Canterbury JC – 14 November 2007 – Race 11

hearingid: 67dcc906a8c37856fb47cf094076d69e

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 14/11/2007

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 14 November 2007 - Race 11

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Information 7400 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 871(1)(d) in that Mr CW Johnson allowed his mount ("Final Reality") to shift ground outwards taking the rightful line of "Paris Hilton" (L Cropp) who had to check near the 500m.

Information 7400 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 871(1)(d) in that

Mr CW Johnson allowed his mount ("Final Reality") to shift ground outwards taking the rightful line of "Paris Hilton" (L Cropp) who had to check near the 500m.

Informant - Mr George, Chief Stipendiary Steward.

As a result of an incident near the turn for home in Race 11, the Coupland Bakeries Mile, Licensed Jockey CW Johnson was charged with careless riding pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing.

It was alleged that he allowed his mount "Final Reality" to shift ground outwards taking the rightful line of "Paris Hilton" (L Cropp) who had to check near the 500m mark.

Mr Johnson denied the charge.

Mr George presented evidence of the video coverage of the incident from the head on and side on cameras. He demonstrated how Mr Johnson, on "Final Reality", went across the hindquarters of "Delbrae". The movement was reasonably sudden and in the consequence, Mr Johnson appeared to come into contact with "Paris Hilton" but in any event, "Final Reality" took the line of running that "Paris Hilton" had, forcing Ms L Cropp, the rider of "Paris Hilton", to check her mount and to lose the line of running that it was entitled to hold.

He also pointed out that "Dorabella" (M Walker) was affected by Mr Johnson’s actions.

Mr Johnson elected not to call any evidence of his own, and furthermore, he did not challenge the evidence that was demonstrated to the hearing by Mr George.

He explained that he got up to the outside of "Delbrae" and said that he was not intending to go to the outside of the track at that point. Mr Johnson told the hearing that he did not realise that there were horses on his outside as he moved up and around "Delbrae".

Mr George was offered the opportunity of cross-examining Mr Johnson on his evidence. By way of summary told the hearing that ‘Delbrae" had no involvement in the incident, and that there was an obligation on Mr Johnson to be aware of other runners.

The following interim decision was released on race day:

The evidence in this case was quite simple. Mr Johnson was behind "Delbrae" as the field made an outward movement to secure good running close to the outside rail. "Benelli" ridden by Licensed Jockey D Walsh led the field across in that direction, as the outside of the track was presenting better footing on the outside of the track. Mr Johnson on "Final Reality" was on the inside of "Delbrae" as the outward movement was happening. Mr Johnson, with a relatively sudden movement, took "Final Reality" across the hindquarters of "Delbrae" in an outwards movement, with consequential interference to "Paris Hilton". Ms Cropp had to check "Paris Hilton" quite significantly to avoid clipping the heels of "Final Reality" and, in fact, she was moved perilously close to the outside rail. Mr M Walker on "Dorabella" was also affected by Mr Johnson’s actions, and seemingly lost its chances of finishing in a better place.

Mr Johnson was given the opportunity of cross examining Mr George on the evidence that was presented to the hearing, but declined to do so. Thus, to all intents and purposes, Mr George’s evidence was unchallenged.

Mr Johnson then elected to give evidence. He stated that when he was up towards "Delbrae", he was not intending to go to the outside fence but elected to do so, and in the process, he told the hearing that he did not realise that there were other horses outside of him. He stated that he got up outside "Delbrae" and moved up and around that horse.

Mr George, by way of summing up, stated that in his opinion, "Delbrae" had no involvement in the incident and that there was an obligation on Mr Johnson to be aware of other runners.

The panel then adjourned to deliberate on the evidence presented.

It is this Judicial Committee’s finding that Mr Johnson should have been well aware of the fact that there were other horses outside him. He is an experienced horseman and should know the fundamental rule of racing, namely that he has a duty to be his own length and another horse length clear before making an inwards or outwards movement. Thus, in the circumstances, this Judicial Committee is satisfied that on the basis of the evidence presented to it, that Mr Johnson rode carelessly and the charge is proved accordingly.

We also find as a fact, that D Walsh on "Benelli" was not a causative factor in the incident.

