Racing Te Aroha – 18 October 2006 –

hearingid: 8c3f56a7f39ed2b13c74b9b02b65efcc

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 18/10/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Racing Te Aroha - 18 October 2006 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

The information charged the defendant, jockey C Ormsby,  with a breach of Rule 871 (1) (d) ? careless riding

Decision:

The information charged the defendant, jockey C Ormsby, with a breach of Rule 871 (1) (d) ? careless riding, alleging that as the rider of Charaad in race 10, from a midfield barrier, he

" shifted inwards on his mount after the start when not sufficiently clear of Power Cat (L Cropp) who was forced inwards onto Space Master (A Peard) who was dictated into the line of Single Star (B Lammas), who clipped a heel".

The Defendant, represented by his employer Mr A Scott, confirmed to the Committee that he did not admit to the charge.

The Informant, Stipendiary Steward Mr A Coles, opened his case by calling evidence from the jockeys of the horses affected as detailed in the charge, with L Cropp, A Peard and B Lammas each confirming the interference their mounts suffered when the Defendant crossed over the field towards the rail at about the 200 metre mark, when not sufficiently clear.

The Defendant asked jockey Cropp to clarify the distance her mount was forced to shift inwards, but had no questions of the other riders. Mr Scott had no questions of the riders.

The Informant then asked Assistant Stipendiary Steward W Robinson to demonstrate the interference on video ? the focus being on some 6-8 strides of the Defendant's horse prior to the interference ? where it was illustrated that the Defendant had angled his mount towards the rail when not sufficiently clear in terms of the rules. The Defendant's horse was observed to duck in sharply when close to the rail at the end of the inwards movement ? commencing the chain of interference as charged.

In his defence, Mr Ormsby referred to the video and put to the Committee that he was riding a difficult mount to instructions and that after he crossed towards the rail his mount ducked in sharply, out of his control, and the interference occurred. Mr Scott advised that the Defendant had crossed gradually to where there was a "quite sudden movement? as the horse ducked in.

The Committee found the charge proven.

The Committee noted that the evidence from each of the affected jockeys portrayed a uniform account, and accepted Mr Robinson's reading of the build up to, and resultant chain of interference.

It was clearly apparent that the Defendant had crossed over when not sufficiently clear, and that the breach had occurred prior to his mount ducking in and setting off the chain of interference.

In his submissions, the Informant drew the Committee's attention to the fact that the Defendant's record was "not a good one", with some six similar breaches since January 2006. In commenting that the record was "not one to be proud of", he felt that a suspension of 5 to 6 riding days was appropriate.

When addressing penalty Mr Scott conceded the Defendant's poor record, but requested the Committee take in account that his mount was "not the easiest horse to ride".

The Committee held the following factors to be relevant when determining penalty:

1). The Defendant's extremely poor riding record.

2) The impact of the check and interference to others riders, with one rider

almost falling as a consequence.

3). That as the Defendant had not admitted the breach, it was not an

appropriate case for any concession to be applied.

The Defendant was suspended for 7 riding days, to begin at the conclusion of racing on Sunday 22 October 2006, and to end at the conclusion of racing on Saturday 4 November 2006. This penalty equated to 7 race days in the Northern and Central regions where the Defendant takes engagements.

GM Downey (Chairman)

R Seabrook

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: