R Te Aroha 26 November 2014 – R 3
ID: JCA12575
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Racing Te Aroha - 26 November 2014
Meet Chair:
AGodsalve
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2014/11/26
Race Number:
R3
Decision:
Interference is defined as 'a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing'.
We are satisfied that at the time Ms Spratt moved inwards and put Mr Harris under quite severe pressure she was at best only 3/4 clear of Mr Harris' horse. As a result of Mr Harris taking evasive action, the horse following him ridden by Mr Hutton was also affected.
Accordingly we are satisfied that all of the elements of this charge have been established and we find the charge proved.
Penalty:
Having taken all of the above matters into consideration the Committee suspend Ms Spratt from riding in races, her suspension to commence after racing on 3 December and conclude after racing on 11 December - 6 days.
The racedays included in this period are:
4 December New Plymouth
5 December Christchurch
6 December Ellerslie
7 December Waipukurau
10 December Ellerslie
11 December Hawkes Bay
Facts:
Following the running of Race 3, the CAPISTRANO LODGE 1400 an Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) by Ms S Spratt rider of the winning horse SEVENTEEN SEVENTY. The informant alleged that Ms Spratt permitted her mount SEVENTEEN SEVENTY to shift inward when not sufficiently clear of JOUET CUVEE (Mr N Harris ) which was checked passing the 1000 metres dropping back onto GIVE GOLD (Mr B Hutton) which was also checked.
Ms Spratt confirmed to the Committee that she did not admit this breach.
Rule 638(1)(d) provides 'A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless'
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Oatham opened his submissions by informing the Committee that he intended to call 3 witnesses:
Stipendiary Steward Mr W Robinson
Apprentice jockey Mr B Hutton
Licensed jockey Mr N Harris
Ms Spratt told the Committee that she did not intend to call any witnesses.
Stipendiary Steward Mr Robinson used the available video films to identify the horses SEVENTEEN SEVENTY, JOUET CUVEE, GIVE GOLD, and BRILLIANT MAGIC. He pointed out that as the field approached the 1000 metres mark there were several horses near the lead which were racing quite tightly. The horse BRILLIANT MAGIC ridden by Mr M Du Plessis was racing in a 4 wide position near the lead outside SEVENTEEN SEVENTY. Using the head-on film Mr Robinson pointed out that as the field passed the 1000 metres mark BRILLANT MAGIC maintained its line and did not have any impact on what followed. He then demonstrated SEVENTEEN SEVENTY, racing inside BRILLIANT MAGIC in a 3 wide position with its head to one side. He pointed out that Ms Spratt had taken a hold of her mount as it commenced an inwards movement towards the running rail. Mr Harris, riding JOUET CUVEE was approximately 1/2 length behind SEVENTEEN SEVENTY and as that horse continued to move inwards Mr Harris was forced to take a strong hold of his mount. As a result JOUET CUVEE threw its head in the air and dropped back onto GIVE GOLD racing behind it. Mr Hutton was forced to also restrain his horse to avoid JOUET CUVEE as it came back on him. Mr Robinson told the Committee that he conceded SEVENTEEN SEVENTY was hanging just prior to the incident, however he stated that Ms Spratt was aware that there were 2 horses inside her and that she should have done a lot more to relieve the pressure she was placing on those horses. He added that Ms Spratt was never the required distance clear of Mr Harris when her horse began its inwards movement which put Mr Harris into 'all sorts of difficulty' behind her.
Ms Spratt had no questions of Mr Robinson.
Mr Oatham then called Apprentice jockey Mr B. Hutton.
Mr Hutton told the Committee that he was racing in a position on the rails behind Mr Harris. He stated that his horse GIVE GOLD was over racing a little, and that he saw Mr Harris look around to see where he was as the horse on Mr Harris' outer - SEVENTEEN SEVENTY - shifted inwards into Mr Harris' path. He was forced to restrain his mount as a result of JOUET CUVEE being interfered with by SEVENTEEN SEVENTY. Asked to view the films by the Committee, Mr Hutton agreed that they adequately demonstrated the incident.
Ms Spratt had no questions for Mr Hutton.
Mr Oatham called his final witness, jockey Mr N Harris.
Mr Harris agreed that he had been placed in some difficulty due to the manner Ms Spratt was riding her mount. He acknowledged that his horse JOUET CUVEE had been over-racing and that he was aware that GIVE GOLD was about 1/2 length behind him. He stated that as the field approached the point of the turn SEVENTEEN SEVENTY was moving inwards into his path and he kept looking behind him to see where Mr Hutton was as he was being dictated inwards by Ms Spratt. He said he was a bare 3/4 length behind Ms Spratt as she began to put pressure on him, and had thought that she was going to ride her mount forward instead of restraining it. Mr Harris also agreed that the films clearly demonstrated the incident.
Ms Spratt had no questions for Mr Harris.
Ms Spratt opened her defence by acknowledging that it was obvious there had been some 'checking' during the incident. She told the Committee that her horse was having its' first raceday start and was running around and racing greenly. She stated that SEVENTEEN SEVENTY had been racing in close quarters with BRILLIANT MAGIC on its' outer and had attempted to 'run away' from that horse. She felt that she had nowhere to go as Mr Harris was on her inside and agreed that there had been interference to his horse as she moved inwards towards the rail. Ms Spratt acknowledged that she had heard Mr Harris calling out to her, however she stated she had called back to him that she had nowhere to go. In response to a question from the Committee Ms Spratt accepted that her mount had moved from a 3 wide position to adjacent to the running rail within the space of 75 metres. She said her horse had been running away from other horses and there was nowhere for her to go to relieve the pressure her horse was causing.
Mr Oatham had no questions for Ms Spratt.
In Summary Mr Oatham said that Ms Spratt had caused pressure to 2 horses and riders for some distance as she moved from a 3 wide position to the running rail. He added that Ms Spratt had exacerbated the situation by taking a firm hold of her mount and taking the pace out of the race causing runners behind her to be placed under pressure, especially Mr Harris as she shifted into his line.
Ms Spratt re-affirmed her position that the incident was caused by the inexperience of her horse and that she did not believe that she was personally responsible for the interference. She added that due to her mount's greenness she was forced to change her whip to her other hand in the home straight, and that shortly after the interference to Mr Harris, she believed her mount had struck the running rail.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered the submissions by the parties and the evidence of the witnesses called by the Informant. We viewed the available films to establish if the evidence could be qualified by these films. Ms Spratt's submissions were that while she acknowledged that there had been interference caused in the incident it was the inexperience of her horse which had caused it. It was clear from the films that the horse SEVENTEEN SEVENTY had shifted in from a 3 wide position to adjacent to the running rail within a 50-75 metre distance. At that time it was apparent from viewing the head-on film that Ms Spratt had looked to inwards as she was causing Mr Harris fairly severe interference. Mr Harris is clearly seen to be looking behind him to check where Mr Hutton's horse was as he was forced to restrain his horse. As Ms Spratt moved inwards towards Mr Harris it was clear from the films that she was barely 1/2 to 3/4 length ahead of him. It was also clear on the films that Ms Spratt had taken a hold of her horse when she had crossed to the running rail which causing further tightening to horses behind her as the pace slackened.
Mr Harris was clear in his evidence that the interference to his mount and resulting pressure on the horse behind him was caused by the pressure put on him by the inwards movement of Ms Spratt when she was barely 3/4 length ahead of him.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham presented Ms Spratt's record regarding breaches of this Rule. He told the Committee that between 1 January and 8 November 2014 she had 4 suspensions recorded against her for periods of between 4 and 6 days. As this would be her 5th breach Mr Oatham asked the Committee to draw their own conclusions as to her riding standards. He stated that the Stewards were of the opinion that the interference suffered by the two horses was severe and that he would class it to be in the mid-high range. He therefore submitted that a period of suspension with a starting point of between 6-7 riding days would be appropriate.
Ms Spratt stated that she did not believe the interference was severe and that the incident was caused by her horse running in of its own accord. She confirmed that she had ridden at Christchurch recently, that her suspension could start after racing at Avondale on 3 December.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee took into consideration the submissions of both parties regarding any penalty to be imposed on Ms Spratt. We adopted a starting point of a 5 day suspension as per the JCA Penalty Guide.
We are unable to report any mitigating factors in Ms Spratt's favour.
Miss Spratt's riding record is well below average compared to fellow riders with a similar level of experience. Given that there were two horses interfered with we deemed that the incident was mid-range on the level of seriousness, and it was clear that Ms Spratt did not elect to take any options to avoid the incident.
