Auckland RC – 17 February 2007 – Race 10

hearingid: 4af51b52721396715bb829994c5c6479

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 17/02/2007

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Auckland RC - 17 February 2007 - Race 10

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

This is an adjourned inquiry at the Avondale Racecourse on the 21 February 2007, resulting from the Auckland Racing Club meeting on the 17 February 2007.

The charge comes pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d).

This is an adjourned inquiry at the Avondale Racecourse on the 21 February 2007, resulting from the Auckland Racing Club meeting on the 17 February 2007.

The charge comes pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d).

The Informant, Mr A Coles, alleged that near the 250 metre mark, Mr C Ormsby permitted his mount, ACCELERANT, to shift in when not clear of CARNEGIE DANCER (A Peard) who lost ground and HAZELDON (D Walsh) which was checked.

Mr Ormsby denied the charge and was represented by his employer, Mr A Scott.

Mr T Treweek, Assistant Stipendiary Steward, demonstrated the video films and showed that near the 250 metre mark Mr Ormsby, firstly, allowing his mount to move out, slightly hampering OCEAN STORM. He then showed Mr Ormsby continuing to ride forward and shift in approximately two horse widths and into the line of Mr Peard on CARNEGIE DANCER who in turn checked HAZELDON, ridden by Mr Walsh.

Mr Peard, rider of CARNEGIE DANCER, was called to give evidence. He said he did receive a check at the 250-metre mark. He said a gap of approximately two horse widths opened out in front of him when Mr Ormsby moved out. He said he had a clear run and was in the gap, when he received pressure from the outside and this was caused by Mr Ormsby moving in when only half to three-quarters of a length in front of him. He said there was contact between his mount and Mr Peard said as a result of the interference he lost two lengths.

Mr D Walsh, rider of HAZELDON, gave evidence and said that at the 250-metre mark he was outside the leader and battling. He said he was then chopped out of it and had to take a hold to check his mount, which he said was caused by the horse on his outside.

Mr Scott, on behalf of Mr Ormsby, said that in his opinion the interference was caused partly by Mr Innes on DARRINGDO moving in. He said Mr Innes' mount, in blinkers, was racing erratically. He believed because of this Mr Ormsby was not guilty of careless riding, and asked the committee that if there was doubt it should go in Mr Ormsby's favour.

Decision:

The Committee carefully considered all submissions and repeated viewing the video films. They preferred the evidence of Mr Treweek, Mr Walsh and Mr Peard, are were clearly of the opinion that interference did occur to both Mr Peard and Mr Walsh through Mr Ormsby moving in and taking their line when not the required distance clear.

The Committee considered Mr Scott's submissions, namely, putting some of the blame on Mr Innes' mount, which he said, moved in and contributed to the interference. This in fact had no bearing on the alleged charge.

Alluding to this, the committee believed Mr Ormsby had moved out and in fact impeded OCEAN STORM on his outside. Mr Innes's inward movement was minimal and had no bearing on the subsequent interference. However, regarding the interference Mr Ormsby is charged with, it is clear there was a considerable gap between Mr Innes and Mr Ormsby when the interference occurred, and there is no doubt this interference was caused solely by Mr Ormsby allowing his mount to move in when not clear. Accordingly the charge is upheld and before imposing a penalty the committee asked for submissions from Mr Coles, Mr Scott and Mr Ormsby.

Penalty:

Mr Coles produced Mr Ormsby's record, which showed four charges of careless riding in the last six months. He believed a suspension was warranted in this case.

Mr Scott said that Mr Ormsby had been riding cleanly lately and had been trying hard, and believed that Mr Ormsby was not solely to blame.

Mr Ormsby said he had a ride in the Auckland Cup and asked for this to be considered.

The Committee considered these submissions and in reaching a fair decision have taken into account the following ?

--
1. Mr Ormsby's record.
--
2. The degree of interference caused.

The Committee believed the offence would normally warrant a four day suspension, but in this case have given Mr Ormsby a one-day concession, as it was not his fault that the charge was not heard on the 17 February and adjourned, which obviously makes a difference to the actual days of suspension. The Committee imposed a suspension to start after the conclusion of racing on the 25 February 2007 and conclude after racing on the 3 March 2007 (3 days).

RM Seabrook, Chairman                         G Downey

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 0ca5efe197984ba8ec1601a559d626ad

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 10

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: a0cd149429725b5bbc885ae16da60ef7

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 17/02/2007

meet_title: Auckland RC - 17 February 2007

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: auckland-rc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Auckland RC