Taupo RC – 7 October 2009 – Race 2
ID: JCA20212
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Taupo RC - 7 October 2009
Race Date:
2009/10/07
Race Number:
Race 2
Decision:
Information # 7540
--Following Race 2, a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) was alleged in that Miss S Spratt permitted her mount RED LABEL to shift inwards passing the 800 metres when not sufficiently clear of OLIVER TWIST (N Harris) who was forced inwards crowding CLASS ACTION (C Lammas) who was checked and dropped back onto PETRANOVA (D Johnson) who was also checked.
Information # 7540
--Following Race 2, a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) was alleged in that Miss S Spratt permitted her mount RED LABEL to shift inwards passing the 800 metres when not sufficiently clear of OLIVER TWIST (N Harris) who was forced inwards crowding CLASS ACTION (C Lammas) who was checked and dropped back onto PETRANOVA (D Johnson) who was also checked.
--The breach was not admitted.
--Stipendiary Steward Mr A Coles, using the available films, pointed out the alleged incident. He told the Committee that prior to the 800 metre mark Miss Spratt’s mount moved inwards causing tightening to the horses on her inside. Jockey Harris’s mount was checked causing jockey Lammas to take hold of his mount which dropped back onto jockey D Johnson’s mount. He believed that there was slight movement from a horse down on the rails but this did not contribute to the incident. He told the Committee that Miss Spratt’s movement was not great but the combined effect of that inward movement caused jockey Lammas’s mount to be checked.
--Jockey Lammas was called as a witness and informed the Committee he was behind the leaders, got tightened and checked out. He lost position and his saddle slipped. The movement came from his outside.
--Miss Spratt had no questions.
--Jockey N Harris was called as a witness and told the Committee that approaching the 800 metre mark there was not a lot of pace. Miss Spratt’s mount on his outside moved inwards onto him and he yelled three times. His horse turned and rolled onto Lammas’s mount.
--Miss Spratt asked if the pace slackened at the point of the incident. Jockey Harris agreed there was not a lot of pace on but he was entitled to be where he was. Pressure came from Miss Spratt’s mount RED LABEL and when the inward movement came he had no room.
Miss Spratt told the committee she believed the pace slackened and that Harris’s mount was over racing. She did come across slightly but believed there was a gap between her mount and the horse on her inside, Michael Walker’s mount LALIGA, which was weakening. She felt that the horses affected on her inside could be attributed to the over racing of OLIVER TWIST.
In summing up Mr Williamson told the Committee Miss Spratt had an obligation to keep her mount straight. Her movement inward was not great but it contributed to the actions taken by the jockeys on her inside.
--DECISION AND REASON
--Miss Spratt, we have considered carefully the evidence placed in front of us. We have viewed the available films again and I would like to point out that Stipendiary Steward J Oatham was present at that time to operate the video replay. No discussion on any part of the incident was discussed during Mr Oatham’s presence. We are satisfied that there was inward movement from your mount and we have estimated that movement to be about half a width. We concur that the movement was not great but the consequences of that movement were felt by three riders and their mounts on your inside. The side on video showing the obvious interference to Mr Lammas’s mount was compelling – CLASS ACTION’s chances in the race were extinguished.
You made comment on jockey Harris’s mount over racing and contributing to the incident. We strongly believe OLIVER TWIST was perfectly entitled to be where he was and his movements inwards were not caused by over racing but by your inward movement. You have an obligation in situations like that to ensure your mount runs straight. In this case that did not happen. We find the charge proven.
SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
--Mr Williamson informed the Committee Miss Spratt had been suspended under this Rule four times in the last twelve months. She rides a lot and her record under this Rule is much improved. Although the movement was not great it was sustained. A horse was severely hampered. He felt, however, the offence was in the low range and asked for a suspension of between four and five days.
--Miss Spratt told the Committee that she had been invited to ride at Melbourne this coming Friday at an invitational meeting and would like any suspension to begin after that.
--DECISION
--Miss Spratt, this Committee concurs that this breach of the Rule is best handled by way of suspension. We have taken into consideration your record under this Rule and your obvious improvement in your riding record. We concur with all parties that although the movement was slight it was sustained and horses on your inside were inconvenienced by your actions.
We have agreed to your request for a period of suspension to begin after racing at Melbourne this Friday. Miss Spratt, you are suspended from race riding after the completion of racing this Friday 09 October until the completion of racing 15 October 2009 (four days).
T W Castles D Johnstone
Chairman
7540
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: 4ad2c394cccde447789766a23c4f1539
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 07/10/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Taupo RC - 7 October 2009 - Race 2
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Information # 7540
--Following Race 2, a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) was alleged in that Miss S Spratt permitted her mount RED LABEL to shift inwards passing the 800 metres when not sufficiently clear of OLIVER TWIST (N Harris) who was forced inwards crowding CLASS ACTION (C Lammas) who was checked and dropped back onto PETRANOVA (D Johnson) who was also checked.
Information # 7540
--Following Race 2, a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) was alleged in that Miss S Spratt permitted her mount RED LABEL to shift inwards passing the 800 metres when not sufficiently clear of OLIVER TWIST (N Harris) who was forced inwards crowding CLASS ACTION (C Lammas) who was checked and dropped back onto PETRANOVA (D Johnson) who was also checked.
--The breach was not admitted.
--Stipendiary Steward Mr A Coles, using the available films, pointed out the alleged incident. He told the Committee that prior to the 800 metre mark Miss Spratt’s mount moved inwards causing tightening to the horses on her inside. Jockey Harris’s mount was checked causing jockey Lammas to take hold of his mount which dropped back onto jockey D Johnson’s mount. He believed that there was slight movement from a horse down on the rails but this did not contribute to the incident. He told the Committee that Miss Spratt’s movement was not great but the combined effect of that inward movement caused jockey Lammas’s mount to be checked.
--Jockey Lammas was called as a witness and informed the Committee he was behind the leaders, got tightened and checked out. He lost position and his saddle slipped. The movement came from his outside.
--Miss Spratt had no questions.
--Jockey N Harris was called as a witness and told the Committee that approaching the 800 metre mark there was not a lot of pace. Miss Spratt’s mount on his outside moved inwards onto him and he yelled three times. His horse turned and rolled onto Lammas’s mount.
--Miss Spratt asked if the pace slackened at the point of the incident. Jockey Harris agreed there was not a lot of pace on but he was entitled to be where he was. Pressure came from Miss Spratt’s mount RED LABEL and when the inward movement came he had no room.
Miss Spratt told the committee she believed the pace slackened and that Harris’s mount was over racing. She did come across slightly but believed there was a gap between her mount and the horse on her inside, Michael Walker’s mount LALIGA, which was weakening. She felt that the horses affected on her inside could be attributed to the over racing of OLIVER TWIST.
In summing up Mr Williamson told the Committee Miss Spratt had an obligation to keep her mount straight. Her movement inward was not great but it contributed to the actions taken by the jockeys on her inside.
--DECISION AND REASON
--Miss Spratt, we have considered carefully the evidence placed in front of us. We have viewed the available films again and I would like to point out that Stipendiary Steward J Oatham was present at that time to operate the video replay. No discussion on any part of the incident was discussed during Mr Oatham’s presence. We are satisfied that there was inward movement from your mount and we have estimated that movement to be about half a width. We concur that the movement was not great but the consequences of that movement were felt by three riders and their mounts on your inside. The side on video showing the obvious interference to Mr Lammas’s mount was compelling – CLASS ACTION’s chances in the race were extinguished.
You made comment on jockey Harris’s mount over racing and contributing to the incident. We strongly believe OLIVER TWIST was perfectly entitled to be where he was and his movements inwards were not caused by over racing but by your inward movement. You have an obligation in situations like that to ensure your mount runs straight. In this case that did not happen. We find the charge proven.
SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
--Mr Williamson informed the Committee Miss Spratt had been suspended under this Rule four times in the last twelve months. She rides a lot and her record under this Rule is much improved. Although the movement was not great it was sustained. A horse was severely hampered. He felt, however, the offence was in the low range and asked for a suspension of between four and five days.
--Miss Spratt told the Committee that she had been invited to ride at Melbourne this coming Friday at an invitational meeting and would like any suspension to begin after that.
--DECISION
--Miss Spratt, this Committee concurs that this breach of the Rule is best handled by way of suspension. We have taken into consideration your record under this Rule and your obvious improvement in your riding record. We concur with all parties that although the movement was slight it was sustained and horses on your inside were inconvenienced by your actions.
We have agreed to your request for a period of suspension to begin after racing at Melbourne this Friday. Miss Spratt, you are suspended from race riding after the completion of racing this Friday 09 October until the completion of racing 15 October 2009 (four days).
T W Castles D Johnstone
Chairman
7540
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 638.1.d
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: f8d9b05427cfc845b738ade132e59156
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 6475b28017c4479669259ebf955453fe
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 07/10/2009
meet_title: Taupo RC - 7 October 2009
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: taupo-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Taupo RC