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: 39b5464f9703eb3fadb5c9e37164d2a6
informantnumber: A6860
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 25/11/2014
hearing_title: R Te Aroha 26 November 2014 - R 3
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 3, the CAPISTRANO LODGE 1400 an Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) by Ms S Spratt rider of the winning horse SEVENTEEN SEVENTY. The informant alleged that Ms Spratt permitted her mount SEVENTEEN SEVENTY to shift inward when not sufficiently clear of JOUET CUVEE (Mr N Harris ) which was checked passing the 1000 metres dropping back onto GIVE GOLD (Mr B Hutton) which was also checked.
Ms Spratt confirmed to the Committee that she did not admit this breach.
Rule 638(1)(d) provides 'A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless'
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Oatham opened his submissions by informing the Committee that he intended to call 3 witnesses:
Stipendiary Steward Mr W Robinson
Apprentice jockey Mr B Hutton
Licensed jockey Mr N Harris
Ms Spratt told the Committee that she did not intend to call any witnesses.
Stipendiary Steward Mr Robinson used the available video films to identify the horses SEVENTEEN SEVENTY, JOUET CUVEE, GIVE GOLD, and BRILLIANT MAGIC. He pointed out that as the field approached the 1000 metres mark there were several horses near the lead which were racing quite tightly. The horse BRILLIANT MAGIC ridden by Mr M Du Plessis was racing in a 4 wide position near the lead outside SEVENTEEN SEVENTY. Using the head-on film Mr Robinson pointed out that as the field passed the 1000 metres mark BRILLANT MAGIC maintained its line and did not have any impact on what followed. He then demonstrated SEVENTEEN SEVENTY, racing inside BRILLIANT MAGIC in a 3 wide position with its head to one side. He pointed out that Ms Spratt had taken a hold of her mount as it commenced an inwards movement towards the running rail. Mr Harris, riding JOUET CUVEE was approximately 1/2 length behind SEVENTEEN SEVENTY and as that horse continued to move inwards Mr Harris was forced to take a strong hold of his mount. As a result JOUET CUVEE threw its head in the air and dropped back onto GIVE GOLD racing behind it. Mr Hutton was forced to also restrain his horse to avoid JOUET CUVEE as it came back on him. Mr Robinson told the Committee that he conceded SEVENTEEN SEVENTY was hanging just prior to the incident, however he stated that Ms Spratt was aware that there were 2 horses inside her and that she should have done a lot more to relieve the pressure she was placing on those horses. He added that Ms Spratt was never the required distance clear of Mr Harris when her horse began its inwards movement which put Mr Harris into 'all sorts of difficulty' behind her.
Ms Spratt had no questions of Mr Robinson.
Mr Oatham then called Apprentice jockey Mr B. Hutton.
Mr Hutton told the Committee that he was racing in a position on the rails behind Mr Harris. He stated that his horse GIVE GOLD was over racing a little, and that he saw Mr Harris look around to see where he was as the horse on Mr Harris' outer - SEVENTEEN SEVENTY - shifted inwards into Mr Harris' path. He was forced to restrain his mount as a result of JOUET CUVEE being interfered with by SEVENTEEN SEVENTY. Asked to view the films by the Committee, Mr Hutton agreed that they adequately demonstrated the incident.
Ms Spratt had no questions for Mr Hutton.
Mr Oatham called his final witness, jockey Mr N Harris.
Mr Harris agreed that he had been placed in some difficulty due to the manner Ms Spratt was riding her mount. He acknowledged that his horse JOUET CUVEE had been over-racing and that he was aware that GIVE GOLD was about 1/2 length behind him. He stated that as the field approached the point of the turn SEVENTEEN SEVENTY was moving inwards into his path and he kept looking behind him to see where Mr Hutton was as he was being dictated inwards by Ms Spratt. He said he was a bare 3/4 length behind Ms Spratt as she began to put pressure on him, and had thought that she was going to ride her mount forward instead of restraining it. Mr Harris also agreed that the films clearly demonstrated the incident.
Ms Spratt had no questions for Mr Harris.
Ms Spratt opened her defence by acknowledging that it was obvious there had been some 'checking' during the incident. She told the Committee that her horse was having its' first raceday start and was running around and racing greenly. She stated that SEVENTEEN SEVENTY had been racing in close quarters with BRILLIANT MAGIC on its' outer and had attempted to 'run away' from that horse. She felt that she had nowhere to go as Mr Harris was on her inside and agreed that there had been interference to his horse as she moved inwards towards the rail. Ms Spratt acknowledged that she had heard Mr Harris calling out to her, however she stated she had called back to him that she had nowhere to go. In response to a question from the Committee Ms Spratt accepted that her mount had moved from a 3 wide position to adjacent to the running rail within the space of 75 metres. She said her horse had been running away from other horses and there was nowhere for her to go to relieve the pressure her horse was causing.
Mr Oatham had no questions for Ms Spratt.
In Summary Mr Oatham said that Ms Spratt had caused pressure to 2 horses and riders for some distance as she moved from a 3 wide position to the running rail. He added that Ms Spratt had exacerbated the situation by taking a firm hold of her mount and taking the pace out of the race causing runners behind her to be placed under pressure, especially Mr Harris as she shifted into his line.
Ms Spratt re-affirmed her position that the incident was caused by the inexperience of her horse and that she did not believe that she was personally responsible for the interference. She added that due to her mount's greenness she was forced to change her whip to her other hand in the home straight, and that shortly after the interference to Mr Harris, she believed her mount had struck the running rail.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered the submissions by the parties and the evidence of the witnesses called by the Informant. We viewed the available films to establish if the evidence could be qualified by these films. Ms Spratt's submissions were that while she acknowledged that there had been interference caused in the incident it was the inexperience of her horse which had caused it. It was clear from the films that the horse SEVENTEEN SEVENTY had shifted in from a 3 wide position to adjacent to the running rail within a 50-75 metre distance. At that time it was apparent from viewing the head-on film that Ms Spratt had looked to inwards as she was causing Mr Harris fairly severe interference. Mr Harris is clearly seen to be looking behind him to check where Mr Hutton's horse was as he was forced to restrain his horse. As Ms Spratt moved inwards towards Mr Harris it was clear from the films that she was barely 1/2 to 3/4 length ahead of him. It was also clear on the films that Ms Spratt had taken a hold of her horse when she had crossed to the running rail which causing further tightening to horses behind her as the pace slackened.
Mr Harris was clear in his evidence that the interference to his mount and resulting pressure on the horse behind him was caused by the pressure put on him by the inwards movement of Ms Spratt when she was barely 3/4 length ahead of him.
Decision:
Interference is defined as 'a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing'.
We are satisfied that at the time Ms Spratt moved inwards and put Mr Harris under quite severe pressure she was at best only 3/4 clear of Mr Harris' horse. As a result of Mr Harris taking evasive action, the horse following him ridden by Mr Hutton was also affected.
Accordingly we are satisfied that all of the elements of this charge have been established and we find the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham presented Ms Spratt's record regarding breaches of this Rule. He told the Committee that between 1 January and 8 November 2014 she had 4 suspensions recorded against her for periods of between 4 and 6 days. As this would be her 5th breach Mr Oatham asked the Committee to draw their own conclusions as to her riding standards. He stated that the Stewards were of the opinion that the interference suffered by the two horses was severe and that he would class it to be in the mid-high range. He therefore submitted that a period of suspension with a starting point of between 6-7 riding days would be appropriate.
Ms Spratt stated that she did not believe the interference was severe and that the incident was caused by her horse running in of its own accord. She confirmed that she had ridden at Christchurch recently, that her suspension could start after racing at Avondale on 3 December.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee took into consideration the submissions of both parties regarding any penalty to be imposed on Ms Spratt. We adopted a starting point of a 5 day suspension as per the JCA Penalty Guide.
We are unable to report any mitigating factors in Ms Spratt's favour.
Miss Spratt's riding record is well below average compared to fellow riders with a similar level of experience. Given that there were two horses interfered with we deemed that the incident was mid-range on the level of seriousness, and it was clear that Ms Spratt did not elect to take any options to avoid the incident.
penalty:
Having taken all of the above matters into consideration the Committee suspend Ms Spratt from riding in races, her suspension to commence after racing on 3 December and conclude after racing on 11 December - 6 days.
The racedays included in this period are:
4 December New Plymouth
5 December Christchurch
6 December Ellerslie
7 December Waipukurau
10 December Ellerslie
11 December Hawkes Bay
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms S Spratt - Licensed Jockey
Otherperson: Mr W Robinson - Stipendiary Steward, Mr B Hutton-Apprentice Rider, Mr N Harris-Licensed jockey
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d41d96f5ce798dff3d5c6d6177507596
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: f26293e67f11fa85185c0492a747f4ae
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/11/2014
meet_title: Racing Te Aroha - 26 November 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: racing-te-aroha
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: AGodsalve
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Racing Te Aroha