Auckland RC 23 May 2015 – R 6
ID: JCA14534
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 23 May 2015
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
RSeabrook
Race Date:
2015/05/23
Race Number:
Auckland RC 23 May 2015 - R6
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 Mrs Thornton was not the required distance clear of Ms Johnson when moving in, we find the charge proved.
Penalty:
We grant Mrs Thornton’s request to seek a deferment to her suspension as per Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Mrs Thornton had her license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 27 May and conclude after racing on 3 June 2015 (3 days).
This encompasses 30 May Ellerslie, 1 June Ellerslie and 3 June Matamata.
Facts:
Following the running of race 6, Broderick Print Mile, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Williamson alleged that Mrs Thornton allowed her mount READY TO RUMBLE to shift in near the 1500 metres when not clear of VIVA BELLA (Ms Johnson) which clipped a heel and blundered.
Mrs Thornton acknowledged that she understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and confirmed she denied the breach.
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:
Mr Williamson advised the Committee that he would be calling 2 witnesses namely Mr Coles and Ms Johnson.
Mr Coles demonstrated the alleged incident using the available video films. He pointed out to the Committee that Mrs Thornton (barrier 5) permitted her mount READY TO RUMBLE to shift in near the 1500 metres. He said this was a gradual inward movement and Mrs Thornton was almost clear when moving into Ms Johnson’s (barrier 4) running line. However, he identified Ms Johnson did clip the heel of Mrs Thornton’s mount. He added there was slight movement from horses on the inside of Mrs Thornton.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Coles said Mrs Thornton moved in about 1 horse width and she was just over 1 and a ¼ lengths clear of Ms Johnson’s mount. He believed if Mrs Thornton had been 1 more stride ahead of Ms Johnson the interference may not have occurred.
Mrs Thornton did not wish to cross examine Mr Coles’ interpretation of the alleged incident.
Ms Johnson told the Committee that she was a fraction slow to jump and she then rode her mount forward. She said that she received pressure from her outside but acknowledged that Mrs Thornton was almost clear of her mount. She added that it was “bad luck” when she clipped READY TO RUMBLE’S heel.
Mrs Thornton asked Ms Johnson was there any movement from the inside horses and she responded that it was mostly from her outside.
Mrs Thornton told the Committee that she was being victimised a bit as the movement was marginal. She said the horses on her inside contributed to the incident and did not believe she moved in. She added all the horses were racing well away from the running rail.
Mrs Thornton elected not to use the video footage to demonstrate the alleged movement from the horses racing to her inside.
Mr Williamson in summing up submitted that there was clear inward movement from Mrs Thornton which was supported by Mr Coles and Ms Johnson’s evidence. He acknowledged there was slight outward movement from the inside horses. However, he said the major movement was from Mrs Thornton but stated it was an unfortunate incident because she was almost clear. He concluded by saying had Mrs Thornton not misjudged the incident by an inch or two the interference may not have happened.
Mrs Thornton had nothing further to add when given the opportunity to sum up.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times we established that Mrs Thornton permitted her mount to shift in 1 horse width 100 metres after the start. This resulted in Ms Johnson clipping a heel and blundering. At the time the interference occurred the head – on film showed that Mrs Thornton was racing directly in front of Ms Johnson.
We are of the opinion there was very minimal outward movement from the horses racing on the inside of Mrs Thornton. The Committee viewed the synchronised video footage of the head on and side on film which showed Mrs Thornton was approximately 1 and ½ lengths clear when shifting in.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Williamson produced Mrs Thornton’s record which showed 1 previous breach under this Rule in the last 12 months which attracted a 4 day suspension. He said the interference was clearly shown on the films and described the incident as minor notwithstanding Ms Johnson clipped a heel and blundered. Mr Williamson submitted a suspension at the low end would be appropriate.
Mrs Thornton asked the Committee to consider a fine for this breach. Mrs Thornton advised that she had upcoming engagements at Te Aroha on 27 May, and sought a deferment to any proposed suspension.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mrs Thornton said it was her intention to ride everywhere. When tested further she conceded that she had not been asked to ride and not had the opportunity to ride in the Central Districts on Industry days.
The Stipendiary Stewards were unable to provide the Committee with Mrs Thornton’s recent riding history. Mr Coles advised the Committee that Mrs Thornton had ridden recently at New Plymouth on 9 May.
Mrs Thornton acknowledged this was a Saturday race meeting and not an Industry day.
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 were Mrs Thornton’s very good record under this Rule and we assess the level of carelessness was at the low end of the scale. The video footage showed that Mrs Thornton moved in 1 horse width and she was almost the required distance clear. We believe the inward shift was gradual and Ms Johnson clipped a heel and momentarily dipped. The Stipendiary Stewards and Ms Johnson’s evidence support that it was low range carelessness. In our opinion the mitigating factors in this case justify a 2 day reduction from the recommended starting point.
The Committee did consider Mrs Thornton’s submission of a fine but were of the view it was not appropriate for this breach.
The Committee is mindful that Mrs Thornton has ridden recently in the Central Districts but not on Industry days.
Mrs Thornton and the Stipendiary Stewards could not provide the Committee with any evidence that she had ridden in the Central Districts on Industry days. This is in accordance with the new Penalty Guide effective 1 May 2015 and therefore reflected in the penalty.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a 3 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: 8f7ec21b5f97d2433b2a9c8b34a5df9b
informantnumber: A3582
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 25/05/2015
hearing_title: Auckland RC 23 May 2015 - R 6
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 6, Broderick Print Mile, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Williamson alleged that Mrs Thornton allowed her mount READY TO RUMBLE to shift in near the 1500 metres when not clear of VIVA BELLA (Ms Johnson) which clipped a heel and blundered.
Mrs Thornton acknowledged that she understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and confirmed she denied the breach.
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:
Mr Williamson advised the Committee that he would be calling 2 witnesses namely Mr Coles and Ms Johnson.
Mr Coles demonstrated the alleged incident using the available video films. He pointed out to the Committee that Mrs Thornton (barrier 5) permitted her mount READY TO RUMBLE to shift in near the 1500 metres. He said this was a gradual inward movement and Mrs Thornton was almost clear when moving into Ms Johnson’s (barrier 4) running line. However, he identified Ms Johnson did clip the heel of Mrs Thornton’s mount. He added there was slight movement from horses on the inside of Mrs Thornton.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Coles said Mrs Thornton moved in about 1 horse width and she was just over 1 and a ¼ lengths clear of Ms Johnson’s mount. He believed if Mrs Thornton had been 1 more stride ahead of Ms Johnson the interference may not have occurred.
Mrs Thornton did not wish to cross examine Mr Coles’ interpretation of the alleged incident.
Ms Johnson told the Committee that she was a fraction slow to jump and she then rode her mount forward. She said that she received pressure from her outside but acknowledged that Mrs Thornton was almost clear of her mount. She added that it was “bad luck” when she clipped READY TO RUMBLE’S heel.
Mrs Thornton asked Ms Johnson was there any movement from the inside horses and she responded that it was mostly from her outside.
Mrs Thornton told the Committee that she was being victimised a bit as the movement was marginal. She said the horses on her inside contributed to the incident and did not believe she moved in. She added all the horses were racing well away from the running rail.
Mrs Thornton elected not to use the video footage to demonstrate the alleged movement from the horses racing to her inside.
Mr Williamson in summing up submitted that there was clear inward movement from Mrs Thornton which was supported by Mr Coles and Ms Johnson’s evidence. He acknowledged there was slight outward movement from the inside horses. However, he said the major movement was from Mrs Thornton but stated it was an unfortunate incident because she was almost clear. He concluded by saying had Mrs Thornton not misjudged the incident by an inch or two the interference may not have happened.
Mrs Thornton had nothing further to add when given the opportunity to sum up.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times we established that Mrs Thornton permitted her mount to shift in 1 horse width 100 metres after the start. This resulted in Ms Johnson clipping a heel and blundering. At the time the interference occurred the head – on film showed that Mrs Thornton was racing directly in front of Ms Johnson.
We are of the opinion there was very minimal outward movement from the horses racing on the inside of Mrs Thornton. The Committee viewed the synchronised video footage of the head on and side on film which showed Mrs Thornton was approximately 1 and ½ lengths clear when shifting in.
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 Mrs Thornton was not the required distance clear of Ms Johnson when moving in, we find the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Williamson produced Mrs Thornton’s record which showed 1 previous breach under this Rule in the last 12 months which attracted a 4 day suspension. He said the interference was clearly shown on the films and described the incident as minor notwithstanding Ms Johnson clipped a heel and blundered. Mr Williamson submitted a suspension at the low end would be appropriate.
Mrs Thornton asked the Committee to consider a fine for this breach. Mrs Thornton advised that she had upcoming engagements at Te Aroha on 27 May, and sought a deferment to any proposed suspension.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mrs Thornton said it was her intention to ride everywhere. When tested further she conceded that she had not been asked to ride and not had the opportunity to ride in the Central Districts on Industry days.
The Stipendiary Stewards were unable to provide the Committee with Mrs Thornton’s recent riding history. Mr Coles advised the Committee that Mrs Thornton had ridden recently at New Plymouth on 9 May.
Mrs Thornton acknowledged this was a Saturday race meeting and not an Industry day.
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 were Mrs Thornton’s very good record under this Rule and we assess the level of carelessness was at the low end of the scale. The video footage showed that Mrs Thornton moved in 1 horse width and she was almost the required distance clear. We believe the inward shift was gradual and Ms Johnson clipped a heel and momentarily dipped. The Stipendiary Stewards and Ms Johnson’s evidence support that it was low range carelessness. In our opinion the mitigating factors in this case justify a 2 day reduction from the recommended starting point.
The Committee did consider Mrs Thornton’s submission of a fine but were of the view it was not appropriate for this breach.
The Committee is mindful that Mrs Thornton has ridden recently in the Central Districts but not on Industry days.
Mrs Thornton and the Stipendiary Stewards could not provide the Committee with any evidence that she had ridden in the Central Districts on Industry days. This is in accordance with the new Penalty Guide effective 1 May 2015 and therefore reflected in the penalty.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a 3 day suspension.
penalty:
We grant Mrs Thornton’s request to seek a deferment to her suspension as per Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Mrs Thornton had her license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 27 May and conclude after racing on 3 June 2015 (3 days).
This encompasses 30 May Ellerslie, 1 June Ellerslie and 3 June Matamata.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mrs T Thornton - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Ms D Johnson - Rider of VITA BELLA, Mr A Coles -Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 6ffdeee3a70e51edb7dedb4a6e90c98d
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Auckland RC 23 May 2015 - R6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: a9f2f914d1d7c1c4ff084f9a9b80c76b
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 23/05/2015
meet_title: Auckland RC - 23 May 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: RSeabrook
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC