Archive Decision

This decision has been migrated from the JCA website. Information is accurate but formatting may differ from contemporary decisions. Please contact us for any further enquiries.

Oamaru JC – 24 August 2006 –

ID: JCA21251

Hearing Type:
Old Hearing

Rules:
871.1.d

Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing

Decision: --

Mr Ching, stipendiary steward, alleged that Mr Ormsby committed a breach of rule 871(1)(d), careless riding



--

Mr Ching, stipendiary steward, alleged that Mr Ormsby committed a breach of rule 871(1)(d), careless riding, in that he allowed his mount JUSTA PASS to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear causing interference to DURANGO KID (Mr Todd), OMAGH LAD (Mr Bates) and JAM TART (A Porritt) near the 1000 metres.

--

--

Mr Ching had Mr Davidson, assistant stipendiary steward, demonstrate on 3 videos (head-on, side-on and Trackside) that Mr Ormsby, who had drawn the outside stall, gradually came across the field and eventually crowded Mr Todd as they entered the first bend. This caused a chain reaction, with the mounts of Mr Bates and Ms Porritt receiving interference.

--

--

Mr Todd gave evidence that Mr Ormsby had pushed him on to Mr Callaway who was racing on his inner. He said he heard 2 jockeys on his inner yell out to give them room but he could not do so as his line was dictated by Mr Ormsby. In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Todd stated he had not called out to Mr Ormsby. Mr Todd stated that Mr Ormsby was at best one length clear when he came across and definitely not his length and one more. He said Mr Ormsby had forced him on to Mr Callaway's heels. Mr Hazlett, who appeared on behalf of Mr Ormsby, asked Mr Todd if his mount was racing erratically. Mr Todd agreed it was. He said his horse was pulling and he had tried to gather his horse in response to the tightening he was experiencing. He said his horse would not come back to him.

--

--

Mr Hazlett said the 3 video angles were bad. None were clear. He said Mr Ormsby should not be held accountable for Mr Callaway's actions, but in response to a question from Mr Hazlett, Mr Todd said that this interference had occurred prior to the incident in question. Nonetheless, Mr Hazlett said Mr Todd's horse was racing erratically because of the earlier interference by Mr Callaway. He pointed out that the head of Mr Ormsby's horse was angled to the outside. This he said supported his assertion that Mr Ormsby was trying to stay off Mr Todd. While he agreed Mr Ormsby was drifting across, Mr Todd's horse was a contributing factor. He concluded by pointing out Mr Ormsby had had 2 or 3 looks left and was not riding in a careless or aggressive manner.

--

--

In reply Mr Ching said Mr Ormsby had dictated the line of Mr Todd in that he had moved from 4 to 2 wide and, while the fact that Mr Todd's horse was over-racing was a factor, that horse was racing in a true line. He repeated that Mr Ormsby had moved across when not sufficiently clear.

--

--

We accept the video angles are not the best, partly due to the fact that the incident has occurred on the apex of the first bend. The head-on provides the most assistance. We are satisfied from the videos and, in particular, the clear evidence of Mr Todd that Mr Ormsby did allow his horse to drift inwards from 4 to 2 wide when not his length and another length clear of Mr Todd. The consequence was that Mr Todd ran out of room and had to check his horse. The incident occurred at the apex of the corner and caused resulting interference to Mr Bates and Ms Porritt. We accept, as Mr Hazlett has stated, that the incident was not premeditated and that Mr Ormsby was not riding in an aggressive manner, and that Mr Todd's horse was racing unkindly, but we find that Mr Todd's horse's line was dictated by inwards movement from Mr Ormsby. In these circumstances we find the charge proved.

--

--

PENALTY

--

--

We first look at the nature of the incident. Mr Ormsby we accept that you merely permitted your horse to drift across and we have already accepted that we don?t believe there was any intention or any aggressive riding on your part. We tend to perhaps take a half-way point between what Mr Hazlett is saying and Mr Ching is saying with respect to the gravity of the incident. We don?t view it as being quite at the bottom end, but we also don?t see it as being quite at the middle position of the range as well. It was at the apex of a corner and the consequences could have been worse than what they were. We also take into account the fact that you do have quite a lengthy list of breaches of this rule but we intend rather to put that to one side and take on board what Mr Hazlett has said. You?ve spent 4 months with him, that he has taken an interest in you, and it is clear from what he has said that you are responding to his tutelage. And we are prepared to accept also his statement or assurance to us that you have matured as a rider. And again we emphasise that it was simply permitting your horse to drift across. We are aware that were we to suspend you for three days that this would include a premier day and we don?t believe that this incident merits denying you the opportunity to ride on a premier day.

--

--

We suspend you for 2 days from end of racing on the 26th up to and including the 31st of August and you are also fined the sum of $250. And can we also encourage you to listen to Mr Hazlett and continue with the progress that you are obviously making. Thank you.

