Marlborough RC – 2 May 2010 – R 4

hearingid: c0bb603a595d0058f28b948f9b0b6536

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 02/05/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Marlborough RC - 2 May 2010 - R 4

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr R Neal and J McLaughlin - Stipendiary Stewards

Defendant:  Ms A Denby - Apprentice Jockey

Information No:  6944

Meeting:  Marlborough Racing Club

Date:  2 May 2010

Venue:  Blenheim

Race:   4

Rule No:  638(1)(d)

Judicial Committee:  P Williams Chairman – P Rosanowski Committee Member 

Plea:  Not admitted

Also Present:  Mr Pitman

FACTS:

Following the running of race 4 information 6944 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr R Neal against Apprentice Jockey Ms A Denby alleging a breach of rule 638 (1)(d).  The information stated that “A Denby permitted her mount to shift inwards near the 1000m when not clear of TENSHI (R Myers) who was checked”.

Rule 638(1)(d) states ““A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be .....careless”

Ms Denby, assisted by her employer Mr M Pitman, indicated the breach of the rule was not admitted and also that she understood the charge and the rule it was laid under.

SUBMISSIONS:

Mr Neal said that the stewards’ case was that near the 1000m mark approximately 400m after the start Ms Denby allowed her mount to shift in when insufficiently clear of TENSHI which had to steady and lose ground.  He said he would be calling two witnesses – Jockey R Hannam and Apprentice Jockey R Myers

Mr Hannam, the rider of MATT, said he was racing on the rail at the 1000m mark.  He said he was in behind the leader with Ms Myers on his outer ¾ length back with Ms Denby ¾ of a length in front of Ms Myers on her outer. He said that as Ms Myers was ¾ of a length behind Ms Denby she should have decided to either go forward or back.  By doing neither she put herself in an awkward position because as Ms Denby was coming across she then had to ease back.  He said he heard Ms Myers call out to Ms Denby and as Ms Denby came across he thought his mount may have come into contact with the rail. He then said that because they were on a corner his horse began to float out a bit.  He thought Ms Denby was only ¾ of a length in front of Ms Myers when she came across.  He concluded by saying in response to a question from Mr Neal that Ms Myers was entitled to be positioned where she was.

Mr Pitman asked Mr Hannam that if he had been in the position Ms Myers was in would he have “done things differently”.  Mr Hannam replied that he would have.

Ms Myers said she was riding TENSHI and said she received a “little bit of interference” when Ms Denby came across in front of her.  She said her horse was “slightly over-racing which caused me to take a bit of a hold”.  She also said the horse was over-racing before Ms Denby came across and “probably wasn’t helping the matter”.  She said she called out and believed Ms Denby was marginally a length in front when coming over.  Ms Myers said her horse then continued to over-race and she had to take a hold of it.  When Mr Neal asked if she had lost her position in the race she replied “slightly”.

Mr Pitman asked Ms Myers where she was attempting to settle in the early part of the race and she said it was at the position where she had ended up.

Ms Myers left the room and at this point Mr Neal asked Mr McLaughlin to show the film.  Before it was played Mr Neal said that the incident was at a very difficult point in the race and the video coverage was not absolutely conclusive.  Mr McLaughlin said Ms Myers could be seen taking a hold and then losing her place on the outside of Mr Hannam.  He said steady pressure was applied by Ms Denby and as a result Ms Myers came off her rightful line of running.  He stopped the film at one point to show that TENSHI had its head down and then up which he believed was as a result of the inward movement of Ms Denby who he believed was no more than 1 length clear. 

Ms Denby said she agreed with Mr Hannam that as Ms Myers’ horse was over-racing Ms Myers should have either moved forward or pulled back rather than stay where she was.  She reminded the Committee that Ms Myers had said that just before she (Ms Denby) started moving in her horse had been over-racing and as she took hold of her horse.  Ms Denby also thought that at that point Ms Myers was going to pull back and as a result she could complete her inward movement.  Ms Denby also pointed out the film showed the left rein of her mount was loose which meant she was not deliberately steering her horse towards the rail and it was only when she was well clear of Ms Myers that she moved across even further.  She said she was aware Ms Myers’ horse was over-racing and because of this she (Ms Denby) was holding her horse’s head outwards to minimise any impact on Ms Myers.  Ms Denby thought she was well clear of Ms Myers and that Ms Myers’ judgment might have been affected by the fact her horse was over-racing and as a result she was not as close to her as she, Ms Myers, thought she was.  To a question from the Committee Ms Denby said she did not hear any calling from either Mr Hannam or Ms Myers.  In conclusion she said she had not been careless because she had done her best to ensure her horse was racing truly and had not angled her horse inwards at any time when Ms Myers was in trouble through her horse over-racing.

Mr Neal asked Ms Denby if she agreed that when horses race into a corner there is a natural tendency for them to lay in and shift ground inwards so you don’t need to be pulling the inside rein for them to be shifting inwards.  He commented that the information said that Ms Denby had “permitted her mount to shift in….”  It did not say she “angled her mount in”.  He said that Ms Denby’s comments about the looseness of her inside rein were therefore not relevant.  Ms Denby said she was aware Ms Myers was over-racing and that is why she thought she had opted to take a sit behind her, given the hold she had on her horse.  Mr Neal acknowledged that some horses did over-race when other horses challenged them or an attempt is made to steady them.  He asked Ms Denby whether, before crossing, she realised the horse inside was over-racing and, if she did, whether she felt she had an extra duty of care to ensure she was clear.  Ms Denby re-iterated that it was only when Ms Myers opted to pull her horse back – she assumed because she was taking a deliberate hold – that she finally gradually came across.  She said she felt she was sufficiently clear at all times and felt that the upwards angle of Ms Myer’s horse as described by Mr McLaughlin made it look on the film as though the gap was narrower.

Mr Pitman said he totally agreed with Mr Neal about the extra duty of care but the issue was whether Ms Denby had ridden carelessly.  He used the film to point out that Ms Denby had looked behind to her inside 5 times before moving across and he drew the Committee’s attention to the comments made by Mr Hannam that Ms Myers’ actions had not helped her in the situation she had got herself into.  He said the film was inconclusive and after listening to both Ms Myers and Mr Hannam he felt Ms Denby had given Ms Myers every opportunity to move up on her inside and she had opted not to do so.  She was in a position where she had to make a decision and she chose to pull back rather than take Ms Denby’s line.  Mr Pitman concluded by saying his instructions to Ms Denby were to ride the horse back but because no other rider wanted to be there she went forward.  He believed that supported the view that Ms Myers had pulled back rather than having decided to push on to be at least outside the leader.

In summing up Mr Neal said that whenever stewards present a case where the film is “difficult to ascertain” they have to rely on the evidence of the riders concerned.  He felt Mr Hannam was clear that he never left the rail and that Ms Denby was never the required distance clear.  Ms Myers’ horse was over racing but she was in a position she was entitled to be and Ms Denby had come across when not the required distance clear when endeavouring to improve her position and get in front of Ms Myers.  He said Ms Myers was entitled to be where she was and retain that position and not have to check her mount out of it.  The option was there to pull back or kick up without being dictated to by Ms Denby.  Ms Denby had permitted her mount to shift in and as she was aware Ms Myers was over-racing there was a greater onus on her to ensure she was the required length plus another clear when moving across.  He said the stewards did not believe Ms Denby was the required distance clear.

REASONS:

The Committee has considered the extensive submissions put before it and the side-on film of the incident.  It is disappointing that no head-on film was available as in our view the side-on film of the incident is not as conclusive as we would have wished.  In our view Mr Hannam’s mount has obscured much of what is alleged to have happened and whilst Ms Myers can be seen dropping back slightly it is far from clear whether that is solely a direct result of the actions of Ms Denby.  Whilst both Mr Hannam and Ms Myers did not believe Ms Denby was the required distance clear of Ms Myers we have noted  Ms Myers said in her evidence “she received a little bit of interference when Ms Denby came in front me”.  She also said her horse was “slightly over-racing which caused her to take a bit of a hold”.  Further Ms Myers said her horse was over-racing before Ms Denby came across and “probably wasn’t helping the matter” and that she “only slightly lost her position”. 

Rule 638 (1)(d) says “A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be .....careless”.  In viewing the film we have noted that Ms Denby, in the course of moving across, has looked to her inside 5 times in making that move.  She was emphatic she only finally came across when she saw Ms Myers take a hold and drop back. That decision was influenced by the position of the head of Ms Myers’ horse which was up thereby creating the impression in Ms Denby’s mind that she was clear of Ms Myers by a sufficient margin to not cause any interference. At this point in the incident Ms Myers is almost totally obscured by Mr Hannam on her inside and as such the Committee cannot be certain the actions of Ms Denby have by themselves caused Ms Myers to drop back.

The Committee wants to make it very clear they believe the evidence given by Mr Hannam, Ms Myers and Ms Denby reflects their understanding of events as they unfolded.  However, in the view of the Committee there is not sufficient conclusive evidence that the actions of Ms Denby were solely responsible for Ms Myers having to take hold of her horse and drop back from the position she was in some ¾ length behind Mr Hannam. 

DECISION:

Having considered all matters very carefully, we cannot be satisfied that Ms Denby rode carelessly and we also cannot be satisfied that her actions alone caused Ms Myers to drop back.  The charge is therefore dismissed.

P Williams                    P Rosanowski

Chair                           Committee Member

6944

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 638(1)(d)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: be60cc98fc1bd08f0863d4cc119d68d1

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R 4

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 5b883705b65c19ebd816e308274e9f4f

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 02/05/2010

meet_title: Marlborough RC - 2 May 2010

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: marlborough-rc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair: tom

meet_pm1: tom

meet_pm2: tom

name: Marlborough RC