R Tauranga 23 September 2015 – R 8 (adjourned hearing heard on 14 October 2015 at Avondale) – Chair, Mr A Godsalve
ID: JCA23107
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Decision:
RACING TAURANGA 23 SEPTEMBER 2015 – Race 8
An Adjourned Hearing heard at Avondale Racecourse, 11am Wednesday 14 October 2015
Committee: Mr A Godsalve (Chair) - Mr A Dooley (Committee Member)
Information No: A4391
Informant: Mr A Coles, Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mrs T Thornton, Class A Rider
Appearing for Mrs Thornton: Mr D Alderslade
Persons Present: Mr W Robinson, Stipendiary Steward, Mr L Magorrian, Apprentice Rider
Rule: 638(1)(d)
Charge: Careless Riding
Plea: Denied
Evidence:
Following the running of Race 8, the GARTSHORE INTERIORS 1600, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Coles, alleged that Mrs T Thornton, riding EDEN ROSE near the 300 allowed her mount to shift out when not clear of PINZ CHARMING, ridden by Ms L McGregor, which clipped a heel and fell.
Rule 638(1)(d) provides: ‘A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless’.
As this charge was of a relatively serious nature, Mrs Thornton’s request on the day to have the matter adjourned while she gained some advice was granted. Mrs Thornton advised the Committee on the day that she did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
The matter was adjourned to be heard at 11am on Wednesday 14th October prior to the Avondale racemeeting that day.
Mrs Thornton was present at the hearing and advised the Committee that she would be represented by Mr D Alderslade. Mrs Thornton re-affirmed her wish to not admit this breach.
Mr Coles opened the case for the Informant and advised the Committee that he would at that stage, be intending to call Ms L McGregor as a witness. However, later in the hearing Mr Coles advised that he would not in fact require Ms McGregor to appear.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Coles stated that ‘careless’ as it applied to the thoroughbred racing industry simply meant ‘making an error of judgement’ and did not include incompetent or reckless riding.
Mr Coles advised the Committee that on the day of this incident Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson had been on duty with him, however as that person was currently on leave he had asked Mr W Robinson to assist with the hearing. Mr Robinson was then asked to interpret the available films from the day in question.
Mr Robinson identified the 5 horses and riders which had taken part in the race in question. He identified Mrs Thornton riding EDEN ROSE, with Ms McGregor riding PINZ CHARMING and Apprentice Rider, L Magorrian, riding TRIUMPH behind Mrs Thornton.
Mr Alderslade had requested Mr Robinson to identify Mr Magorrian as he would be later called to give evidence.
Using the head-on film Mr Robinson stated that as the field entered the final straight Mrs Thornton had allowed her mount to shift outwards at least 2 horse widths before looking inside her and then attempting to straighten her horse. Mr Robinson added that by that time, unfortunately PINZ CHARMING had clipped the heels of EDEN ROSE and fallen. Mr Robinson said that there had been no movement from the two horses outside EDEN ROSE during this incident. Referring to the two horses behind Mrs Thornton as she commenced to shift out, Mr Robinson stated that it was clear both of them were attempting to improve into the available gap, and that Ms McGregor always had an advantage over Mr Magorrian. Referring to the side-on film, Mr Robinson demonstrated that at no time during the outwards movement by EDEN ROSE was there the required distance between that horse and PINZ CHARMING. Mr Robinson added that there must be a clear 2 lengths clearance before a horse can shift in or outwards, that is, one length and another horse’s length clearance. He said that riders cannot shift ground unless that clearance is in existence. However, Mr Robinson added that on many occasions horses do shift ground and get away with, possibly even 9 times out of 10, however this time Mrs Thornton was not clear and that is why she had been charged.
At this time Mr Alderslade asked Mr Coles whether Mrs Thornton would still have been charged if Ms McGregor’s mount had not fallen. In response, Mr Coles stated that it depended on the circumstances. He said on this occasion it was apparent that EDEN ROSE was not clear of PINZ CHARMING when the outwards movement took place. Further to that, Mr Coles said a factor taken into consideration was the effect of the carelessness and how much control the affected rider would have had to take over his or her mount. He added that warnings were sometimes given in place of charges.
Mr Alderslade asked if it had been a possibility that a warning would have been considered in this case. Mr Coles said that as a horse had fallen a warning was not considered appropriate.
At this time Mr Alderslade asked to see different views of the incident on the video films for later reference.
Mrs Thornton asked the Stipendiary panel if in their opinion Ms McGregor had been denied a run at any time, and stated that she was given the opportunity to pursue a forward movement.
Mr Robinson replied that this was not possible after Mrs Thornton had shifted ground. He added that in his opinion there was a run available to Ms McGregor until Mrs Thornton shifted ground.
Called as a witness by Mr Alderslade, Apprentice Rider, Mr L Magorrian confirmed that he had ridden the horse TRIUMPH in the race. He said that from the final turn into the straight EDEN ROSE ridden by Mrs Thornton was ahead of him with PINZ CHARMING on his outer. He said that there had been a gap ahead of him which was closing as PINZ CHARMING under a hard ride from Ms McGregor bumped into his horse, which forced him to alter course to try and improve inside EDEN ROSE. Mr Magorrian stated that Ms McGregor was riding PINZ CHARMING vigorously with her head down while shouting out to him to ‘let me in’. He added that his horse was very green and getting a ‘scare’ from Ms McGregor’s riding tactics. In answer to a question from Mr Alderslade, Mr Magorrian stated that in his opinion there had not been a gap ahead of Ms McGregor when she had cleared his horse.
In answer to a question from Mrs Thornton Mr Magorrian agreed that both he and Ms McGregor had come from a position behind her and that Ms McGregor had been shouting and being ‘ aggressive’ towards him.
Mr Coles asked Mr Magorrian if he had agreed that the side-on film showed that Ms McGregor had been ahead of him and that she was entitled to take the run that was available. Mr Magorrian said that there had not been a lot of room and that Ms McGregor had bumped him and almost put him on Mrs Thornton’s heels.
Mr Coles further asked Mr Magorrian if it was due to the outwards movement from EDEN ROSE that he was put in an awkward position, and that he had not had to stop riding his mount out. Mr Magorrian said that he could see the gap closing ahead of him and that Ms McGregor had come from behind him and bumped him in the process.
Mrs Thornton told the Committee that her mount EDEN ROSE was having its first start while in blinkers. She said that the track was wet and there were only 5 horses in the race. She said that just prior to straightening into the final straight she could hear Ms McGregor and Mr Magorrian having a verbal debate behind her-that she could not see them. Mrs Thornton stated that she felt she was being charged for something that was out of her control.
Mr Alderslade referred to the film and asked Mrs Thornton to confirm that she was looking over her shoulder to see where the noise was coming from. Mrs Thornton confirmed that was the case, and that she was focusing on her own line of running at the time. She said she could hear the other two riders but could not see them.
In response to a further question from Mr Alderslade, Mrs Thornton stated that she believed Ms McGregor had a run to come through and that she was giving her horse a hard ride. She said Ms McGregor had not once stopped hitting her horse and that there was always a run for her. She added that she thought Ms McGregor had misread the situation. Mrs Thornton added that she believed she was being held accountable for Ms McGregor’s lack of judgement.
Mr Coles referred to the film and asked Mrs Thornton if Ms McGregor was entitled to maintain the line of running she was on. Mrs Thornton agreed with Mr Coles that Ms McGregor had a clear run, however it depended on where she was steering the horse as she was riding it vigorously and needed to take a stride and have a look.
Mr Coles then stated that the Rule states that no-one can come across unless they are their own length and another length clear and suggested to Mrs Thornton that the reason PINZ CHARMING clipped heels was because Mrs Thornton had come across in front of it. He said that he believed she, Mrs Thornton, had corrected her movement one stride too late. Mrs Thornton said that Ms McGregor should be accountable for her own line of running. At which time Mr Coles said he agreed with that, however he added that it had been denied to her by Mrs Thornton.
Note: A short segment of the head-on film was ‘fuzzy’ at a fairly important stage of the race. While it was not impossible to view what had taken place, it was made more difficult by this. All parties were asked by the Committee if they had any objection to this film being used. Nobody had any objection to make.
In summing up, Mr Alderslade asked the Committee to take into account that Mrs Thornton had straightened EDEN ROSE about 2-3 strides before PINZ CHARMING fell. He said that Ms McGregor had her head down and was driving her horse into the space and while he said he did not argue that Mrs Thornton had moved out he said that Ms McGregor may not have had the judgement of some riders as she had only recently returned to race riding. He further stated that it was his view that the Committee needed to disconnect the outwards movement by Mrs Thornton from the fall that followed. He said that he did not consider careless riding caused the fall and believed that each party was culpable for what took place. He added that the temptation was to believe that Mrs Thornton was at fault as there was outwards movement followed by a fall, however his position was that Mrs Thornton had straightened her mount before the fall occurred. Mr Alderson stated that he and Mrs Thornton believed that Ms McGregor significantly contributed to the fall by the manner in which she was riding her horse.
Mr Coles said that Ms McGregor was always in a position where she had clear running and that at no time was Mrs Thornton clear of her as she is required to be under the Rule. Referring to the evidence of Mr Magorrian, Mr Coles said that there had been a marginal run for both he and Ms McGregor, and that it was only when Mrs Thornton started to shift out in front of him that Mr Magorrian had to alter his line to attempt to improve inside Mrs Thornton. He stated that Mr Magorrian had been riding forward at all times and the line Ms McGregor was on was only denied when Mrs Thornton started shifting out in front of her when not clear.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the evidence and submissions presented. We also carefully and independently reviewed the video footages of the incident, including synchronising the head on film with the side on film.
We established the following:
1. As the horses passed the 400 metres mark just after turning into the home straight Mrs Thornton on EDEN ROSE was approximately 2 lengths clear of PINZ CHARMING ridden by Ms McGregor.
2. There is a clear run available to Ms McGregor. Her mount is under a hard ride but appears to be responding.
3. Mrs Thornton looks outside towards the horse ridden by Ms D Johnson as EDEN ROSE shifts out by at least 2 horse widths. This outwards movement is not abrupt but takes place over approximately 100 metres.
4. The side on film shows that at this time EDEN ROSE is not the required distance clear of PINZ CHARMING.
5. Mrs Thornton attempted to straighten EDEN ROSE and it is apparent on the film that PINZ CHARMING had its head turned out to avoid EDEN ROSE’s hind quarters.
6. At about the 300 metres mark PINZ CHARMING clipped heels with EDEN ROSE and falls. Neither the horse nor Ms McGregor is injured.
7. We do not believe Mrs Thornton looked behind her to see where other horses were as she directed her horse outwards.
8. We believe there was always a gap for Ms McGregor to improve her mount and that she was entitled to that line of running from which she only marginally deviated.
9. We do not consider whatever took place between Mr Magorrian and Ms McGregor had any impact on the fall.
Decision:
Mrs Thornton had a duty of care to ensure she was the required distance clear before attempting to shift out. The films show that EDEN ROSE was not its own length and another length clear of PINZ CHARMING at the time of crossing.
Accordingly the Committee finds the charge proved.
Penalty Submissions:
Mr Coles produced Mrs Thornton’s riding record which showed 2 previous breaches in the previous 12 months. He added that given the number of rides Mrs Thornton has had he believed her record to be a good one.
Mr Coles stated that on this occasion Mrs Thornton had been too late by 2 strides in correcting her mount. He said that the Stipendiary Stewards believed this breach to be low to mid-range on the level of seriousness and submitted a suspension of Mrs Thornton’s riding license for a period of 2-3 weeks would be an appropriate penalty. In support of his penalty submissions Mr Coles supplied the Committee with details of a number of breaches of this Rule where falls were involved for their consideration. He also supplied the Committee with details of all rides Mrs Thornton has had throughout New Zealand during 2015.
Mrs Thornton told the Committee that she had confirmed rides at Rotorua on 17 October and could start any suspension following that raceday. She confirmed that she had not ridden at any ‘industry’ meetings outside the Northern area in the preceding 3 months. Mrs Thornton asked the Committee to take into account that any proposed suspension would mean that she missed the ride in an upcoming Group 1 race.
Mr Alderslade told the Committee that he felt the breach fell at the low end on the level of seriousness and was a momentary issue which may have been dealt with by way of a warning in other circumstances, i.e. if a fall had not been involved. He said it was coming into a lucrative part of the season for riders and that Mrs Thornton regretted that a fall was involved. He said that given Mrs Thornton’s good record and other contributing mitigating factors a lower level of suspension could be considered.
Reasons for Penalty:
Mrs Thornton chose not to be present at this stage of the hearing.
The Committee took careful notice of all of the submissions presented in considering an appropriate penalty.
The JCA Penalty Guide has a starting point of a 5 day suspension for a breach of this Rule. This may be adjusted given the mitigating and aggravating factors pertinent to each case.
As mitigating factors, we accept Mrs Thornton’s good record for a busy rider during the previous 12 months. We believe the level of carelessness was at the low end; the shift outwards which resulted in the fall was gradual over a distance of approximately 100 metres.
The fact that a fall was the result of this carelessness is an aggravating factor and therefore an uplift in penalty is appropriate. It is a fact that what may be termed a ‘minor’ breach of this Rule can have serious consequences because of the position of other horses and riders, and the degree of culpability is the crucial issue. Evidence has been given-and the Committee viewed for ourselves that Ms McGregor was riding her mount hard into the line she was entitled to prior to the fall. It has to be remembered that her mount fell because Mrs Thornton shifted out in front of it when she was not the required distance clear. That is the issue.
The Committee is mindful that the busy and somewhat lucrative part of the racing season is approaching, however we have to take notice of penalties other riders have been given in similar circumstances. We accept that Mrs Thornton will probably miss a ride in a Group 1 race as a result of this suspension, however that is unavoidable given the seriousness of the breach we are dealing with.
The Committee referred to the printout produced by Mr Coles regarding riders dislodged from their mounts as a result of careless riding, and assessed this breach to be at the lower end of the scale.
Penalty:
Accordingly the Committee suspends Mrs Thornton’s license to ride in races from after racing on 17 October until after racing on 3 November 2015 - 7 days. The meetings involved in this suspension are
Te Aroha, Waipa, Wellington, Te Rapa, Ruakaka, Tauranga, Ellerslie.
As this matter was heard on a raceday there are no costs involved.
Decision Date: 23/09/2015
Publish Date: 23/09/2015
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: ee9679de6a82b0e9b2ace1d4c86038c1
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 23/09/2015
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: R Tauranga 23 September 2015 - R 8 (adjourned hearing heard on 14 October 2015 at Avondale) - Chair, Mr A Godsalve
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACING TAURANGA 23 SEPTEMBER 2015 – Race 8
An Adjourned Hearing heard at Avondale Racecourse, 11am Wednesday 14 October 2015
Committee: Mr A Godsalve (Chair) - Mr A Dooley (Committee Member)
Information No: A4391
Informant: Mr A Coles, Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mrs T Thornton, Class A Rider
Appearing for Mrs Thornton: Mr D Alderslade
Persons Present: Mr W Robinson, Stipendiary Steward, Mr L Magorrian, Apprentice Rider
Rule: 638(1)(d)
Charge: Careless Riding
Plea: Denied
Evidence:
Following the running of Race 8, the GARTSHORE INTERIORS 1600, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Coles, alleged that Mrs T Thornton, riding EDEN ROSE near the 300 allowed her mount to shift out when not clear of PINZ CHARMING, ridden by Ms L McGregor, which clipped a heel and fell.
Rule 638(1)(d) provides: ‘A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless’.
As this charge was of a relatively serious nature, Mrs Thornton’s request on the day to have the matter adjourned while she gained some advice was granted. Mrs Thornton advised the Committee on the day that she did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
The matter was adjourned to be heard at 11am on Wednesday 14th October prior to the Avondale racemeeting that day.
Mrs Thornton was present at the hearing and advised the Committee that she would be represented by Mr D Alderslade. Mrs Thornton re-affirmed her wish to not admit this breach.
Mr Coles opened the case for the Informant and advised the Committee that he would at that stage, be intending to call Ms L McGregor as a witness. However, later in the hearing Mr Coles advised that he would not in fact require Ms McGregor to appear.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Coles stated that ‘careless’ as it applied to the thoroughbred racing industry simply meant ‘making an error of judgement’ and did not include incompetent or reckless riding.