--

--

G Hall, Chairman

--

--

R Acklin, Member

Decision Date: 24/08/2006

Publish Date: 24/08/2006

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: 83af0f135c8b5de496125206b5bda4f0


informantnumber:


horsename:


hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing


startdate: 24/08/2006


newcharge:


plea:


penaltyrequired:


decisiondate: no date provided


hearing_title: Oamaru JC - 24 August 2006 -


charge:


facts:


appealdecision:


isappeal:


submissionsfordecision:


reasonsfordecision:


Decision:

--

Mr Ching, stipendiary steward, alleged that Mr Ormsby committed a breach of rule 871(1)(d), careless riding



--

Mr Ching, stipendiary steward, alleged that Mr Ormsby committed a breach of rule 871(1)(d), careless riding, in that he allowed his mount JUSTA PASS to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear causing interference to DURANGO KID (Mr Todd), OMAGH LAD (Mr Bates) and JAM TART (A Porritt) near the 1000 metres.

--

--

Mr Ching had Mr Davidson, assistant stipendiary steward, demonstrate on 3 videos (head-on, side-on and Trackside) that Mr Ormsby, who had drawn the outside stall, gradually came across the field and eventually crowded Mr Todd as they entered the first bend. This caused a chain reaction, with the mounts of Mr Bates and Ms Porritt receiving interference.

--

--

Mr Todd gave evidence that Mr Ormsby had pushed him on to Mr Callaway who was racing on his inner. He said he heard 2 jockeys on his inner yell out to give them room but he could not do so as his line was dictated by Mr Ormsby. In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Todd stated he had not called out to Mr Ormsby. Mr Todd stated that Mr Ormsby was at best one length clear when he came across and definitely not his length and one more. He said Mr Ormsby had forced him on to Mr Callaway's heels. Mr Hazlett, who appeared on behalf of Mr Ormsby, asked Mr Todd if his mount was racing erratically. Mr Todd agreed it was. He said his horse was pulling and he had tried to gather his horse in response to the tightening he was experiencing. He said his horse would not come back to him.

--

--

Mr Hazlett said the 3 video angles were bad. None were clear. He said Mr Ormsby should not be held accountable for Mr Callaway's actions, but in response to a question from Mr Hazlett, Mr Todd said that this interference had occurred prior to the incident in question. Nonetheless, Mr Hazlett said Mr Todd's horse was racing erratically because of the earlier interference by Mr Callaway. He pointed out that the head of Mr Ormsby's horse was angled to the outside. This he said supported his assertion that Mr Ormsby was trying to stay off Mr Todd. While he agreed Mr Ormsby was drifting across, Mr Todd's horse was a contributing factor. He concluded by pointing out Mr Ormsby had had 2 or 3 looks left and was not riding in a careless or aggressive manner.

--

--

In reply Mr Ching said Mr Ormsby had dictated the line of Mr Todd in that he had moved from 4 to 2 wide and, while the fact that Mr Todd's horse was over-racing was a factor, that horse was racing in a true line. He repeated that Mr Ormsby had moved across when not sufficiently clear.

--

--

We accept the video angles are not the best, partly due to the fact that the incident has occurred on the apex of the first bend. The head-on provides the most assistance. We are satisfied from the videos and, in particular, the clear evidence of Mr Todd that Mr Ormsby did allow his horse to drift inwards from 4 to 2 wide when not his length and another length clear of Mr Todd. The consequence was that Mr Todd ran out of room and had to check his horse. The incident occurred at the apex of the corner and caused resulting interference to Mr Bates and Ms Porritt. We accept, as Mr Hazlett has stated, that the incident was not premeditated and that Mr Ormsby was not riding in an aggressive manner, and that Mr Todd's horse was racing unkindly, but we find that Mr Todd's horse's line was dictated by inwards movement from Mr Ormsby. In these circumstances we find the charge proved.

--

--

PENALTY

--

--

We first look at the nature of the incident. Mr Ormsby we accept that you merely permitted your horse to drift across and we have already accepted that we don?t believe there was any intention or any aggressive riding on your part. We tend to perhaps take a half-way point between what Mr Hazlett is saying and Mr Ching is saying with respect to the gravity of the incident. We don?t view it as being quite at the bottom end, but we also don?t see it as being quite at the middle position of the range as well. It was at the apex of a corner and the consequences could have been worse than what they were. We also take into account the fact that you do have quite a lengthy list of breaches of this rule but we intend rather to put that to one side and take on board what Mr Hazlett has said. You?ve spent 4 months with him, that he has taken an interest in you, and it is clear from what he has said that you are responding to his tutelage. And we are prepared to accept also his statement or assurance to us that you have matured as a rider. And again we emphasise that it was simply permitting your horse to drift across. We are aware that were we to suspend you for three days that this would include a premier day and we don?t believe that this incident merits denying you the opportunity to ride on a premier day.

--

--

We suspend you for 2 days from end of racing on the 26th up to and including the 31st of August and you are also fined the sum of $250. And can we also encourage you to listen to Mr Hazlett and continue with the progress that you are obviously making. Thank you.

--

--

G Hall, Chairman

--

--

R Acklin, Member


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: