Canterbury JC – 15 November 2006 –

hearingid: 9eb3a613c73207185db2a67c8fc4a303

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 15/11/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 15 November 2006 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Licensed Jockey, Miss J Cameron, was charged with a breach of Rule 850 (3) & (4) in that she "modified her safety vest by way of removing foam panels and rode in races on Wednesday, 15 November 2006, in its modified state

Licensed Jockey, Miss J Cameron, was charged with a breach of Rule 850 (3) & (4) in that she "modified her safety vest by way of removing foam panels and rode in races on Wednesday, 15 November 2006, in its modified state, a state that is not approved under the Rule".

The information was filed and served on Miss Cameron on the 3^rd day of the meeting on 18 November 2006. Miss Cameron was present at the hearing of the information on that date and admitted the breach. The charge was found to be proved accordingly.

The Rule provides as follows:

Mr Ching produced the body protector in question. He stated that the areas of concern were across the shoulders where foam had been removed completely and, also, a single panel of panel had been removed from areas where there ought to have been a double panel of foam.

Mr Ching said that the Stewards were very concerned about riders modifying their vests. There are safety issues, he said, and that, had Miss Cameron been hurt in an incident while wearing a non-approved vest, it would be not only a problem for Miss Cameron but also for the industry in general. Mr Ching said he believed that Miss Cameron had done it for comfort and was not cheating but still believed it to be a serious case. He recommended that the penalty should be a term of suspension of between 1-3 days.

Miss Cameron stated that she had purchased the vest three years ago when she returned to race riding. At that time, it was the only type of vest available. She said that the panels in the lower part of the vest (which she had also removed) and higher up pushed up the back of the neck when riding. She had sustained a sore neck after riding in the vest at the trials so she removed the panels. She was concerned at the pressure being put on her neck. She believed that a number of spinal injuries to jockeys had been caused by vests up the back of the neck. She had been riding in the modified vest since that time. She believed it was a "safety thing" and not a "comfort thing". Standard vests offer minimal protection from bruising but also risk causing spinal injuries. Miss Cameron acknowledged that she was aware of the requirements of the Rule and, also, that her vest did not comply.

The Committee considered the submissions of the parties in relation to penalty. In determining penalty, the Committee gave Miss Cameron credit for her admission of the breach. However, the Committee was concerned that Miss Cameron believed that she knew better than the authorities and the manufacturers of body protectors what the features of such protectors should be and, in a wilful flouting of the Rules, decided to modify the vest in which she was riding to fit her own criteria. She acknowledged to the Committee that she was aware of the Rule and that the modified vest did not comply.

The requirement to wear an approved body protector has the primary object of protecting a jockey from injury in a fall and is a requirement which is, clearly, in the jockey's best interests. However, the racing industry also has to protect its image by striving to ensure, as far as possible, that jockey injuries are prevented or minimised for the reason that injuries to jockeys are not a good look for the industry. Jockeys

are made aware of the requirement to wear an approved body protector and there can be no justification for wearing a non-approved vest or modifying an approved vest so that it does not comply.

In this case, Miss Cameron has wilfully flouted the Rule of which, she acknowledged, she was fully aware. The explanation given by her was unacceptable. There can be no excuse for that and the Committee agrees with Mr Ching that the breach is a serious one. Miss Cameron admitted that she had been riding in the modified vest for three years. Miss Cameron and any other jockey or jockeys who may be tempted to take it upon him or herself to ignore the Rules and make his or her own decision as to what form a vest should take have to be deterred from such action. The Committee believes that a deterrent element should be incorporated into Miss Cameron's penalty. It agrees with Mr Ching that a term of suspension is appropriate.

The Committee suspended Miss Cameron's licence from the close of racing on 18 November up to and including Friday, 1 December 2006, which is intended to be 2 riding days.

R G McKenzie

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 850.3

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: