Auckland RC 1 March 2014 – R 2
ID: JCA14396
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 1 March 2014
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
GJones
Race Date:
2014/03/01
Race Number:
R2
Decision:
The Committee note that “interference” is defined as: a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.
Because Mr Innes was not the required distance clear of BIGGIN HILL when moving in, we find the charge proved. But we accept there were some contributing factors that we deem this breach to be at the low end of carelessness.
Penalty:
The Committee is aware that Mr Innes was riding under a deferment and was due to commence his suspension after racing on 5 March 2014 and recommence riding after racing on 9 March 2014.
Accordingly, we impose a suspension on Mr Innes which will commence after racing on March 9 and conclude after racing on March 14 (4 days).
That period of suspension encompasses meetings at Hawera March 10, Matamata March 12, Te Awamutu March 13 and Ashburton on March 14.
Facts:
Following race 2, Hirepool 1400, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1) (d). The Informant, Mr Neal, alleged that Mr Innes permitted his mount ABSOLUTELY SACRED to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of BIGGIN HILL which was checked near the 11000 metres.
Mr Innes acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and confirmed he denied the breach.
Rule 638(1) (d) states: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Neal outlined the substance of the Information and advised the Committee that the Informant proposed to prove the breach by demonstrating the alleged incident by using the available video films and by calling the affected rider Mr J Parkes as a witness.
Mr Oatham used head on, side on, and hill tower video films. He said prior to the 1100 metres ABSOLUTELY SACRED was racing in a 3 wide position about 1 length ahead of BIGGIN HILL who was racing in a 2 wide position. He said Mr Parkes' mount was crowded and checked which resulted in BIGGIN HILL losing its rightful running line. He said this was directly due to pressure being applied by Mr Innes, these points were demonstrated using the head on film.
Mr Oatham by way of the side on video film demonstrated that in his view at no stage was Mr Innes sufficiently clear of BIGGIN HILL, estimating he was less than a length clear.
Mr Oatham using the hill tower video films stated that Mr Innes applied pressure for some distance and noted ABSOLUTLY SACRED's head was turned in. He added DREAMCOAT (S Spratt) who was racing in the trail may have deviated from its running line to a small degree but this did not have a bearing on the incident. He added at the point where the check occurred DREAMCOAT had moved back onto the fence.
Mr Innes in response to Mr Oatham’s evidence stated that he believed Mr Oatham's interpretation of the race was totally wrong in that he believed Miss Spratt contributed to the incident.
In response Mr Oatham told the Committee that there appears to be a difference in the interpretation of what caused the interference.
Mr Neal called Mr Parkes as a witness. Mr Parkes confirmed he was racing on the outside of DREAMCOAT and to the inside of ABSOLUTELY SACRED. He said he received pressure from Mr Innes’ mount which was about ¾ of a length clear of him. He said this resulted in BIGGIN HILL receiving a check. He added that BIGGIN HILL was over racing at the time which did not help the situation.
Under cross examination from Mr Innes, Mr Parkes acknowledged that there was pressure from the inside when they were coming around the bend. Mr Innes also asked Mr Parkes about BIGGIN HILL's racing manners, he acknowledged they were not good.
The Committee asked Mr Parkes to what extent his horse was over racing and whether Mr Innes was entitled to move inwards. Mr Parkes responded that if his horse was more genuine he would have taken some cover. He added Mr Innes was only ¾ of a length in front of him when he was checked.
Mr Innes asked Mr Parkes what advice he was given concerning BIGGIN HILL's racing manners. After some discussion Stewards advised the Committee that they accepted that there was an issue with BIGGIN HILL's racing manners.
Mr Innes in evidence stated that the video films indicate that DREAMCOAT shifted out and checked BIGGIN HILL. He said the cause of this incident was when TANGO TERRIFIC crossed DREAMCOAT causing its rider Miss Spratt to take a hold.
Mr Neal in summing up acknowledged that Miss Spratt’s mount did shift out but did not accept this contributed to the interference. He submitted the Committee should take note of Mr Parkes' evidence in which he stated that he did receive pressure from Mr Innes’ mount. He further submitted that much has been made of the racing manners of BIGGGIN HILL but if Mr Innes had done his form he should have been aware of that horse's racing manners. He said the main points are Mr Innes did shift in and Mr Innes did check BIGGIN HILL.
