Canterbury R 17 December 2010 – R 10 (heard Kumara on 8 January 2011)
ID: JCA22226
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 17 December 2010
Meet Chair:
KHales
Meet Committee Member 1:
JPhelan
Race Date:
2010/12/17
Race Number:
R 10
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: R L Neal, Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: J G Sargent, Licensed Trainer (Class A)
Information No: 5342
Meeting: Canterbury Racing (heard Kumara 8 January 2011)
Date: 17 December 2010
Venue: Riccarton Park, Christchurch
Race: 10
Rule No: 614 (2)
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman – K G Hales, Committee Member
Plea: Admitted
Also present: Mr A J Carston
FACTS:
Following the running of Race 10, Armourguard Rating 70, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr R L Neal, against Licensed Trainer, Mr J G Sargent, alleging a breach of Rule 614 (2) in that Mr Sargent, as the trainer of UP SPIRITS and SUAZA in the race, he presented those horses at the inspection area incorrectly saddled.
The information was filed with the Registrar on the raceday and served at the meeting of Kumara Racing Club at Kumara on Saturday, 8 January 2011, on Mr A J Carston, the authorised agent of Mr Sargent and foreman of Mr Sargent’s Riccarton stables.
Mr Carston was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated, firstly, that he was authorised by Mr Sargent to represent him at the hearing of the information and, secondly, that Mr Sargent admitted the breach.
Rule 614 provides as follows:
(2) A person must not be neglectful or careless in saddling a horse.
SUBMISSION(S):
Mr Neal informed the Committee that Mr Sargent was the trainer of UP SPIRITS and SUAZA, runners in Race 10 at the meeting of Canterbury Racing on 17 December 2010. UP SPIRITS was No. 8 and SUAZA was No. 10 in the official racebook.
Mr M G Humphries, Assistant Stipendiary Steward, told the Committee that he was responsible for checking the gear on the raceday. He was stationed just as the horses entered the parade ring. The first horse that passed him was No.10, wearing a lugging bit, blinkers and a tongue tie. Both horses were recorded as wearing those items of gear. When Mr Sargent’s second horse came by, it should have had a lead bag. There was no lead bag. At the same time, his attention was drawn to a problem with checking of the brands. Mr Carston then realised that the wrong saddlecloth numbers were on the two horses. The horses were returned to the stabling area and the saddlecloth numbers changed.
In the birdcage, the jockeys on mounting noticed that the saddles were on the wrong horses. Miss D S Johnson (rider of UP SPIRITS No.8) noticed that her saddle was on SUAZA (No.10) and vice versa. Mr Sargent then asked Mr Humphries if the saddles could be changed at the start. Mr Humphries said that he agreed and spoke to both riders to make sure that they were aware of what was required. He also informed the starter.
Mr Humphries said that, following the running of the race, both horses returned to scale wearing the correct saddles and carrying the correct weight.
Mr Carston said that he was happy to admit the breach in that the wrong saddlecloth numbers had been placed on the two horses. He said that the horses had been saddled and the first horse (UP SPIRITS) had made it into the parade ring. When the next horse (SUAZA) was led in, he realised there had been a mistake. Mr Humphries had told him that the lead bag was on the wrong horse and the saddles needed to be changed. Mr Carston said that he was “flustered” and took the horses back and did as he had been directed to by Mr Humphries - that is to say, change the saddles. When he got the horses back to the birdcage, he realised that the wrong saddle was on SUAZA.
Mr Humphries denied that he had directed Mr Carston to change the saddles on the two horses.
Mr Neal submitted that it was not material what Mr Humphries had said. It was the duty of a trainer, at all times, to present horses correctly saddled. It was unfortunate that those in the inspection area did not detect that the horses were incorrectly numbered. It was only through the vigilance of Mr Humphries, in checking the lead bag, that a potential incident was avoided. UP SPIRITS had finished 2nd in the race and SUAZA 3rd, Mr Neal said.
DECISION:
The charge was found proved.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:
Mr Neal referred to penalties that had been imposed under Rule 614 (2) and its predecessor. Fines had varied from $350 to $600 for horses incorrectly saddled. He referred specifically to the case of G in 2008. The trainer in that case had two horses in the race and it was detected at the inspection area that the horses had on the wrong saddles. That trainer, who had an unblemished record, was fined $300. Mr Neal accepted that Mr Sargent also had an excellent record. A similar fine would be appropriate, Mr Neal submitted. Mr Neal stressed that Mr Sargent was present at the race meeting and it was his obligation to ensure that the horses were correctly saddled.
Mr Neal acknowledged the pressures that a trainer was under on a raceday
Mr Carston said that Miss Johnson had gone first to weigh out for UP SPIRITS but had been detained by the media and came out second. The numbers were collected from a different point, some distance away.
He submitted that the primary breach was that of incorrect saddlecloths, for which the usual fine was $100. This was a simple error that had been blown out of proportion, he said.
REASONS:
In determining penalty, the Committee took into account, as mitigating factors, Mr Sargent’s admission of the breach and his previous excellent record, which was acknowledged by Mr Neal.
The Committee did not accept Mr Carston’s submission that it was a simple case of incorrect saddlecloths. The breach was compounded by Mr Carston’s not rectifying the original error at the second attempt when the saddles on the horses were switched instead of just the saddlecloth numbers. The Committee was not impressed with Mr Carston’s attempting to place the blame for that on Mr Humphries. The ultimate responsibility, and it is a heavy one, must always rest on the trainer to get the saddling correct. Mr Carston was given the opportunity, through Mr Humphries’ vigilance, to get it right the second time but did not do so. The Committee accepts that trainers are under pressure on a raceday but that is no excuse for making mistakes in the saddling process. In this particular case, the potential for a serious incident was very real. The Committee commends Mr Humphries for his vigilance and his proficiency in handling the situation and avoiding a serious incident.
The Committee noted Mr Neal’s submission as to the penalty in the case of G. The present breach sits, in the Committee’s view, somewhere between incorrect saddlecloths and omitting a lead bag, the usual fine for the latter being no less than $500.
Taking into account the serious nature of the breach and allowing for the mitigating factors referred to, the Committee decided that the appropriate penalty was a fine of $300.
PENALTY:
Mr Sargent was fined the sum of $300.
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: 9f82742d41dbe6369ab8d8e108009ee2
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 17/12/2010
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Canterbury R 17 December 2010 - R 10 (heard Kumara on 8 January 2011)
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: R L Neal, Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: J G Sargent, Licensed Trainer (Class A)
Information No: 5342
Meeting: Canterbury Racing (heard Kumara 8 January 2011)
Date: 17 December 2010
Venue: Riccarton Park, Christchurch
Race: 10
Rule No: 614 (2)
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman – K G Hales, Committee Member
Plea: Admitted
Also present: Mr A J Carston
FACTS:
Following the running of Race 10, Armourguard Rating 70, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr R L Neal, against Licensed Trainer, Mr J G Sargent, alleging a breach of Rule 614 (2) in that Mr Sargent, as the trainer of UP SPIRITS and SUAZA in the race, he presented those horses at the inspection area incorrectly saddled.
The information was filed with the Registrar on the raceday and served at the meeting of Kumara Racing Club at Kumara on Saturday, 8 January 2011, on Mr A J Carston, the authorised agent of Mr Sargent and foreman of Mr Sargent’s Riccarton stables.
Mr Carston was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated, firstly, that he was authorised by Mr Sargent to represent him at the hearing of the information and, secondly, that Mr Sargent admitted the breach.
Rule 614 provides as follows:
(2) A person must not be neglectful or careless in saddling a horse.
SUBMISSION(S):
Mr Neal informed the Committee that Mr Sargent was the trainer of UP SPIRITS and SUAZA, runners in Race 10 at the meeting of Canterbury Racing on 17 December 2010. UP SPIRITS was No. 8 and SUAZA was No. 10 in the official racebook.
Mr M G Humphries, Assistant Stipendiary Steward, told the Committee that he was responsible for checking the gear on the raceday. He was stationed just as the horses entered the parade ring. The first horse that passed him was No.10, wearing a lugging bit, blinkers and a tongue tie. Both horses were recorded as wearing those items of gear. When Mr Sargent’s second horse came by, it should have had a lead bag. There was no lead bag. At the same time, his attention was drawn to a problem with checking of the brands. Mr Carston then realised that the wrong saddlecloth numbers were on the two horses. The horses were returned to the stabling area and the saddlecloth numbers changed.
In the birdcage, the jockeys on mounting noticed that the saddles were on the wrong horses. Miss D S Johnson (rider of UP SPIRITS No.8) noticed that her saddle was on SUAZA (No.10) and vice versa. Mr Sargent then asked Mr Humphries if the saddles could be changed at the start. Mr Humphries said that he agreed and spoke to both riders to make sure that they were aware of what was required. He also informed the starter.
Mr Humphries said that, following the running of the race, both horses returned to scale wearing the correct saddles and carrying the correct weight.
Mr Carston said that he was happy to admit the breach in that the wrong saddlecloth numbers had been placed on the two horses. He said that the horses had been saddled and the first horse (UP SPIRITS) had made it into the parade ring. When the next horse (SUAZA) was led in, he realised there had been a mistake. Mr Humphries had told him that the lead bag was on the wrong horse and the saddles needed to be changed. Mr Carston said that he was “flustered” and took the horses back and did as he had been directed to by Mr Humphries - that is to say, change the saddles. When he got the horses back to the birdcage, he realised that the wrong saddle was on SUAZA.
Mr Humphries denied that he had directed Mr Carston to change the saddles on the two horses.
Mr Neal submitted that it was not material what Mr Humphries had said. It was the duty of a trainer, at all times, to present horses correctly saddled. It was unfortunate that those in the inspection area did not detect that the horses were incorrectly numbered. It was only through the vigilance of Mr Humphries, in checking the lead bag, that a potential incident was avoided. UP SPIRITS had finished 2nd in the race and SUAZA 3rd, Mr Neal said.
DECISION:
The charge was found proved.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:
Mr Neal referred to penalties that had been imposed under Rule 614 (2) and its predecessor. Fines had varied from $350 to $600 for horses incorrectly saddled. He referred specifically to the case of G in 2008. The trainer in that case had two horses in the race and it was detected at the inspection area that the horses had on the wrong saddles. That trainer, who had an unblemished record, was fined $300. Mr Neal accepted that Mr Sargent also had an excellent record. A similar fine would be appropriate, Mr Neal submitted. Mr Neal stressed that Mr Sargent was present at the race meeting and it was his obligation to ensure that the horses were correctly saddled.
Mr Neal acknowledged the pressures that a trainer was under on a raceday
Mr Carston said that Miss Johnson had gone first to weigh out for UP SPIRITS but had been detained by the media and came out second. The numbers were collected from a different point, some distance away.
He submitted that the primary breach was that of incorrect saddlecloths, for which the usual fine was $100. This was a simple error that had been blown out of proportion, he said.
REASONS:
In determining penalty, the Committee took into account, as mitigating factors, Mr Sargent’s admission of the breach and his previous excellent record, which was acknowledged by Mr Neal.
The Committee did not accept Mr Carston’s submission that it was a simple case of incorrect saddlecloths. The breach was compounded by Mr Carston’s not rectifying the original error at the second attempt when the saddles on the horses were switched instead of just the saddlecloth numbers. The Committee was not impressed with Mr Carston’s attempting to place the blame for that on Mr Humphries. The ultimate responsibility, and it is a heavy one, must always rest on the trainer to get the saddling correct. Mr Carston was given the opportunity, through Mr Humphries’ vigilance, to get it right the second time but did not do so. The Committee accepts that trainers are under pressure on a raceday but that is no excuse for making mistakes in the saddling process. In this particular case, the potential for a serious incident was very real. The Committee commends Mr Humphries for his vigilance and his proficiency in handling the situation and avoiding a serious incident.
The Committee noted Mr Neal’s submission as to the penalty in the case of G. The present breach sits, in the Committee’s view, somewhere between incorrect saddlecloths and omitting a lead bag, the usual fine for the latter being no less than $500.
Taking into account the serious nature of the breach and allowing for the mitigating factors referred to, the Committee decided that the appropriate penalty was a fine of $300.
PENALTY:
Mr Sargent was fined the sum of $300.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 614(2)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 43c1392abae1161a50f2e121661b294f
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 24108e0b939e1de753d02b7f2009ad08
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 17/12/2010
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 17 December 2010
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: KHales
meet_pm1: JPhelan
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury Racing