Canterbury JC – 14 October 2006 –

hearingid: 2409cb21e40a3116cff770bbfce59cc2

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 14/10/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 14 October 2006 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 3, Anglican 2006 Celebrating 150 Years Maiden, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S C Ching, against Licensed Apprentice Jockey, Mrs E M Whittle, alleging careless riding

Following the running of Race 3, Anglican 2006 Celebrating 150 Years Maiden, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S C Ching, against Licensed Apprentice Jockey, Mrs E M Whittle, alleging careless riding in that Mrs Whittle allowed her mount, OUTA REACH, to move inwards with approximately 200 metres to run when not sufficiently clear causing interference to BISCUIT GREEN (T C Sasada).

Mrs Whittle was present at the hearing of the information, with her employer, Mr M R Pitman, and did not admit the breach.

Mr Sasada, the rider of BISCUIT GREEN, gave evidence and Mr M G Humphries, Assistant Stipendiary Steward, showed head-on and side-on video replays of the incident with approximately 200 metres to run.

Mr Pitman cross-examined Mr Sasada, made submissions in relation to the incident and used the video replays. Mrs Whittle elected to make a brief statement.

Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:

"We have listened to the evidence given by Mr Sasada and to the submissions of Mr Ching and Mr Humphries and also to the submissions of Mr Pitman and Mrs Whittle. In addition, we have carefully viewed the video replays of the incident.

It was the evidence of Mr Sasada that, inside the final 200 metres, he had Mr Holmes on KOH SAMUI on his inside and there was a gap ahead. He said he then had to check when the outside horse, which replays established was OUTA REACH ridden by Mrs Whittle, moved ground inwards and took the line to which he was entitled. When asked by Mr Ching whether OUTA REACH was its own length and another length clear, Mr Sasada said that it was only a half or three-quarters of a length clear.

Mr Ching then showed rear-on and head-on and video replays.

Mr Pitman, on behalf of Mrs Whittle, said that there had been outward movement by Mr Holmes on Mr Sasada's inner and that any movement from Mrs Whittle was "ever so slight". He further said that Mrs Whittle had immediately corrected and, if she was guilty of anything, it was overcorrecting.

Following a consideration of all the evidence, the Committee finds that Mr Holmes and Mr Sasada were both racing in a gap that was available to them when OUTA REACH, being ridden with the whip by Mrs Whittle, shifted ground inwards when not sufficiently clear of Mr Sasada's mount forcing Mr Sasada's and Mr Holmes' mounts to come into contact and forcing Mr Sasada to take hold of his mount. Mr Sasada said that Mrs Whittle was no more than a half to three-quarters of a length clear at the time.

We believe that the amount of inwards movement by Mrs Whittle was 1 ? to 2 horse widths and, although she did straighten her mount, it was not until the damage had been done in terms of interference to Mr Sasada's mount.

The Committee is, therefore, satisfied that the charge of careless riding against Mrs Whittle has been proved."

In relation to penalty, Mr Ching acknowledged that Mrs Whittle has an exemplary record having no previous breaches. Mrs Whittle said that she has had about 500 rides in total and had no previous breaches. She is a very experienced apprentice rider. Mr Ching said it was his belief that the careless riding was in the mid-range. He sought a term of suspension.

Mr Pitman submitted that a minimal fine would be fair and reasonable and was appropriate given Mrs Whittle's exemplary record this being her first offence in her whole riding career. He submitted that there were mitigating circumstances ? namely, the outward movement by Mr Holmes.

Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following decision in relation to penalty:

"We have considered the submissions by both of you. We really feel that a suspension is called for. We feel that, to be consistent, we need to impose a term of suspension. However, we do acknowledge your exceptional riding record which, we are told, is some 500 rides with no previous breaches of the careless riding Rule or any other Rule for that matter, as we understand it.

We are going to give you a discount, if you like, for that exceptional record. We are going to make the suspension 2 days rather than, it would have been, 3 days because 3 days is pretty much accepted as a minimum term of suspension for a breach of the careless riding Rule but we are going to make an exception in your case because of your very, very good record. So you are suspended for 2 riding days and that will be up to and including Sunday 22 October 2006. That is, effectively, the Wyndham and Rangiora meetings."

R G McKenzie

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: