Canterbury JC – 9 November 2005 – Race 11

hearingid: 2c03e8d77f85e33e19fae9a44170b09f

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 09/11/2005

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 9 November 2005 - Race 11

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 11, the Couplands Bakeries Mile, a charge of careless riding pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) was preferred by the Stipendiary Steward against Mr G Grylls

Following the running of Race 11, the Couplands Bakeries Mile, a charge of careless riding pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) was preferred by the Stipendiary Steward against Mr G Grylls, the rider of "Leigh Valley" (placed second by the Judge).

Mr Grylls did not admit the charge.

The allegation was that approximately 200 metres after the start, Mr Grylls, the rider of "Leigh Valley" allowed his mount to move inwards causing "Sand Sweeper" (JD Laking) to clip heels.

Mr Ching called evidence from Mr JD Laking who told the hearing that he was drawn No. 2 at the barrier and that his mount jumped well and went forward. Mr Grylls, drawn No. 3 at the barrier came across his line too quickly and as a consequence, "Sand Sweeper" clipped the heels of "Leigh Valley". He stated that Mr Grylls was not his own length and another horse length clear at the time that he came across his line.

Mr Grylls, in cross-examination, asked Mr Laking if Mr Laking's horse "skied" his head and came away from the rail. Mr Laking agreed that his horse did "sky" his head but that it was after the incident.

Mr Ching then showed the video film which was a head on view of the start which showed Mr Laking attempting to ease his mount back but with Mr Grylls' mount coming across whilst Mr Laking was on his forward movement. Mr Ching submitted that in his view, Mr Grylls did take Mr Laking's line.

During the course of the hearing, the Chairman asked to see another view of the film which was effectively the front straight side on camera. Mr Grylls asked Mr Ching if that particular camera was in fact, at that particular point of the race, looking backwards. Mr Ching acknowledged that was the case.

Mr Grylls further asked Mr Ching if it was the case that the whole field was coming across at the relevant time. Mr Ching responded that the whole field was coming across at that particular point of the race but that the actions of the remainder of the field did not affect Mr Grylls.

Mr Grylls, in a statement to the hearing, stated that he saw Mr Laking inside him and he felt that he had just gradually moved across his line and at the relevant moment, Mr Laking had gone out of sight for him. He stated that his movement was not a sudden movement making any form of tightening a sudden movement.

We have carefully considered all of the evidence. The mere fact that Mr Laking's mount clipped a heel is confirmation in itself that Mr Grylls was too close to him as he moved across his line. It was not a case of Mr Laking riding up on to the heels of Mr Grylls' mount. Mr Laking was doing his best to keep out of Mr Grylls' way as Mr Grylls came across.

That being the case, we are satisfied that Mr Grylls did ride carelessly. The charge is proved accordingly.

In submissions on penalty, Mr Ching stated that Mr Grylls is an experienced rider and that he made a misjudgement compromising Mr Laking. He described the action as "shaving" and stated that in his opinion that a suspension was called for notwithstanding that Mr Grylls has only appeared on one occasion in the last twelve months for careless riding when he was suspended for the period 5^th to 16^th March 2005.

Mr Grylls' level of carelessness may not have been at the higher end of the scale and indeed, Mr Ching described it as a misjudgement on his part.

Nevertheless, that misjudgement nearly had disastrous consequences. Mr Laking's mount clipped a heel and nearly went down. A misjudgement is carelessness.

We therefore must have regard to the issue of rider safety and the effects on "Sand Sweeper". Suspension, in our opinion, is the only penalty that can be properly considered in the circumstances.

In determining the level of penalty to be imposed, we are entitled to have regard to the status of the race. The starting point for interference in this instance, in our opinion, is a minimum of three weeks. Mr Grylls has a good record and is very experienced. He is entitled to some credit for that.

Mr Grylls informs us that he is accustomed to riding at all central districts and northern meetings.

In setting the penalty we take into account Mr Grylls' good record and Mr Ching's concession that the incident may have been no more than a misjudgement on Mr Gryll's part.

The penalty that we impose is a suspension of two weeks which will commence at the conclusion of racing on Saturday 13^th November 2005 until the conclusion of racing on Sunday 27^th November 2005.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d

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: