Otago RC – 6 April 2008 – Race 11

hearingid: 7b1dd7f354aa817a31b1d421afba6b1a

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 06/04/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Otago RC - 6 April 2008 - Race 11

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Mr Johnson the rider of WESTEND LADY in race 11 was charged with a breach of Rule 871(1)(d) in that at he allowed his mount to shift inwards causing TUSCANY ROSE to check and fall near the 300 metres.

Mr Johnson the rider of WESTEND LADY in race 11 was charged with a breach of Rule 871(1)(d) in that at he allowed his mount to shift inwards causing TUSCANY ROSE to check and fall near the 300 metres.

Mr Coles, stipendiary steward, first called Mr Moseley, the rider of TUSCANY ROSE, to give evidence.  Mr Moseley described the tightening he had received just after turning for home.  He stated that initially he thought this was as a consequence of movement from his inner, but after watching a replay of the incident on video, he was now of the belief that the pressure had come from his outside, namely Mr Johnson. He said the movement was sufficient for him to have clipped heels and as a consequence TUSCANY ROSE fell.  He said Ms Carston on MAGGIORE had moved outwards one horse width.  This was the first movement. However that horse had then straightened.  Then, he said, there was slight movement from his outside, in that Mr Johnson had shifted in 1/2 a horse width.  At that point, because of the tightening, TUSCANY ROSE clipped heels and fell.

Mr Coles then had Mr Davidson demonstrate the incident on the head-on video. He pointed to Mr Johnson having allowed WESTEND LADY to move inwards what he estimated to be 1 horse width.  At this time Mr Johnson was only 1/2 to 3/4 a length clear of Mr Moseley.  He said in his view Ms Carston did not cause the fall, as while she had moved out, she had straightened her horse and had not taken Mr Johnson’s running line.  There was contact. It was unclear, he said, with which horse TUSCANY ROSE had clipped heels.

Mr Coles stated there was undoubtedly outwards movement from Ms Carston but she was entitled to shift outwards towards TUSCANY ROSE if there was room to do so. He pointed out there was a gap between her mount and TUSCANY ROSE into which she had shifted.  He did not believe the movement from MAGGIORE had forced TUSCANY ROSE off its rightful line of running.  The movement that had led to the contact was the inwards movement from Mr Johnson.

Mr Johnson stated that he believed the movement outwards from Ms Carston had contributed to the fall.  In particular, he said the inside horse coming out had contributed to the first part of the tightening.  He said he had moved in only slightly and thought he had kept a fairly straight line.  He later reiterated that he accepted he had moved in slightly.  He thought Mr Moseley was falling back out at the time.  He was of the view Mr Moseley would have had enough room had Ms Carston not moved out.

Mr Coles in reply emphasised that while both the mounts of Ms Carston and Mr Johnson had moved about in the run home, Ms Carston was entitled to move out and she had straightened her mount and had not moved into Mr Moseley’s line.

Mr Johnson in reply stated Ms Carston had contributed to the incident.

We adjourned to consider the matter and returned to deliver an oral decision.  We indicated we would incorporate this into a fuller written decision, which we now do.  We found that Mr Johnson had permitted his mount to move in 1 horse width and in so doing had dictated the line of Mr Moseley and had come into contact with TUSCANY ROSE.  The consequence was that that horse fell.  There is no doubt that immediately prior to the incident Ms Carston has moved out 1 horse width.  But significantly, we believe her movement had ceased just prior to the horse TUSCANY ROSE falling.  We believe it was Mr Johnson’s movement into Mr Moseley’s running line when only a 1/2 to 3/4 of a length clear of Mr Moseley that has resulted in the horses clipping heels and TUSCANY ROSE falling.  We therefore find the charge of careless riding proved.

PENALTY

Mr Coles produced Mr Johnson’s record, which showed 3 suspensions since August 2007.  He described this record as reasonably good.  He stated that Mr Johnson’s actions had caused a fall and requested a suspension of 3 to 4 weeks.  He emphasised again that Ms Carston was entitled to move out and, in his view, she had not contributed to the fall.  She had not dictated Mr Moseley’s line outwards.

Upon being questioned by the Committee as to his record in 2008, Mr Johnson volunteered the information that he had been suspended at Wellington the previous day for careless riding.  He said the charge had arisen in similar circumstances, in that he had shifted ground in the home straight, and he had been suspended for 3 days.  This had been deferred and the last day of his suspension was 18 April. Mr Johnson was very frank with the Committee in his submission as to penalty.  He simply said “a horse has fallen”.  He accepted he had moved in but he re-iterated his belief that Ms Carston had contributed to the incident.  He expressed a preference for a fine plus a suspension rather than merely a suspension if this would reduce the term of the suspension.

In imposing penalty the Committee took into account Mr Johnson’s record, which considering the large number of rides Mr Johnson has, we believe to be as Mr Coles states “reasonably good”.  However, we must take into account the fact that Mr Johnson has been suspended for 3 days for a breach of this very rule, committed only yesterday.  We believe the breach to be mid-range but at the high end of that range. Mr Johnson has permitted his mount to move in 1 horse width.  A horse fell as a result of his carelessness.  We believe the matter can be dealt with by way of a fine and suspension for 2 weeks.  Mr Johnson is suspended from riding at the end of racing 18 April up to and including 3 May.  In determining the length of the suspension we take into account that this will include 3 premier days.  We also impose a fine of $1000. There should be no need, but we nevertheless remind Mr Johnson in no uncertain terms of his responsibilities under the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.  His actions have clearly compromised jockey safety on this occasion.

Geoff Hall                   Chairman

Glen Acklin                Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: dfed99064e204fc07abc7c92142ac8d3

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 11

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: c5e5b9a5059895d3cc2a0d786bf1730f

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 06/04/2008

meet_title: Otago RC - 6 April 2008

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: otago-rc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Otago RC