Auckland RC 13 March 2021 – R 2 – Chair, Mr G Jones
ID: JCA12275
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 13 March 2021
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
ASmith
Race Date:
2021/03/13
Race Number:
R2
Decision:
The Committee is satisfied based on credible evidence that the charge has been proved to the required standard.
Penalty:
The Committee granted Ms Thornton a deferment to her suspension pursuant to Rule 1106(2). Accordingly, her Licence to ride in races is suspended for a period of 3 days commencing after racing on 20 March 2021 and concluding after racing on 24 March 2021. In addition, we impose a $250 fine.
Facts:
This is a defended hearing arising from the running of Race 2, the Ellerslie Jewellers and Engravers 2100. Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Oatham filed an Information pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) alleging Ms Thornton allowed her mount TRIGON LAD to shift out not sufficiently clear of HONESTY which was checked near the 50 metres.
Ms Thornton endorsed the Information “I do not admit the breach of the rule”. This was confirmed at the commencement of the hearing.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
Submissions for Decision:
Introduction
The Informant, Mr Oatham advised the Committee that he intended to call two witnesses to prove the charge, namely Stipendiary Steward, Mr Coles and Apprentice Rider, Mr PINN (rider of HONESTY).
Witness Mr Coles
Using the back straight video footage Stipendiary Steward, Mr Coles demonstrated the alleged incident and identified the horses and riders concerned; namely TRIGON LAD (T Thornton), RAPID FALLS (L Innes) and HONESTY (W Pinn). He told the Committee that over the concluding stages of the race approaching the 50-metre mark TRIGON LAD was fighting out the finish for first and second with RAPID FALLS (L Innes). TRIGON LAD was on the fence with RAPID FALLS on its outer. HONESTY was in third place behind the first two. He stated there was a clear gap for HONESTY who was about to be presented into the gap when TRIGON LAD shifted out into its running line. Mr Coles said that as a result HONESTY was checked, and Mr Pinn had to take a firm hold of his mount. He pointed out that the films clearly showed that Mr Pinn stood up high in his irons. He added that when TRIGON LAD started to shift out it was no more than one length clear of HONESTY.
In concluding his evidence, he showed the side and back on race films without further comment.
Witness Mr Pinn
Mr Pinn was supported at the hearing by the Northern Riding Mentor Mr N Harris. In his evidence Ms Pinn stated that his mount received interference because of pressure from TRIGON LAD and RIVER FALLS. He said he was “squeezed out of it”. Under further examination from Mr Oatham, Mr Pinn reiterated there was pressure from both horses, but accepted that he had to check to avoid the heels of TRIGON LAD. Mr Pinn said that he over-reacted and that the check to his mount looked “dramatic”. He concluded his evidence by confirming that he was in third place at the time of being checked.
In response to a question from Ms Thornton, Mr Pinn confirmed that there was outward and inward pressure and that his horse was tiring at the time of the incident.
Respondent – Ms Thornton
In her evidence Ms Thornton used the race films to explain that in her view the rider of RIVER FALLS (Mr Innes) contributed to the incident more than she did. She said that he angled off the fence, came around HONESTY and then shifted in. She asked the Committee to carefully note that RIVER FALLS head was being directed inward by Mr Innes at the time of the interference.
Summing up – Informant
In summing up the Informant's case Mr Oatham reinforced the following points:
1.-That the back straight camera footage is telling in that it clearly shows Ms Thornton permitting her mount to shift out one horse width.
2.-That Mr Pinn had to check his mount to avoid racing onto the heels of TRIGON LAD.
3.-That in the run to the line Mr Pinn was holding his ground behind TRIGON LAD and because of the check was denied the opportunity to finish in third place.
4.-That Mr Innes’ mount did shift in slightly, but it did not cause the interference to HONESTY.
5.-That at no stage, when shifting out was Ms Thornton one length clear of HONESTY.
Summing up – Respondent
Ms Thornton submitted that she believed that it was Mr Innes who instigated the interference.
Reasons for Decision:
After considering the evidence and reviewing the Race films the Committee determined the charge to proved to the requisite standard. Ms Thornton was careless, and her level of carelessness was assessed as being in the very low range.
A rider is careless if he or she fails to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference or causes interference as a result of a misjudgement or a mistake. In this case Ms Thornton permitted her mount to shift out causing HONETY to be checked.
The available films, particularly the head and side on films clearly established that between the 75-metre and 50-metres TRIGON LAD has gradually drifted one horse width outwards. The shift was not abrupt, but Ms Thornton was never her own length plus one further length clear of HONESTY.
In her defence Ms Thornton stated that there was pressure from not only her horse but also from RIVER FALLS. To some degree she was supported on this point by Mr Pinn. We therefore looked at this aspect very carefully by synchronising the race films.
In our opinion RIVER FALLS did shift in, but the shift was after Mr Pinn had taken hold of his mount. Furthermore, the films evidenced that at the time Mr Pinn took hold, HONESTY was holding its position and there was still a clear gap between TRIGON LAD and RIVER FALLS.
The Committee is therefore satisfied, that at the time of the shift, Ms Thornton did not exercise the degree of care that a rider should exercise under the circumstances. On that basis the Committee regards Ms Thornton’s actions to have been careless.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham submitted that Ms Thornton has an excellent record with no breaches of the careless riding Rule during the past 12 months.
He said Stewards assessed the level of carelessness to be in the low range. He added the only aggravating factor was that HONESTY finished fifth and due to being checked it was denied the opportunity to finish in a better placing.
Ms Thornton sought a 7-day deferment to any proposed suspension. She offered no submissions in terms of penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
We assessed Ms Thornton’s culpability to be in the low range. The starting point for low range carelessness is 4 days (suspension) and $250 (fine). This is in conformity with the revised NZTR Penalty Guide for a low range breach.
Whilst it is feasible that HONESTY was denied the opportunity to finish in a better position, we believe the over-reaction of Mr Pinn when he took hold of his mount is also a contributing factor in that horse not finishing in a better placing.
Ms Thornton’s careless riding record is excellent, and we afford her a one-day reduction from the starting point. Her previous breach for careless riding was on 13 December 2019, some 15 months ago.
Ms Thornton defended the charge, which she is entitled to do, therefore we are unable to afford her any further reduction that she may have otherwise received had she admitted the breach.
After considering the above factors the Committee deemed that an appropriate suspension was 3 (national) days, plus a $250 fine.
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: 489493809d9806d99ec5e32e90180880
informantnumber: A14351
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 14/03/2021
hearing_title: Auckland RC 13 March 2021 – R 2 – Chair, Mr G Jones
charge:
facts:
This is a defended hearing arising from the running of Race 2, the Ellerslie Jewellers and Engravers 2100. Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Oatham filed an Information pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) alleging Ms Thornton allowed her mount TRIGON LAD to shift out not sufficiently clear of HONESTY which was checked near the 50 metres.
Ms Thornton endorsed the Information “I do not admit the breach of the rule”. This was confirmed at the commencement of the hearing.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Introduction
The Informant, Mr Oatham advised the Committee that he intended to call two witnesses to prove the charge, namely Stipendiary Steward, Mr Coles and Apprentice Rider, Mr PINN (rider of HONESTY).
Witness Mr Coles
Using the back straight video footage Stipendiary Steward, Mr Coles demonstrated the alleged incident and identified the horses and riders concerned; namely TRIGON LAD (T Thornton), RAPID FALLS (L Innes) and HONESTY (W Pinn). He told the Committee that over the concluding stages of the race approaching the 50-metre mark TRIGON LAD was fighting out the finish for first and second with RAPID FALLS (L Innes). TRIGON LAD was on the fence with RAPID FALLS on its outer. HONESTY was in third place behind the first two. He stated there was a clear gap for HONESTY who was about to be presented into the gap when TRIGON LAD shifted out into its running line. Mr Coles said that as a result HONESTY was checked, and Mr Pinn had to take a firm hold of his mount. He pointed out that the films clearly showed that Mr Pinn stood up high in his irons. He added that when TRIGON LAD started to shift out it was no more than one length clear of HONESTY.
In concluding his evidence, he showed the side and back on race films without further comment.
Witness Mr Pinn
Mr Pinn was supported at the hearing by the Northern Riding Mentor Mr N Harris. In his evidence Ms Pinn stated that his mount received interference because of pressure from TRIGON LAD and RIVER FALLS. He said he was “squeezed out of it”. Under further examination from Mr Oatham, Mr Pinn reiterated there was pressure from both horses, but accepted that he had to check to avoid the heels of TRIGON LAD. Mr Pinn said that he over-reacted and that the check to his mount looked “dramatic”. He concluded his evidence by confirming that he was in third place at the time of being checked.
In response to a question from Ms Thornton, Mr Pinn confirmed that there was outward and inward pressure and that his horse was tiring at the time of the incident.
Respondent – Ms Thornton
In her evidence Ms Thornton used the race films to explain that in her view the rider of RIVER FALLS (Mr Innes) contributed to the incident more than she did. She said that he angled off the fence, came around HONESTY and then shifted in. She asked the Committee to carefully note that RIVER FALLS head was being directed inward by Mr Innes at the time of the interference.
Summing up – Informant
In summing up the Informant's case Mr Oatham reinforced the following points:
1.-That the back straight camera footage is telling in that it clearly shows Ms Thornton permitting her mount to shift out one horse width.
2.-That Mr Pinn had to check his mount to avoid racing onto the heels of TRIGON LAD.
3.-That in the run to the line Mr Pinn was holding his ground behind TRIGON LAD and because of the check was denied the opportunity to finish in third place.
4.-That Mr Innes’ mount did shift in slightly, but it did not cause the interference to HONESTY.
5.-That at no stage, when shifting out was Ms Thornton one length clear of HONESTY.
Summing up – Respondent
Ms Thornton submitted that she believed that it was Mr Innes who instigated the interference.
reasonsfordecision:
After considering the evidence and reviewing the Race films the Committee determined the charge to proved to the requisite standard. Ms Thornton was careless, and her level of carelessness was assessed as being in the very low range.
A rider is careless if he or she fails to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference or causes interference as a result of a misjudgement or a mistake. In this case Ms Thornton permitted her mount to shift out causing HONETY to be checked.
The available films, particularly the head and side on films clearly established that between the 75-metre and 50-metres TRIGON LAD has gradually drifted one horse width outwards. The shift was not abrupt, but Ms Thornton was never her own length plus one further length clear of HONESTY.
In her defence Ms Thornton stated that there was pressure from not only her horse but also from RIVER FALLS. To some degree she was supported on this point by Mr Pinn. We therefore looked at this aspect very carefully by synchronising the race films.
In our opinion RIVER FALLS did shift in, but the shift was after Mr Pinn had taken hold of his mount. Furthermore, the films evidenced that at the time Mr Pinn took hold, HONESTY was holding its position and there was still a clear gap between TRIGON LAD and RIVER FALLS.
The Committee is therefore satisfied, that at the time of the shift, Ms Thornton did not exercise the degree of care that a rider should exercise under the circumstances. On that basis the Committee regards Ms Thornton’s actions to have been careless.
Decision:
The Committee is satisfied based on credible evidence that the charge has been proved to the required standard.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham submitted that Ms Thornton has an excellent record with no breaches of the careless riding Rule during the past 12 months.
He said Stewards assessed the level of carelessness to be in the low range. He added the only aggravating factor was that HONESTY finished fifth and due to being checked it was denied the opportunity to finish in a better placing.
Ms Thornton sought a 7-day deferment to any proposed suspension. She offered no submissions in terms of penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
We assessed Ms Thornton’s culpability to be in the low range. The starting point for low range carelessness is 4 days (suspension) and $250 (fine). This is in conformity with the revised NZTR Penalty Guide for a low range breach.
Whilst it is feasible that HONESTY was denied the opportunity to finish in a better position, we believe the over-reaction of Mr Pinn when he took hold of his mount is also a contributing factor in that horse not finishing in a better placing.
Ms Thornton’s careless riding record is excellent, and we afford her a one-day reduction from the starting point. Her previous breach for careless riding was on 13 December 2019, some 15 months ago.
Ms Thornton defended the charge, which she is entitled to do, therefore we are unable to afford her any further reduction that she may have otherwise received had she admitted the breach.
After considering the above factors the Committee deemed that an appropriate suspension was 3 (national) days, plus a $250 fine.
penalty:
The Committee granted Ms Thornton a deferment to her suspension pursuant to Rule 1106(2). Accordingly, her Licence to ride in races is suspended for a period of 3 days commencing after racing on 20 March 2021 and concluding after racing on 24 March 2021. In addition, we impose a $250 fine.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms T Thornton - Rider of TRIGON LAD
Otherperson: Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward, Mr W Pinn - Rider of HONESTY, Mr N Harris - Northern Rider Mentor assisting Mr Pinn
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: c5b30ebce4b44f54047e9153e3f803bd
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: cffbd6064c88511f939842253028f7f7
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 13/03/2021
meet_title: Auckland RC - 13 March 2021
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: ASmith
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC