Non-Raceday Inquiry – M Laursen

hearingid: 8a1810c98325c54d4633f0dbf104834f

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non-Raceday Inquiry - M Laursen

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Ms M Laursen rode Bravara in the Trentham Gardens Functions & Events 1400 at the Wellington Racing Club meeting on 7 April. Bravara finished third, beaten three quarters of a length and three quarters of a length.

Ms M Laursen rode Bravara in the Trentham Gardens Functions & Events 1400 at the Wellington Racing Club meeting on 7 April. Bravara finished third, beaten three quarters of a length and three quarters of a length.

The stipendiary stewards on the day reviewed Ms Laursen's ride at length and charged her with a breach of rule 866 (1)(b). That rules says that any rider who

"fails to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible finishing place and position"

commits a breach of the rule.

No plea was entered and the matter was adjourned to 20 April. At the reconvened hearing Ms Laursen denied the breach.

Mr Goodwin called Mr Ray (Stipendiary Steward) to interpret the films of the race and offer an opinion on Ms Laursen's ride. Mr Ray stated that the stewards had no concerns with Ms Laursen's actions from the start to the 1000 metres but at that point Bravara, some two lengths last, increasingly lost contact with the body of the field to the extent that he was 6 lengths adrift from the 800 to the 400 metres. At that point Ms Laursen saved ground by staying on the fence and demonstrated appropriate vigour in urging Bravara to within 1? lengths of the winner at the line. Mr Ray asserted Ms Laursen showed no initiative or appropriate vigour when Bravara began to drift off the field and exhibited poor judgement in not urging her horse to remain in contact. He believed that the horse was travelling well and worked home impressively when ridden with vigour. He was firmly of the view that Bravara would have finished in a higher placing if ridden with a measure of judgment and vigour in the middles stages of the race.

Mr Litt, Bravara's trainer, stated that he had instructed Ms Laursen to ride the horse quietly at the back and not go too soon. He watched the race on Trackside and thought the horse had gone amiss at the top of the straight and was surprised at how he finished off the race. He was disappointed with the ride and Ms Laursen's lethargy between the 1000 and 400 metres but did note Bravara had lost contact with the field on two previous occasions.

Ms Laursen stated Bravara was not the easiest horse to ride and although she had ridden him in track work she was concerned that if pressured he would overrace to his detriment. She conceded with considerable candour that she should have shown move initiative when Bravara began to drift off the field.

Mr Goodwin tabled a number of documents including a veterinary report which confirmed that a post race examination of Bravara did not reveal any clinical abnormalities.

It is very clear from the films of the race that Ms Laursen allowed Bravara to get too far out of his ground between the 1000 and 400 metres and failed to make reasonable efforts to put him in the race. When tried from the 400 metres Bravara ran on resolutely taking ground steadily off the front runners to the post. Ms Laursen freely acknowledged her lack of initiative and error of judgement and was openly disappointed with herself. From the submissions put to us there is a broad consensus that Bravara was not given the fullest possible opportunity to finish in a higher placing. Taking these matters into account we find the breach of rule 866(1)(b) proved.

On the issue of penalty Mr Goodwin advised Ms Laursen had a good record and that her omissions were the consequence of an error of judgement. Nevertheless he emphasised a breach of this rule is a serious matter and undermines the confidence of the betting public and their perception of the integrity of racing. He called for a suspension of 4-7 weeks.

Ms Laursen advised she did not get many rides and asked for her good record to be taken into account.

We concur with Mr Goodwin's comments and consider a suspension is the appropriate sanction having regard to the poor horsemanship displayed by Ms Laursen. In setting the term of that suspension we have placed considerable weight on Mr Goodwin's characterisation of Ms Laursen's actions as an error of judgment. We have given Ms Laursen credit for her record and the very genuine remorse she expressed to Mr Litt, stipendiary stewards and this Committee for the quality of her ride on Bravara. We have also taken into account previous penalties in the order of four weeks for similar breaches in the Fletcher and Moir cases. We therefore suspend Ms Laursen from the close of racing on 21 April 2007 until the close of racing on 26 May 2007, an effective five week suspension.

Neville Harris,  Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 866.1.b

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: