Hawkes Bay Racing 23 April 2011 – R8
ID: JCA16828
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Hawkes Bay RI - 23 April 2011
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
PWilliams
Meet Committee Member 2:
NMcCutcheon
Race Date:
2011/04/23
Race Number:
R8
Decision:
The charge of careless riding was found proven.
Penalty:
Mr Holmes was suspended from the close of racing on Saturday April 30th up to and including racing on Saturday May 7th. This equates to 5 national riding days.
Charge:
Following Race 8, the Group 3 Tumu ITM Hawke’s Bay Gold Cup , an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N Goodwin against licensed rider Mr P Holmes alleging a breach of rule 638(1)(d). The information alleged that P Holmes rode carelessly over the final stages when allowing his mount to shift when being ridden with vigour resulting in him hitting the rail and becoming dislodged.
Rule 638(1) (d) states: - A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
Facts:
Mr Goodwin said this was an unusual charge of careless riding in that Mr Holmes had not caused a check to any other runner. He began by playing the head-on film of the final stages of the race which showed Mr Holmes (SEAFLYTE) racing in a position adjacent to the running rail. He then let his mount drift out wider on the track approximately three horse-widths. The Stewards’ were not concerned about this outward movement as it did not affect any other runners. SEAFLYTE then commenced to move back inwards towards the running rail when being ridden with vigour. Mr Goodwin described this as a gradual movement and said that Mr Holmes made no attempt to straighten his mount and was careless in not doing so. The side-on view showed Mr Holmes riding strongly with his head down and Mr Goodwin said that a more prudent rider would have been aware of the unfolding situation and would therefore have straightened their mount before hitting the running rail. Simply put Mr Holmes was not looking where he was going.
The essence of Mr Holmes’ defence was that the incident was an accident with the horse being to blame not the rider. He said SEAFLYTE had not been concentrating right from start and had in fact shied at things as he made his way to the starting gates. He also said that the horse had shied at a green box to the inside of the running rail at an earlier stage of the race. Mr Holmes said that the trainer, Mr Hillis, had told him that SEAFLYTE had a bad habit of not concentrating.
Over the concluding stages SEAFLYTE ducked in sharply when coming alongside the black-painted portion of the running rail. Mr Holmes said this happened because SEAFLYTE mistook that part for a gap in the fence. In relation to the comment about him not looking Mr Holmes explained that he had a good hold of the horse and although his head was low he was looking between the horse’s ears. This was his normal riding style and in a riding carer of 10 years he has never had this happen to him before.
Following questions from the committee Mr Holmes acknowledged that he was aware of SEAFLYTE being on an inward movement towards the rail and he was also aware of his proximity to the rail. When asked why he still hit the horse at that point he said that he thought he had straightened up for half a stride and that he would then follow the rail.
Submissions for Decision:
See above.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee had careful regard to the evidence of both parties. Mr Holmes maintained that his horse ducked in sharply when it came up alongside the black-painted portion of the running rail believing that to be a gap. In the opinion of the committee this inward movement was a gradual one rather than a sudden event as described by Mr Holmes. In relation to the colour of the running rail at that point the films clearly showed there was more than one section of the rail painted black and that SEAFLYTE had not run inwards while passing the previous sections. We also did not find any evidence to support Mr Holmes’ assertion that SEAFLYTE had shied at a green box during the running of the race.
Riders have an obligation in races to keep their mounts straight to prevent interference. This was an unusual situation in that SEAFLYTE did not interfere with any another horse or rider but by colliding with the rail and dislodging its rider it certainly interfered with its own chances in the race.
The committee accepts that, on occasions, horses run erratically but riders are expected to show some corrective action when this occurs. We found no evidence to show Mr Holmes taking action to straighten his mount’s line of running before making contact with the running rail despite SEAFLYTE running inwards on an acute angle. In fact when he was almost touching the running rail Mr Holmes continued to use the drawn whip.
Mr Holmes had not ridden SEAFLYTE prior to this race but he had been told by Mr Hillis that he had a habit of not concentrating. This should have made Mr Holmes more attentive to any sideways movement from the horse.
"Careless" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as: “Not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors. Showing or caused by a lack of attention”.
In the opinion of the Judicial Committee Mr Holmes did not show sufficient attention to his position in the race and did not respond appropriately when SEAFLYTE ran inwards. We would expect an experienced rider such as Mr Holmes to have made some attempt to correct his line of running.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Goodwin in making submissions on penalty said that this was a unique situation in that Mr Holmes had caused interference to his own chances in a Group 3 race. He said that SEAFLYTE had a good chance of winning or running a place in the race. Mr Holmes’ riding record showed two careless riding charges in the previous 12 month period, one in December at Waikato and the other in June 2010 at Whangarei. The Stewards’ submission was for a suspension of not less than five days.
Mr Holmes maintained that this had been a freak accident and he had not been careless. He advised the committee of riding engagements up to and including Saturday 30 April.
Reasons for Penalty:
In setting penalty the committee took into account all of the submissions put before it. Mr Holmes lost any opportunity to gain a stakes-bearing place in a $70,000 Group 3 race when being dislodged towards the end of the race due to his own careless riding. It was the opinion of the committee that under these circumstances a suspension of his rider’s licence was an appropriate penalty.
In determining the length of suspension we adopted a starting point of 5 days. We had regard to Mr Holmes’ good riding record and the fact that he lost out on the rider’s percentage of stake money he would probably have earned. The only mitigating factor may have been the horse’s racing manners. Balancing these factors against the loss to the owners in a Group 3 race and the betting public we imposed a five day penalty.
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: a70fde38d05b70671ec9d16f9b7fad6e
informantnumber: 5346
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 14/04/2011
hearing_title: Hawkes Bay Racing 23 April 2011 - R8
charge:
Following Race 8, the Group 3 Tumu ITM Hawke’s Bay Gold Cup , an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N Goodwin against licensed rider Mr P Holmes alleging a breach of rule 638(1)(d). The information alleged that P Holmes rode carelessly over the final stages when allowing his mount to shift when being ridden with vigour resulting in him hitting the rail and becoming dislodged.
Rule 638(1) (d) states: - A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
facts:
Mr Goodwin said this was an unusual charge of careless riding in that Mr Holmes had not caused a check to any other runner. He began by playing the head-on film of the final stages of the race which showed Mr Holmes (SEAFLYTE) racing in a position adjacent to the running rail. He then let his mount drift out wider on the track approximately three horse-widths. The Stewards’ were not concerned about this outward movement as it did not affect any other runners. SEAFLYTE then commenced to move back inwards towards the running rail when being ridden with vigour. Mr Goodwin described this as a gradual movement and said that Mr Holmes made no attempt to straighten his mount and was careless in not doing so. The side-on view showed Mr Holmes riding strongly with his head down and Mr Goodwin said that a more prudent rider would have been aware of the unfolding situation and would therefore have straightened their mount before hitting the running rail. Simply put Mr Holmes was not looking where he was going.
The essence of Mr Holmes’ defence was that the incident was an accident with the horse being to blame not the rider. He said SEAFLYTE had not been concentrating right from start and had in fact shied at things as he made his way to the starting gates. He also said that the horse had shied at a green box to the inside of the running rail at an earlier stage of the race. Mr Holmes said that the trainer, Mr Hillis, had told him that SEAFLYTE had a bad habit of not concentrating.
Over the concluding stages SEAFLYTE ducked in sharply when coming alongside the black-painted portion of the running rail. Mr Holmes said this happened because SEAFLYTE mistook that part for a gap in the fence. In relation to the comment about him not looking Mr Holmes explained that he had a good hold of the horse and although his head was low he was looking between the horse’s ears. This was his normal riding style and in a riding carer of 10 years he has never had this happen to him before.
Following questions from the committee Mr Holmes acknowledged that he was aware of SEAFLYTE being on an inward movement towards the rail and he was also aware of his proximity to the rail. When asked why he still hit the horse at that point he said that he thought he had straightened up for half a stride and that he would then follow the rail.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
See above.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee had careful regard to the evidence of both parties. Mr Holmes maintained that his horse ducked in sharply when it came up alongside the black-painted portion of the running rail believing that to be a gap. In the opinion of the committee this inward movement was a gradual one rather than a sudden event as described by Mr Holmes. In relation to the colour of the running rail at that point the films clearly showed there was more than one section of the rail painted black and that SEAFLYTE had not run inwards while passing the previous sections. We also did not find any evidence to support Mr Holmes’ assertion that SEAFLYTE had shied at a green box during the running of the race.
Riders have an obligation in races to keep their mounts straight to prevent interference. This was an unusual situation in that SEAFLYTE did not interfere with any another horse or rider but by colliding with the rail and dislodging its rider it certainly interfered with its own chances in the race.
The committee accepts that, on occasions, horses run erratically but riders are expected to show some corrective action when this occurs. We found no evidence to show Mr Holmes taking action to straighten his mount’s line of running before making contact with the running rail despite SEAFLYTE running inwards on an acute angle. In fact when he was almost touching the running rail Mr Holmes continued to use the drawn whip.
Mr Holmes had not ridden SEAFLYTE prior to this race but he had been told by Mr Hillis that he had a habit of not concentrating. This should have made Mr Holmes more attentive to any sideways movement from the horse.
"Careless" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as: “Not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors. Showing or caused by a lack of attention”.
In the opinion of the Judicial Committee Mr Holmes did not show sufficient attention to his position in the race and did not respond appropriately when SEAFLYTE ran inwards. We would expect an experienced rider such as Mr Holmes to have made some attempt to correct his line of running.
Decision:
The charge of careless riding was found proven.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Goodwin in making submissions on penalty said that this was a unique situation in that Mr Holmes had caused interference to his own chances in a Group 3 race. He said that SEAFLYTE had a good chance of winning or running a place in the race. Mr Holmes’ riding record showed two careless riding charges in the previous 12 month period, one in December at Waikato and the other in June 2010 at Whangarei. The Stewards’ submission was for a suspension of not less than five days.
Mr Holmes maintained that this had been a freak accident and he had not been careless. He advised the committee of riding engagements up to and including Saturday 30 April.
reasonsforpenalty:
In setting penalty the committee took into account all of the submissions put before it. Mr Holmes lost any opportunity to gain a stakes-bearing place in a $70,000 Group 3 race when being dislodged towards the end of the race due to his own careless riding. It was the opinion of the committee that under these circumstances a suspension of his rider’s licence was an appropriate penalty.
In determining the length of suspension we adopted a starting point of 5 days. We had regard to Mr Holmes’ good riding record and the fact that he lost out on the rider’s percentage of stake money he would probably have earned. The only mitigating factor may have been the horse’s racing manners. Balancing these factors against the loss to the owners in a Group 3 race and the betting public we imposed a five day penalty.
penalty:
Mr Holmes was suspended from the close of racing on Saturday April 30th up to and including racing on Saturday May 7th. This equates to 5 national riding days.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr P Holmes - Licensed Jockey
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: e081f6865f1bf5af218823d45ac042c1
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 46210a62014c34c9f152970b1ec52a7d
meet_expapproval: approved
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 23/04/2011
meet_title: Hawkes Bay RI - 23 April 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "kmprice": 210.80000000000001, "MemberID": "NMoffatt", "Member": "", "KMs": "340", "OtherExpenses": "0", "Total": "210.8", "MemberRole": "Chair ", "Approved": "on"}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: hawkes-bay-ri
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: PWilliams
meet_pm2: NMcCutcheon
name: Hawkes Bay RI