Dealing first with the penalty submissions, Mr George told us that, in his opinion, Mr Johnson’s degree of carelessness was at the highest end of the scale. Mr George said that Mr Johnson severely affected the chances of "Paris Hilton" and "Dorabella", and further said that these actions enabled Mr Johnson to win the race. He also informed the hearing that Mr Johnson has been charged and found guilty of careless riding during the past year as follows:

--

--

• 28 February for three days
--
--

--

• 5 March for two days
--
--

--

• 24 March for three days
--
--

--

• 22^nd September for six days.
--

He stated that this committee also need to take cognisance of Rule 1122(2) and to have regard to the status of the race being a Group 2 race and also to take into account the stake payable.

He submitted that a suspension of between 10 and 15 days should be imposed, and that in addition, a fine between $3,000 and $5,000 also imposed having regard to his recent warning to riders in the most recent edition of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Monthly.

Mr Michael Pitman, Licensed Trainer, spoke on behalf of Mr Johnson by way of personal reference. He told us that Mr Johnson is a leading jockey of outstanding ability, that he rode in this race competitively, and would have been severely criticised had he not ridden in the competitive manner that he did.

Mr Johnson also told us that in his view, "Benelli" contributed significantly to the incident by taking the field across to the outside in the manner that it did. He also said that the outside rail came up more quickly than he anticipated and that "Delbrae" had contributed to that.

We turn now to the penalty decision.

It is this Committee’s opinion that Mr Johnson’s carelessness was at the higher end of the scale. His outward movement caused a significant check to Ms Cropp’s mount as well as to Mr Michael Walker’s mount, "Dorabella" and, in our opinion, endangered both horse and rider safety, particularly in the case of Ms Cropp. Extra care was needed in this situation because of the proximity of horses in front and to the outside of Mr Johnson in relation to the outside rail. However, we are not so sure that the degree of carelessness was as extreme as Mr George would have it. If it was, then the charge would have been that of reckless riding. Mr Johnson, however, did not exercise the skills that are expected of a senior experienced jockey. Therefore, a suspension is the appropriate penalty.

We note that Mr Johnson has been suspended on four occasions in the past 12 months. We also note the provisions of Rule 1122(2) which requires a Judicial Committee to take into account the status of the race, the stake payable, the consequential effects on any person or horse and the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing. We do not overlook Mr Johnson’s lengthy experience and skills as one of New Zealand’s leading jockeys. He is a very busy rider, riding throughout New Zealand as well as training horses. He must be given credit for his record in terms of his successes. Having said that, this was not a good demonstration of safe riding at a critical point in the race. Mr Johnson did affect the chances of two other horses, one of which, "Dorabella", was a favoured runner. This was a Group 2 race for a total stake of $270,000. "Paris Hilton" was undoubtedly quite seriously affected by the check, and it is not unduly speculative to say that ‘Paris Hilton" may well have finished in a better place had it not been for the check received.

In terms of maintaining integrity and public confidence in racing, whilst the public expects good, strong, competitive riding, at the same time it will not tolerate riding of this nature which compromises the safety of other horses and riders.

The penalty that is to be imposed is a suspension of eight days. We grant a 7 day deferment so that the suspension will start from the conclusion of racing on Saturday 24 November 2007, until the concluson of racing on Thursday 6 December 2007. It should be noted that that period includes two premier meetings at which Mr Johnson would have been likely to ride, so that is an additional penalty in itself.

In setting the penalty, we have taken into account Mr Johnson’s record, which, when looked at in totality, in terms of the number of rides that he has on an annual basis, is not that bad, although it does have some aggravating effect with regard to penalty.

We turn now to address Mr George’s submission that a fine of between $3,000 and $5,000 should be imposed. We are aware of Mr George’s announcement in the latest edition of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Monthly. We agree with his comments in this case, because of the status of the race and the stake payable. As to whether or not Mr Johnson’s actions enabled him to win the race is a difficult proposition to consider. It may or may not have been the case, but whatever the situation, we chose not to say whether or not such a submission has merit or not. In other words, we have taken a neutral view on that submission.

A fine is to be imposed, however, but not quite to the extent that Mr George would like us to fine you, Mr Johnson. We are setting the fine at $1,500.

Thank you.

………………………………

KG Hales

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d, 1122.2

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: e7ac00cc42f7a56d810392543c846df2

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 11

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: ccf4e9be2bfbebf0b81c8d0d9a85fa91

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 14/11/2007

meet_title: Canterbury JC - 14 November 2007

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: canterbury-jc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Canterbury JC