Mr Innes in summing up submitted the reasons for the incident was BIGGIN HILL's racing manners coupled with the fact DREAMCOAT shifted out and bumped BIGGIN HILL. He added the benefit of doubt should be in his favour.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times we established that Mr Innes permitted his mount to shift in from a 3 wide position to a 2 wide position near the 1100 metres when not sufficiently clear of BIGGIN HILL. This resulted in Mr Parkes having to take a hold of his mount and check. We believe prior to the incident Miss Spratt’s mount got its head up in the air when being restrained and coincidentally BIGGIN HILL was racing ungenerously at the time.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Neal produced Mr Innes’ record which showed 2 previous breaches under this rule in the last 12 months with the most recent being 26 February which incurred a 3 day suspension. He said Mr Innes had a very good record and the Stewards accept the level of carelessness was at the low end of the scale. He submitted a penalty in line with that would be appropriate. Mr Neal classified Mr Innes as a North Island rider.
Mr Innes submitted that in the past he has been disadvantaged by not having a history of riding in the South Island. As a result of this and the February 26 decision he has taken steps to ride more regularly in the South Island outside of the major carnivals. Mr Innes produced a mobile phone record (February 28) between himself and South Island trainer Mr S Kennedy. He said Mr Kennedy had 5 or 6 riding engagements at the forthcoming Ashburton meeting on March 14. He told the Committee but for any proposed suspension arising out of this charge he intended to take up Mr Kennedy’s offer and ride at the Ashburton meeting.
Mr Innes acknowledged that this differed from his recent situation and penalty (February 26) where he was not recognised as a South Island rider due to having no history of riding at South Island meetings on industry days.
Mr Innes submitted an appropriate penalty for today’s breach would be 4 days and added he had engagements at Wellington on March 15.
Mr Oatham verified Mr Innes’ riding history for the last 12 months which showed he only rode at Christchurch in August and November last year. There was no evidence of any other South Island meetings.
The Committee firmly advised Mr Innes that his submission regarding his intention to ride more regularly in the South Island on industry days was a serious credibility issue. We told him it was clear Judicial Committees would expect to see some form of evidence of this happening in the near future.
Mr Neal on behalf of the Stewards also expected to see some “proof in the pudding” in the near future.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension for this careless riding charge. The mitigating factors are Mr Innes’ good record in relation to this Rule, the racing manners of BIGGIN HILL and we assess the level of carelessness as low end.
The Committee reminded Mr Innes that having accepted and taken into account his proposed South Island engagements on March 14 we would expect to see him riding in the South Island in the near future on a more regular basis. The Committee reminded Mr Innes his credibility was at stake for which he acknowledged.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a 4 day suspension.
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: 7de48d548b3277a4a225ff7400c760c0
informantnumber: A3218
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 03/03/2014
hearing_title: Auckland RC 1 March 2014 - R 2
charge:
facts:
Following race 2, Hirepool 1400, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1) (d). The Informant, Mr Neal, alleged that Mr Innes permitted his mount ABSOLUTELY SACRED to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of BIGGIN HILL which was checked near the 11000 metres.
Mr Innes acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and confirmed he denied the breach.
Rule 638(1) (d) states: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Neal outlined the substance of the Information and advised the Committee that the Informant proposed to prove the breach by demonstrating the alleged incident by using the available video films and by calling the affected rider Mr J Parkes as a witness.
Mr Oatham used head on, side on, and hill tower video films. He said prior to the 1100 metres ABSOLUTELY SACRED was racing in a 3 wide position about 1 length ahead of BIGGIN HILL who was racing in a 2 wide position. He said Mr Parkes' mount was crowded and checked which resulted in BIGGIN HILL losing its rightful running line. He said this was directly due to pressure being applied by Mr Innes, these points were demonstrated using the head on film.
Mr Oatham by way of the side on video film demonstrated that in his view at no stage was Mr Innes sufficiently clear of BIGGIN HILL, estimating he was less than a length clear.
Mr Oatham using the hill tower video films stated that Mr Innes applied pressure for some distance and noted ABSOLUTLY SACRED's head was turned in. He added DREAMCOAT (S Spratt) who was racing in the trail may have deviated from its running line to a small degree but this did not have a bearing on the incident. He added at the point where the check occurred DREAMCOAT had moved back onto the fence.
Mr Innes in response to Mr Oatham’s evidence stated that he believed Mr Oatham's interpretation of the race was totally wrong in that he believed Miss Spratt contributed to the incident.
In response Mr Oatham told the Committee that there appears to be a difference in the interpretation of what caused the interference.
Mr Neal called Mr Parkes as a witness. Mr Parkes confirmed he was racing on the outside of DREAMCOAT and to the inside of ABSOLUTELY SACRED. He said he received pressure from Mr Innes’ mount which was about ¾ of a length clear of him. He said this resulted in BIGGIN HILL receiving a check. He added that BIGGIN HILL was over racing at the time which did not help the situation.
Under cross examination from Mr Innes, Mr Parkes acknowledged that there was pressure from the inside when they were coming around the bend. Mr Innes also asked Mr Parkes about BIGGIN HILL's racing manners, he acknowledged they were not good.
