view) that LEGALLY WHITE moved out slightly to deny you a run on the outer and then moved in later to deny you a run on the fence. Nonetheless, your decision to move back to the rail was a deliberate one and, as we have found, in breach of rule 871(1)(d). We believe you were entitled to forcefully defend the charge in the particular circumstances although of course the mitigating factor of a guilty plea is not present. We certainly do not increase the penalty because the charge was not admitted.
----You have drawn a comparison with Mr Hibberd's charge at Otago. A rider fell on that occasion; a jockey, Mr Johnson, could have fallen on this occasion. Your inwards movement was more pronounced than the outwards movement of Mr Hibberd. In that respect we regard your breach as more serious.
----We give credit to your exemplary record ? no breach of this rule in this past year. Were we to suspend you for 3 days, the third day would be a Premier Day at Trentham. We do not believe the gravity of this breach requires you to be denied the opportunity to ride on that day. We therefore suspend you from riding at the end of racing on Saturday January 6 up to and including January 13. This is 2 South Island days. We also fine you the sum of $350.
----G Hall Chairman
--N Johnstone Member
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: 507e056d76d000eaf91d5fc1ed2a9be9
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 04/01/2007
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Omakau RC - 4 January 2007 - Race 7
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Mr Bates you?ve been charged with a breach of rule 871(1)(d) in race 7 in that you permitted your mount TANZIA to shift in when not clear of KOMPRESSOR
--
Mr Bates you?ve been charged with a breach of rule 871(1)(d) in race 7 in that you permitted your mount TANZIA to shift in when not clear of KOMPRESSOR ridden by Mr Johnson, resulting in that runner being checked near the 100 metre mark.
----Mr Ching had Mr George, senior stipendiary steward, demonstrate on 3 video angles that you shifted off the fence looking for a run on the outside of LEGALLY WHITE about 150 metres from the finish. He says you were disappointed for a run and moved back onto the fence and, in so doing, took the line of Mr Johnson causing him to check his mount. Mr George emphasised Mr Johnson was entitled to take the run on the fence and that when Mr Bates moved back to the rail he was not his length plus another clear of Mr Johnson.
----Mr Bates, you?ve initially said that Mr Johnson was not there when you moved back to the inner of LEGALLY WHITE. However, after viewing the back straight angle you conceded Mr Johnson had improved into the gap before you came across. You have indicated that you believe the cause of the incident was movement by LEGALLY WHITE. You said it was only a stride but it was sufficient to close the gap that had presented itself between LEGALLY WHITE and NOR?WEST on its outer. You said you clipped heels with NOR?WEST as a consequence and were pushed back into the line of Mr Johnson on KOMPRESSOR.
----DECISION
--We have carefully studied the videos and in particular the head-on. You were correct to abandon the defence that Mr Johnson was not in the gap between LEGALLY WHITE and the fence when you moved back. The back straight video demonstrates he was there some 5 or 6 strides before you moved back. It is our view that a gap had presented itself on the outer of LEGALLY WHITE and that you were entitled to move out and look for that run. Unfortunately the gap that had initially presented itself, closed simultaneously with your outwards movement. Nonetheless, you pressed forward for a few strides before, as you state, you clipped heels with NOR?WEST. There is nothing on the video to support this, but equally we see no reason not to accept your statement to this effect. Where we disagree with you is your statement that you were pushed into the line of KOMPRESSOR as a consequence of the clipping of heels. In our view once you were disappointed for a run you had the opportunity to take hold of your mount and to ease off the heels of NOR?WEST and LEGALLY WHITE. Your response was to attempt to immediately return to your position on the rail that you had just vacated. Unfortunately Mr Johnson had pushed up into the gap and in moving when you were not your length and another length clear you moved into Mr Johnson's line and forced him to check.
----We accept LEGALLY WHITE did contribute to the incident by moving out slightly at the relevant time. However, this simply removed the option of a run on the outer of that horse. You had the option, indeed the obligation, to take hold of your mount and to wait until a further gap presented itself, should it do so. Your movement back to the fence in our view was a deliberate action on your part. In so doing, when not your length and another clear, your actions were careless, We thus find the charge proved.
----PENALTY
--Mr Ching has said that the breach was medium to high range and that a suspension of 3 to 4 days is appropriate. You have questioned Mr Ching's evaluation of the gravity of the breach and have said that a fine rather than a suspension is appropriate.
----In our view the breach is mid range. We note that you felt slightly aggrieved (with some justification in our view) that LEGALLY WHITE moved out slightly to deny you a run on the outer and then moved in later to deny you a run on the fence. Nonetheless, your decision to move back to the rail was a deliberate one and, as we have found, in breach of rule 871(1)(d). We believe you were entitled to forcefully defend the charge in the particular circumstances although of course the mitigating factor of a guilty plea is not present. We certainly do not increase the penalty because the charge was not admitted.
----You have drawn a comparison with Mr Hibberd's charge at Otago. A rider fell on that occasion; a jockey, Mr Johnson, could have fallen on this occasion. Your inwards movement was more pronounced than the outwards movement of Mr Hibberd. In that respect we regard your breach as more serious.
----We give credit to your exemplary record ? no breach of this rule in this past year. Were we to suspend you for 3 days, the third day would be a Premier Day at Trentham. We do not believe the gravity of this breach requires you to be denied the opportunity to ride on that day. We therefore suspend you from riding at the end of racing on Saturday January 6 up to and including January 13. This is 2 South Island days. We also fine you the sum of $350.
----G Hall Chairman
--N Johnstone Member
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 871.1.d
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 29949b9dad6400369e2aadf709e46092
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 1f783a5a01eadde3c1cd59fdf4ef915d
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 04/01/2007
meet_title: Omakau RC - 4 January 2007
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: omakau-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Omakau RC