Mr Coles advised the Committee that on the day of this incident Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson had been on duty with him, however as that person was currently on leave he had asked Mr W Robinson to assist with the hearing. Mr Robinson was then asked to interpret the available films from the day in question.
Mr Robinson identified the 5 horses and riders which had taken part in the race in question. He identified Mrs Thornton riding EDEN ROSE, with Ms McGregor riding PINZ CHARMING and Apprentice Rider, L Magorrian, riding TRIUMPH behind Mrs Thornton.
Mr Alderslade had requested Mr Robinson to identify Mr Magorrian as he would be later called to give evidence.
Using the head-on film Mr Robinson stated that as the field entered the final straight Mrs Thornton had allowed her mount to shift outwards at least 2 horse widths before looking inside her and then attempting to straighten her horse. Mr Robinson added that by that time, unfortunately PINZ CHARMING had clipped the heels of EDEN ROSE and fallen. Mr Robinson said that there had been no movement from the two horses outside EDEN ROSE during this incident. Referring to the two horses behind Mrs Thornton as she commenced to shift out, Mr Robinson stated that it was clear both of them were attempting to improve into the available gap, and that Ms McGregor always had an advantage over Mr Magorrian. Referring to the side-on film, Mr Robinson demonstrated that at no time during the outwards movement by EDEN ROSE was there the required distance between that horse and PINZ CHARMING. Mr Robinson added that there must be a clear 2 lengths clearance before a horse can shift in or outwards, that is, one length and another horse’s length clearance. He said that riders cannot shift ground unless that clearance is in existence. However, Mr Robinson added that on many occasions horses do shift ground and get away with, possibly even 9 times out of 10, however this time Mrs Thornton was not clear and that is why she had been charged.
At this time Mr Alderslade asked Mr Coles whether Mrs Thornton would still have been charged if Ms McGregor’s mount had not fallen. In response, Mr Coles stated that it depended on the circumstances. He said on this occasion it was apparent that EDEN ROSE was not clear of PINZ CHARMING when the outwards movement took place. Further to that, Mr Coles said a factor taken into consideration was the effect of the carelessness and how much control the affected rider would have had to take over his or her mount. He added that warnings were sometimes given in place of charges.
Mr Alderslade asked if it had been a possibility that a warning would have been considered in this case. Mr Coles said that as a horse had fallen a warning was not considered appropriate.
At this time Mr Alderslade asked to see different views of the incident on the video films for later reference.
Mrs Thornton asked the Stipendiary panel if in their opinion Ms McGregor had been denied a run at any time, and stated that she was given the opportunity to pursue a forward movement.
Mr Robinson replied that this was not possible after Mrs Thornton had shifted ground. He added that in his opinion there was a run available to Ms McGregor until Mrs Thornton shifted ground.
Called as a witness by Mr Alderslade, Apprentice Rider, Mr L Magorrian confirmed that he had ridden the horse TRIUMPH in the race. He said that from the final turn into the straight EDEN ROSE ridden by Mrs Thornton was ahead of him with PINZ CHARMING on his outer. He said that there had been a gap ahead of him which was closing as PINZ CHARMING under a hard ride from Ms McGregor bumped into his horse, which forced him to alter course to try and improve inside EDEN ROSE. Mr Magorrian stated that Ms McGregor was riding PINZ CHARMING vigorously with her head down while shouting out to him to ‘let me in’. He added that his horse was very green and getting a ‘scare’ from Ms McGregor’s riding tactics. In answer to a question from Mr Alderslade, Mr Magorrian stated that in his opinion there had not been a gap ahead of Ms McGregor when she had cleared his horse.
In answer to a question from Mrs Thornton Mr Magorrian agreed that both he and Ms McGregor had come from a position behind her and that Ms McGregor had been shouting and being ‘ aggressive’ towards him.
Mr Coles asked Mr Magorrian if he had agreed that the side-on film showed that Ms McGregor had been ahead of him and that she was entitled to take the run that was available. Mr Magorrian said that there had not been a lot of room and that Ms McGregor had bumped him and almost put him on Mrs Thornton’s heels.
Mr Coles further asked Mr Magorrian if it was due to the outwards movement from EDEN ROSE that he was put in an awkward position, and that he had not had to stop riding his mount out. Mr Magorrian said that he could see the gap closing ahead of him and that Ms McGregor had come from behind him and bumped him in the process.
Mrs Thornton told the Committee that her mount EDEN ROSE was having its first start while in blinkers. She said that the track was wet and there were only 5 horses in the race. She said that just prior to straightening into the final straight she could hear Ms McGregor and Mr Magorrian having a verbal debate behind her-that she could not see them. Mrs Thornton stated that she felt she was being charged for something that was out of her control.
Mr Alderslade referred to the film and asked Mrs Thornton to confirm that she was looking over her shoulder to see where the noise was coming from. Mrs Thornton confirmed that was the case, and that she was focusing on her own line of running at the time. She said she could hear the other two riders but could not see them.
In response to a further question from Mr Alderslade, Mrs Thornton stated that she believed Ms McGregor had a run to come through and that she was giving her horse a hard ride. She said Ms McGregor had not once stopped hitting her horse and that there was always a run for her. She added that she thought Ms McGregor had misread the situation. Mrs Thornton added that she believed she was being held accountable for Ms McGregor’s lack of judgement.
Mr Coles referred to the film and asked Mrs Thornton if Ms McGregor was entitled to maintain the line of running she was on. Mrs Thornton agreed with Mr Coles that Ms McGregor had a clear run, however it depended on where she was steering the horse as she was riding it vigorously and needed to take a stride and have a look.
Mr Coles then stated that the Rule states that no-one can come across unless they are their own length and another length clear and suggested to Mrs Thornton that the reason PINZ CHARMING clipped heels was because Mrs Thornton had come across in front of it. He said that he believed she, Mrs Thornton, had corrected her movement one stride too late. Mrs Thornton said that Ms McGregor should be accountable for her own line of running. At which time Mr Coles said he agreed with that, however he added that it had been denied to her by Mrs Thornton.
Note: A short segment of the head-on film was ‘fuzzy’ at a fairly important stage of the race. While it was not impossible to view what had taken place, it was made more difficult by this. All parties were asked by the Committee if they had any objection to this film being used. Nobody had any objection to make.
In summing up, Mr Alderslade asked the Committee to take into account that Mrs Thornton had straightened EDEN ROSE about 2-3 strides before PINZ CHARMING fell. He said that Ms McGregor had her head down and was driving her horse into the space and while he said he did not argue that Mrs Thornton had moved out he said that Ms McGregor may not have had the judgement of some riders as she had only recently returned to race riding. He further stated that it was his view that the Committee needed to disconnect the outwards movement by Mrs Thornton from the fall that followed. He said that he did not consider careless riding caused the fall and believed that each party was culpable for what took place. He added that the temptation was to believe that Mrs Thornton was at fault as there was outwards movement followed by a fall, however his position was that Mrs Thornton had straightened her mount before the fall occurred. Mr Alderson stated that he and Mrs Thornton believed that Ms McGregor significantly contributed to the fall by the manner in which she was riding her horse.
Mr Coles said that Ms McGregor was always in a position where she had clear running and that at no time was Mrs Thornton clear of her as she is required to be under the Rule. Referring to the evidence of Mr Magorrian, Mr Coles said that there had been a marginal run for both he and Ms McGregor, and that it was only when Mrs Thornton started to shift out in front of him that Mr Magorrian had to alter his line to attempt to improve inside Mrs Thornton. He stated that Mr Magorrian had been riding forward at all times and the line Ms McGregor was on was only denied when Mrs Thornton started shifting out in front of her when not clear.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the evidence and submissions presented. We also carefully and independently reviewed the video footages of the incident, including synchronising the head on film with the side on film.
We established the following:
1. As the horses passed the 400 metres mark just after turning into the home straight Mrs Thornton on EDEN ROSE was approximately 2 lengths clear of PINZ CHARMING ridden by Ms McGregor.
2. There is a clear run available to Ms McGregor. Her mount is under a hard ride but appears to be responding.
3. Mrs Thornton looks outside towards the horse ridden by Ms D Johnson as EDEN ROSE shifts out by at least 2 horse widths. This outwards movement is not abrupt but takes place over approximately 100 metres.
4. The side on film shows that at this time EDEN ROSE is not the required distance clear of PINZ CHARMING.
5. Mrs Thornton attempted to straighten EDEN ROSE and it is apparent on the film that PINZ CHARMING had its head turned out to avoid EDEN ROSE’s hind quarters.
6. At about the 300 metres mark PINZ CHARMING clipped heels with EDEN ROSE and falls. Neither the horse nor Ms McGregor is injured.
7. We do not believe Mrs Thornton looked behind her to see where other horses were as she directed her horse outwards.
8. We believe there was always a gap for Ms McGregor to improve her mount and that she was entitled to that line of running from which she only marginally deviated.
9. We do not consider whatever took place between Mr Magorrian and Ms McGregor had any impact on the fall.
Decision:
Mrs Thornton had a duty of care to ensure she was the required distance clear before attempting to shift out. The films show that EDEN ROSE was not its own length and another length clear of PINZ CHARMING at the time of crossing.
Accordingly the Committee finds the charge proved.
Penalty Submissions:
Mr Coles produced Mrs Thornton’s riding record which showed 2 previous breaches in the previous 12 months. He added that given the number of rides Mrs Thornton has had he believed her record to be a good one.
Mr Coles stated that on this occasion Mrs Thornton had been too late by 2 strides in correcting her mount. He said that the Stipendiary Stewards believed this breach to be low to mid-range on the level of seriousness and submitted a suspension of Mrs Thornton’s riding license for a period of 2-3 weeks would be an appropriate penalty. In support of his penalty submissions Mr Coles supplied the Committee with details of a number of breaches of this Rule where falls were involved for their consideration. He also supplied the Committee with details of all rides Mrs Thornton has had throughout New Zealand during 2015.
Mrs Thornton told the Committee that she had confirmed rides at Rotorua on 17 October and could start any suspension following that raceday. She confirmed that she had not ridden at any ‘industry’ meetings outside the Northern area in the preceding 3 months. Mrs Thornton asked the Committee to take into account that any proposed suspension would mean that she missed the ride in an upcoming Group 1 race.
Mr Alderslade told the Committee that he felt the breach fell at the low end on the level of seriousness and was a momentary issue which may have been dealt with by way of a warning in other circumstances, i.e. if a fall had not been involved. He said it was coming into a lucrative part of the season for riders and that Mrs Thornton regretted that a fall was involved. He said that given Mrs Thornton’s good record and other contributing mitigating factors a lower level of suspension could be considered.
Reasons for Penalty:
Mrs Thornton chose not to be present at this stage of the hearing.
The Committee took careful notice of all of the submissions presented in considering an appropriate penalty.
The JCA Penalty Guide has a starting point of a 5 day suspension for a breach of this Rule. This may be adjusted given the mitigating and aggravating factors pertinent to each case.
As mitigating factors, we accept Mrs Thornton’s good record for a busy rider during the previous 12 months. We believe the level of carelessness was at the low end; the shift outwards which resulted in the fall was gradual over a distance of approximately 100 metres.
The fact that a fall was the result of this carelessness is an aggravating factor and therefore an uplift in penalty is appropriate. It is a fact that what may be termed a ‘minor’ breach of this Rule can have serious consequences because of the position of other horses and riders, and the degree of culpability is the crucial issue. Evidence has been given-and the Committee viewed for ourselves that Ms McGregor was riding her mount hard into the line she was entitled to prior to the fall. It has to be remembered that her mount fell because Mrs Thornton shifted out in front of it when she was not the required distance clear. That is the issue.
The Committee is mindful that the busy and somewhat lucrative part of the racing season is approaching, however we have to take notice of penalties other riders have been given in similar circumstances. We accept that Mrs Thornton will probably miss a ride in a Group 1 race as a result of this suspension, however that is unavoidable given the seriousness of the breach we are dealing with.
The Committee referred to the printout produced by Mr Coles regarding riders dislodged from their mounts as a result of careless riding, and assessed this breach to be at the lower end of the scale.
Penalty:
Accordingly the Committee suspends Mrs Thornton’s license to ride in races from after racing on 17 October until after racing on 3 November 2015 - 7 days. The meetings involved in this suspension are
Te Aroha, Waipa, Wellington, Te Rapa, Ruakaka, Tauranga, Ellerslie.
As this matter was heard on a raceday there are no costs involved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 638(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: