Auckland RC 14 January 2017 – R 4 – Chair, Mr P Williams
ID: JCA16343
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 14 January 2017
Meet Chair:
PWilliams
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 2:
ASmith
Race Date:
2017/01/14
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
Penalty:
Mr Innes is suspended for 4 riding days from the close of racing on Saturday 14 January 2017 to the close of racing on Sunday 22 January 2017 – the 4 days being Rotorua (18 January), Tauranga (20 January), Wellington (21 January) and Te Rapa (22 January). We note that the Wellington meeting on 21 January is an “Iconic” meeting.
Mr Innes was advised by the Chairman that because he had recently ridden 1 horse on each of the two days at the late December New Plymouth meeting the Committee did not see that as justification for including non Premier Central District days in any suspension. He was further advised this meant that had he been given a 5 day suspension, the Woodville-Pahiatua on 23 January 2017, which is a tier 2 Feature meeting for total stakes of $63,000, would not have been included as the fifth day as the Committee did not believe he would be riding there.
Facts:
Following the running of race 4, the “Countdown to Karaka 2017 1200”, Information A8523 was filed by Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson under Rule 638(1)(d). The Information stated “L Innes allowed “Felton Road” to shift in passing the 100m causing a check to “Bombard” (S Spratt) then continued to shift in checking “Onezerofive” (D Prastiyou)". Mr Innes signed the Information stating he admitted the breach and at the beginning of the hearing confirmed that was correct and also that he understood the Rule under which he was charged.
Rule 638 (1) (d) states “A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be .....careless”.
Mr Coles, using the head-on film from approximately the 220m point, identified Mr Innes racing approximately 6 horse widths out from the rail. He said to his inside was Ms Spratt on “Bombard” and to her inside was Mr Prastiyou on “Onezerofive”. He said as the horses moved passed this point Mr Innes was riding his horse forward and it commenced to shift in under pressure causing crowding to Ms Spratt which in turn caused a further check to Mr Prastiyou. Using the side-on film, he said Mr Innes was never the required distance in front of Ms Spratt and had twice straightened his horse, albeit only momentarily but not enough to avoid causing the checking of the two horses to his inside. To a question from the Committee Mr Coles thought that Mr Innes moved from his original 6 wide position to being 3 off the rails at the end of the race.
Mr Innes said that “Onezerofive” had moved out and bumped Ms Spratt’s horse several times as the horses raced inside the final 400m. He used the head-on film to show “Onezerofive” moving out which he claimed had forced him wider on the track. Mr Innes then said he started to move back to what he thought was his rightful line of running. He said his horse was green (this was its second start with both having been at Ellerslie) and he tried to straighten it but conceded by the time he had done so the interference had been caused to Ms Spratt and to Mr Prastiyou. He concluded by saying that if Mr Prastiyou had not moved out at the top of the straight none of the interference that happened closer to the finish would have occurred. He also the Committee to note that the rail was 9m out for today’s racing.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Williamson said Mr Innes had breached the careless riding rule 3 times in the previous 12 months – on 27 November 2016 at Cambridge (receiving a 4 day suspension), 30 April 2016 at Te Rapa (5 days) and 10 April 2016 at Counties (4 days). He asked the Committee to note that the interference to “Bombard” occurred when that horse was in a challenging position with a chance that it could have run in a better placing than in 6th position where it had finished. He said Mr Innes had a duty of care to ensure he was the required distance clear when moving in but on this occasion he wasn’t and he classed the severity of the interference as being mid-range. He said in Mr Innes’ favour there was quite a bit of interference throughout the race because there were a number of gear changes on the horses many of whom ran greenly at different stages with one, “Nothin On Me” running off completely on the home turn. He also asked the Committee to take into account Mr Innes’ admittance of the breach. To a question from the Committee as to how he viewed Mr Innes’ riding record he said he was a busy rider but thought his record was “neutral”. He also said Mr Innes had recently ridden on two non Premier days in the Central Districts. Mr Williamson did not submit what he thought was an appropriate penalty.
Mr Innes asked the Committee to take into account his admission of the breach. He also didn’t think the severity of the breach justified him missing the next two days at Wellington – 21 January (an Iconic Meeting including a Group 1 and a Group 3 race) and 28 January (a Feature meeting including a Group 1 and a Group 3 race) although he also said he had no confirmed engagements in the next 7 days and any proposed suspension could start immediately. Finally he said he had been riding recently in the Central Districts and would like Central Districts days included in any period of suspension.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee has reviewed films of the incident and taken into account all the submissions made. The films clearly show that shortly after passing the 200m point Mr Innes commenced an inwards movement and in doing so caused Ms Spratt to have to check and take hold of her horse. Mr Innes then continued to move in and caused a further and more severe check to Mr Prastiyou.
The Committee notes the comments made about the Mr Innes’ horse and several in the field racing greenly at times during the race but Mr Innes is required to ensure that, in moving inwards as he did, he is at least his own length plus another in front of the runners to his inside. Clearly on both occasions today when he moved in he was not the required distance clear. The Committee places the degree of severity close to mid range. The Committee believes that whilst Ms Spratt was forced to check her mount there has to be some doubt as to whether she would have finished in a better placing had it not occurred.
The Committee does not agree that the actions of Mr Prastiyou earlier in the run home led to interference caused by Mr Innes. Whilst Mr Innes may have been wider on the track than he intended passing the 200m at that point he had a clear run to the line. Whilst Mr Innes’ horse may have been racing a little greenly Mr Innes continued to ride with vigour as he was shifting in and whilst he did straighten his horse once during that inwards movement it was only once.
The Committee has taken into account Mr Innes’s admittance of the breach and noted that prior to today he has had only 3 breaches of this Rule in the previous 12 months. The Committee notes that Mr Innes has had approximately 225 rides in the current season and had 459 rides last season.
The JCA’s Penalty Guidelines state the starting point for a breach of the careless riding rule is 5 riding days. Having taken into account the aggravating and mitigating factors above the Committee believes the interference caused must be reflected in an appropriate penalty which we have decided is a period of suspension and that this should be 4 riding days.
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: a750f6aec2b98db89c16ad1aab6a988d
informantnumber: A8523
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 16/01/2017
hearing_title: Auckland RC 14 January 2017 - R 4 - Chair, Mr P Williams
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 4, the “Countdown to Karaka 2017 1200”, Information A8523 was filed by Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson under Rule 638(1)(d). The Information stated “L Innes allowed “Felton Road” to shift in passing the 100m causing a check to “Bombard” (S Spratt) then continued to shift in checking “Onezerofive” (D Prastiyou)". Mr Innes signed the Information stating he admitted the breach and at the beginning of the hearing confirmed that was correct and also that he understood the Rule under which he was charged.
Rule 638 (1) (d) states “A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be .....careless”.
Mr Coles, using the head-on film from approximately the 220m point, identified Mr Innes racing approximately 6 horse widths out from the rail. He said to his inside was Ms Spratt on “Bombard” and to her inside was Mr Prastiyou on “Onezerofive”. He said as the horses moved passed this point Mr Innes was riding his horse forward and it commenced to shift in under pressure causing crowding to Ms Spratt which in turn caused a further check to Mr Prastiyou. Using the side-on film, he said Mr Innes was never the required distance in front of Ms Spratt and had twice straightened his horse, albeit only momentarily but not enough to avoid causing the checking of the two horses to his inside. To a question from the Committee Mr Coles thought that Mr Innes moved from his original 6 wide position to being 3 off the rails at the end of the race.
Mr Innes said that “Onezerofive” had moved out and bumped Ms Spratt’s horse several times as the horses raced inside the final 400m. He used the head-on film to show “Onezerofive” moving out which he claimed had forced him wider on the track. Mr Innes then said he started to move back to what he thought was his rightful line of running. He said his horse was green (this was its second start with both having been at Ellerslie) and he tried to straighten it but conceded by the time he had done so the interference had been caused to Ms Spratt and to Mr Prastiyou. He concluded by saying that if Mr Prastiyou had not moved out at the top of the straight none of the interference that happened closer to the finish would have occurred. He also the Committee to note that the rail was 9m out for today’s racing.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Williamson said Mr Innes had breached the careless riding rule 3 times in the previous 12 months – on 27 November 2016 at Cambridge (receiving a 4 day suspension), 30 April 2016 at Te Rapa (5 days) and 10 April 2016 at Counties (4 days). He asked the Committee to note that the interference to “Bombard” occurred when that horse was in a challenging position with a chance that it could have run in a better placing than in 6th position where it had finished. He said Mr Innes had a duty of care to ensure he was the required distance clear when moving in but on this occasion he wasn’t and he classed the severity of the interference as being mid-range. He said in Mr Innes’ favour there was quite a bit of interference throughout the race because there were a number of gear changes on the horses many of whom ran greenly at different stages with one, “Nothin On Me” running off completely on the home turn. He also asked the Committee to take into account Mr Innes’ admittance of the breach. To a question from the Committee as to how he viewed Mr Innes’ riding record he said he was a busy rider but thought his record was “neutral”. He also said Mr Innes had recently ridden on two non Premier days in the Central Districts. Mr Williamson did not submit what he thought was an appropriate penalty.
Mr Innes asked the Committee to take into account his admission of the breach. He also didn’t think the severity of the breach justified him missing the next two days at Wellington – 21 January (an Iconic Meeting including a Group 1 and a Group 3 race) and 28 January (a Feature meeting including a Group 1 and a Group 3 race) although he also said he had no confirmed engagements in the next 7 days and any proposed suspension could start immediately. Finally he said he had been riding recently in the Central Districts and would like Central Districts days included in any period of suspension.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee has reviewed films of the incident and taken into account all the submissions made. The films clearly show that shortly after passing the 200m point Mr Innes commenced an inwards movement and in doing so caused Ms Spratt to have to check and take hold of her horse. Mr Innes then continued to move in and caused a further and more severe check to Mr Prastiyou.
The Committee notes the comments made about the Mr Innes’ horse and several in the field racing greenly at times during the race but Mr Innes is required to ensure that, in moving inwards as he did, he is at least his own length plus another in front of the runners to his inside. Clearly on both occasions today when he moved in he was not the required distance clear. The Committee places the degree of severity close to mid range. The Committee believes that whilst Ms Spratt was forced to check her mount there has to be some doubt as to whether she would have finished in a better placing had it not occurred.
The Committee does not agree that the actions of Mr Prastiyou earlier in the run home led to interference caused by Mr Innes. Whilst Mr Innes may have been wider on the track than he intended passing the 200m at that point he had a clear run to the line. Whilst Mr Innes’ horse may have been racing a little greenly Mr Innes continued to ride with vigour as he was shifting in and whilst he did straighten his horse once during that inwards movement it was only once.
The Committee has taken into account Mr Innes’s admittance of the breach and noted that prior to today he has had only 3 breaches of this Rule in the previous 12 months. The Committee notes that Mr Innes has had approximately 225 rides in the current season and had 459 rides last season.
The JCA’s Penalty Guidelines state the starting point for a breach of the careless riding rule is 5 riding days. Having taken into account the aggravating and mitigating factors above the Committee believes the interference caused must be reflected in an appropriate penalty which we have decided is a period of suspension and that this should be 4 riding days.
penalty:
Mr Innes is suspended for 4 riding days from the close of racing on Saturday 14 January 2017 to the close of racing on Sunday 22 January 2017 – the 4 days being Rotorua (18 January), Tauranga (20 January), Wellington (21 January) and Te Rapa (22 January). We note that the Wellington meeting on 21 January is an “Iconic” meeting.
Mr Innes was advised by the Chairman that because he had recently ridden 1 horse on each of the two days at the late December New Plymouth meeting the Committee did not see that as justification for including non Premier Central District days in any suspension. He was further advised this meant that had he been given a 5 day suspension, the Woodville-Pahiatua on 23 January 2017, which is a tier 2 Feature meeting for total stakes of $63,000, would not have been included as the fifth day as the Committee did not believe he would be riding there.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr L Innes - Licensed Jockey
Otherperson: Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: be886e8076b39f8cb22f98e4d3cbbf1c
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: d8ab6d97b247d78d0dddfd54dc33aac7
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 14/01/2017
meet_title: Auckland RC - 14 January 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: PWilliams
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: ASmith
name: Auckland RC