The Committee asked Mr Parkes to what extent his horse was over racing and whether Mr Innes was entitled to move inwards. Mr Parkes responded that if his horse was more genuine he would have taken some cover. He added Mr Innes was only ¾ of a length in front of him when he was checked.
Mr Innes asked Mr Parkes what advice he was given concerning BIGGIN HILL's racing manners. After some discussion Stewards advised the Committee that they accepted that there was an issue with BIGGIN HILL's racing manners.
Mr Innes in evidence stated that the video films indicate that DREAMCOAT shifted out and checked BIGGIN HILL. He said the cause of this incident was when TANGO TERRIFIC crossed DREAMCOAT causing its rider Miss Spratt to take a hold.
Mr Neal in summing up acknowledged that Miss Spratt’s mount did shift out but did not accept this contributed to the interference. He submitted the Committee should take note of Mr Parkes' evidence in which he stated that he did receive pressure from Mr Innes’ mount. He further submitted that much has been made of the racing manners of BIGGGIN HILL but if Mr Innes had done his form he should have been aware of that horse's racing manners. He said the main points are Mr Innes did shift in and Mr Innes did check BIGGIN HILL.
Mr Innes in summing up submitted the reasons for the incident was BIGGIN HILL's racing manners coupled with the fact DREAMCOAT shifted out and bumped BIGGIN HILL. He added the benefit of doubt should be in his favour.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times we established that Mr Innes permitted his mount to shift in from a 3 wide position to a 2 wide position near the 1100 metres when not sufficiently clear of BIGGIN HILL. This resulted in Mr Parkes having to take a hold of his mount and check. We believe prior to the incident Miss Spratt’s mount got its head up in the air when being restrained and coincidentally BIGGIN HILL was racing ungenerously at the time.
Decision:
The Committee note that “interference” is defined as: a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.
Because Mr Innes was not the required distance clear of BIGGIN HILL when moving in, we find the charge proved. But we accept there were some contributing factors that we deem this breach to be at the low end of carelessness.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Neal produced Mr Innes’ record which showed 2 previous breaches under this rule in the last 12 months with the most recent being 26 February which incurred a 3 day suspension. He said Mr Innes had a very good record and the Stewards accept the level of carelessness was at the low end of the scale. He submitted a penalty in line with that would be appropriate. Mr Neal classified Mr Innes as a North Island rider.
Mr Innes submitted that in the past he has been disadvantaged by not having a history of riding in the South Island. As a result of this and the February 26 decision he has taken steps to ride more regularly in the South Island outside of the major carnivals. Mr Innes produced a mobile phone record (February 28) between himself and South Island trainer Mr S Kennedy. He said Mr Kennedy had 5 or 6 riding engagements at the forthcoming Ashburton meeting on March 14. He told the Committee but for any proposed suspension arising out of this charge he intended to take up Mr Kennedy’s offer and ride at the Ashburton meeting.
Mr Innes acknowledged that this differed from his recent situation and penalty (February 26) where he was not recognised as a South Island rider due to having no history of riding at South Island meetings on industry days.
Mr Innes submitted an appropriate penalty for today’s breach would be 4 days and added he had engagements at Wellington on March 15.
Mr Oatham verified Mr Innes’ riding history for the last 12 months which showed he only rode at Christchurch in August and November last year. There was no evidence of any other South Island meetings.
The Committee firmly advised Mr Innes that his submission regarding his intention to ride more regularly in the South Island on industry days was a serious credibility issue. We told him it was clear Judicial Committees would expect to see some form of evidence of this happening in the near future.
Mr Neal on behalf of the Stewards also expected to see some “proof in the pudding” in the near future.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension for this careless riding charge. The mitigating factors are Mr Innes’ good record in relation to this Rule, the racing manners of BIGGIN HILL and we assess the level of carelessness as low end.
The Committee reminded Mr Innes that having accepted and taken into account his proposed South Island engagements on March 14 we would expect to see him riding in the South Island in the near future on a more regular basis. The Committee reminded Mr Innes his credibility was at stake for which he acknowledged.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a 4 day suspension.
penalty:
The Committee is aware that Mr Innes was riding under a deferment and was due to commence his suspension after racing on 5 March 2014 and recommence riding after racing on 9 March 2014.
Accordingly, we impose a suspension on Mr Innes which will commence after racing on March 9 and conclude after racing on March 14 (4 days).
That period of suspension encompasses meetings at Hawera March 10, Matamata March 12, Te Awamutu March 13 and Ashburton on March 14.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr R Neal - Co Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr L Innes - Rider of ABSOLUTELY SACRED
Otherperson: Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr J Parkes - rider of BIGGIN HILL
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 0f3bac24654dd7cc963fdfeb4adc7f64
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: df2c7440e62e891b36521550c0141bbc
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/03/2014
meet_title: Auckland RC - 1 March 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: GJones
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC