Appeal – S Spratt 31 October 2008

hearingid: 5f382021185b93822a3b2504169da66a

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Appeal - S Spratt 31 October 2008

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

On the 11 October 2008 the licensed jockey Samantha Spratt was charged under Rule 871(1)(d): a charge of careless riding. The charge was defended. Ms Spratt was found guilty of careless riding and suspended from Saturday the 18^th October until the completion of racing on Saturday the 8^th November. In addition she was fined the sum of $5,000.00. The disqualification amounted to a period of three (3) weeks.

APPEAL HEARING : SAMANTHA SPRATT v NZTR

HEARD AT WAIKATO RACING CLUB, TE RAPA RACECOURSE, HAMILTON

FRIDAY 31 OCTOBER 2008

APPEALS TRIBUNAL        Mr M McKechnie, Chairman and Mr R Seabrook

PRESENT                                              Samantha Spratt

                                                                Mr A R Galbraith, QC counsel for Samantha Spratt

                                                                Mr N Goodwin, Stipendiary Steward

BACKGROUND

1.            On the 11 October 2008 the licensed jockey Samantha Spratt was charged under Rule 871(1)(d): a charge of careless riding. The charge was defended. Ms Spratt was found guilty of careless riding and suspended from Saturday the 18^th October until the completion of racing on Saturday the 8^th November. In addition she was fined the sum of $5,000.00. The disqualification amounted to a period of three (3) weeks.

2.            Ms Spratt sought a stay of proceedings until this appeal was heard. That was not opposed by NZTR. In a Minute dated the 17^th October a stay of the suspension was granted up to and including the 31^st October.

THE HEARING

3.            Mr Galbraith appeared for Ms Spratt.  Mr Galbraith is an experienced racing administrator and has raced many horses with success. Mr Goodwin who was the Stipendiary Steward on duty on the 11^th October appeared for NZTR. The Tribunal had before it the transcript of the hearing on race day and the decision of the Judicial Committee. This proceeding is by way of re-hearing. The Appeals Tribunal is required to have regard to the race day decision and the reasoning by which that decision was arrived at.

4.            There was extensive film footage – both head on and side on. This was very thoroughly analysed. Both Messrs Galbraith and Goodwin commented on aspects which they considered relevant and answered questions from the Tribunal.

5.            Following the conclusion of the race in question a protest was lodged by the jockey James McDonald who had ridden the horse Eye Me Up. The transcript of that protest hearing and the decision of the Committee – running to some seven (7) pages was available to the Tribunal.

THE CASE FOR SAMANTHA SPRATT

6.            The race in question was a Group 3 event for a total stake of $100,000.00. Ms Spratt’s mount was Keppa Cruising. It was central to Mr Galbraith’s case that when the horses were turning into the finishing straight there was a legitimate gap through which Ms Spratt was entitled to urge Keppa Cruising. Allied to that submission Mr Galbraith contended that the horse Eye Me Up ridden by James McDonald had taken what Mr Galbraith characterised as an unnatural line. To demonstrate this Mr Galbraith emphasised the apparent pressure on the left rein of Eye Me Up and the angling of the horse’s head towards the running rail. He also drew attention to the position of the horse’s legs and the hindquarters in particular. Mr Galbraith contended that when pressure was applied to Eye Me Up the horse did not follow its natural line because it did not have what he called normal balance.

7.            Mr Galbraith asked the Tribunal to look at Ms Spratt’s view of the probabilities. He contended that James McDonald must have known that Ms Spratt was improving on his inside and that he (James McDonald) took steps to prevent that. Mr Galbraith drew attention to the apparently dramatic bump which he contended was exaggerated by the circumstances of the line being pursued by Eye Me Up. In summary Mr Galbraith contended that it was a legitimate manoeuvre on the part of Ms Spratt and that what occurred when the gap closed was in large part brought about by the line taken by Eye Me Up. Finally Mr Galbraith strongly contended that Keppa Cruising was travelling better than Eye Me Up and that this must have been known to James McDonald.

THE CASE FOR NZTR

8.            Mr Goodwin submitted that there had been no error by the Race Day Judicial Committee. He asked the Tribunal to pay particular attention to the position of Ms Spratt’s mount and to consider whether any adequate gap had ever presented itself. He emphasised that the conduct of the jockey James McDonald riding the horse Eye Me Up was legitimate. In summary – and with reference to the films that were available – Mr Goodwin contended that Ms Spratt had, in effect, gone too soon when no legitimate or sufficient gap had presented itself. He said that by trying to force through that gap interference was caused to the horse Eye Me Up which was entitled to hold its running line.

9.            Mr Goodwin acknowledged that Keppa Cruising was travelling better than Eye Me Up as the horses turned into the straight. He nonetheless contended that Eye Me Up was perfectly entitled to hold its line and was not in any way obliged to make space for the improving horse.

DECISION

10.          The issue of whether there was interference is not free of difficulty. The head on film is particularly helpful. This demonstrates that something in the nature of a gap did begin to appear between Eye Me Up and the horse it had been following which was on its inside. This emerging gap is where Ms Spratt angled Keppa Cruising. The amount of space available is best considered by assessing both the head on and the side on films. In the judgment of the Tribunal there was a marginal gap. Plainly Ms Spratt anticipated that the gap would become greater. In the result it did not. The gap was not sufficient. It was Mr Galbraith’s proposition that the rider of Eye Me Up closed the gap that was available to Ms Spratt. We are satisfied in the first place that the gap was never sufficient and in the second place that while Mr McDonald was angling his horse in (and he was also leaning to the left) he was entitled to do that. What the movement of Eye Me Up did was to make the interference – when it came – appear much more pronounced than would otherwise have been the case. The line taken by Eye Me Up thus contributed to what occurred but it does not exonerate Ms Spratt from what the Tribunal considers to have been an error of judgment. Careless riding always involves some assessment of the judgment that was exercised by a jockey – often in a split second. In the Tribunal’s view there was an error of judgment but the measure of interference or the extent of it was not all attributable to that error.

11.          It follows from what has been said that the conviction on the charge of careless riding is upheld and the appeal in that respect is dismissed.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

12.          It is well known that Ms Spratt has a significant record of riding offences. Mr Galbraith pointed out that she had not been charged with any riding offence since June of this year and that she is receiving real assistance from former jockeys and this appeared to be reflected in her recent improved record.  Mr Galbraith told the Tribunal that Ms Spratt had never previously appealed a suspension.

13.          Mr Galbraith emphasised that the three (3) week disqualification would involve some 200 rides. Ms Spratt is leading the jockeys table at present and such a lengthy suspension would be very costly. Further Mr Galbraith criticised the long suspension being coupled with what he characterised as a substantial fine. He contended that the financial cost could be in the region of $20,000.00. Further Mr Galbraith told the Tribunal that Ms Spratt had been invited to ride in an international series for lady jockeys at the first of which races was to take place on the12th November.

14.          Mr Goodwin quite legitimately emphasised Ms Spratt’s unenviable record. He contended that a jockey with such a record ought to take particular care. He pointed to the status of the race.

15.          Mr Goodwin reminded the Tribunal that in recent times it has become accepted practice where there is interference in group racing in New Zealand for a fine to accompany the period of suspension.

DISCUSSION ON PENALTY

16.          The Tribunal has informed itself of other recent cases involving careless riding. Of particular relevance is the case of the jockey Michael Coleman at the recent Hawkes Bay meeting  where he was suspended for three (3) weeks and fined $5,000.00.  The Tribunal considers the degree of culpability in that case significantly greater. More recently the case at Te Aroha involving the jockey Leith Innes who was suspended for five (5) days and fined $2,000.00. Mr Seabrook has knowledge of both of those cases.

17.          There is reference in the decision of the Judicial Committee to Ms Spratt not having admitted the breach of the rule. The wording of that particular passage is not unequivocal but it does suggest that the Judicial Committee took an adverse view of Ms Spratt defending the charge and that this may have influenced the penalty decision. Ms Spratt was entitled to defend the charge. Moreover as this decision has earlier demonstrated there was a meaningful inquiry necessary to establish if careless riding had occurred. In as much as the decision of the Judicial Committee suggests that Ms Spratt might be further penalised for having pleaded not guilty the decision was in error.

18.          For reasons which have already been explained the Tribunal differs from the Judicial Committee as to the degree of culpability. The conduct of Ms Spratt was not at the high level of seriousness found by the Judicial Committee. In part, and perhaps understandably, the Judicial Committee may have been influenced by the very significant movement of the horse Eye Me Up. It may also be possible that the Judicial Committee was influenced in part by having earlier heard the protest by Eye Me Up. It should be recorded that the protest was dismissed. Most significantly however this Tribunal differs from the Race Day Committee in its assessment of the level of Ms Spratt’s mistake.

19.          What has been said must now reflect in an alteration to the penalty to be imposed. Ms Spratt will be disqualified for a period of eight (8) days. She will be permitted to ride tomorrow the 1^st of November and will be suspended until the conclusion of racing on Tuesday the 11^th November. That amounts to eight (8) race days. Further the fine is reduced from $5,000.00 to $2,500.00. There will be no order for costs either way.

20.          The Tribunal is grateful to both Messrs Galbraith and Goodwin for their analysis and assistance.

_____________________________________

Murray McKechnie

Chairman

_____________________________________

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d

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: