South Canterbury RC 29 November 2012 – R 2
ID: JCA16193
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
South Canterbury RC - 29 November 2012
Meet Chair:
JMillar
Meet Committee Member 1:
PKnowles
Race Date:
2012/11/29
Race Number:
R2
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
Penalty:
On resuming the hearing and after further discussion between Mr Kennedy and Mr Hutchings' employee regarding Mr Hutchings' riding commitments, a 2 day suspension was imposed from the completion of racing on 2nd December until completion of racing on 5th December 2012 (incorporating meetings at Paeroa and Counties).
Charge:
Careless Riding
Facts:
Following the running of Race 2, The Lion Ltd Dash Rating 65, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr M Zarb alleging a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) by Apprentice Jockey Mr R Hutchings in that he rode carelessly.
The Information reads as follows:
“I, the above named informant allege that the above named Respondent committed a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) (in that) he allowed his mount “Dozintmateranyway” to shift out when not clear checking “Royal Governess” (S Muniandy) passing the 250m.”
Rule 638 (1) (d) reads as follows:
“(1) A rider shall not ride a horse: in a manner which the Judicial Authority considers to be; (d) careless;…”
Mr Hutchings had indicated on the information that this breach was not admitted, and he confirmed this at the hearing. He also agreed he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Zarb said he relied on the video coverage of the race as evidence. He illustrated how “Dozintmateranyway” (Mr Hutchings) had been travelling approximately 2 wide with 250m to run when he drifted out at least 2 horse widths into the racing line of “Royal Governess” (M Muniandy), when not significantly clear. As a consequence “Royal Governess” received a check. Mr Zarb acknowledged Mr Hutchings allowed his horse to drift out rather than “direct” the horse out.
Mr Zarb conceded “Royal Governess” appeared to have been a beaten horse but had been entitled to the racing room denied as a consequence of Mr Hutchings' actions.
Mr Kennedy acknowledged Mr Hutchings had moved out into Mr Muniandy's racing room causing interference. He said “Dozintmateranyway” was a difficult horse to ride and Mr Hutchings had handled the situation well. He gave an opinion that “Royal Governess” had “laid in” and contributed to the incident. Mr Kennedy submitted the incident was minor and should have been dealt with by way of warning.
Mr Hutchings gave evidence saying the horse was “fresh up”and difficult to ride. He said he had taken corrective action when the horse drifted out and this action had not been too late. He also believed “Royal Governess” had laid in contributing to the incident.
Mr Zarb, referring to the race video, gave evidence illustrating when “Dozintmateranyway” began to drift out, at least 2 horse widths within 50 metres, Mr Hutchings continued to ride the horse only taking corrective action after the interference had occurred. He also gave evidence confirming Mr Hutchings was not having difficulty controlling the horse immediately before the interference. Following the interference the horse had responded quickly to Mr Hutchings' corrective action, running true from that point.
Reasons for Decision:
The movement of Mr Hutchings' mount and the interference to “Royal Governess” (Mr Muniandy) at about the 250m was accepted by both parties.
Mr Hutchings, and Mr Kennedy, contended “Dozintmateranyway” was a difficult horse to ride and this had contributed to the interference. Both made submissions the incident was minor and should have been dealt with by way of a warning.
The Committee after viewing the race video did not accept that “Royal Governess” had contributed to any significant extent by “laying in”.
The movement of Mr Hutchings' mount and the resulting interference was admitted by both parties. The Committee were satisfied Mr Hutchings had made little if any effort to keep his mount straight until after the interference had occurred. Once Mr Hutchings took corrective action, following the interference, his horse immediately straightened.
While “Royal Governess” may have failed to finish in a place if the interference had not occurred, the horse was entitled to the racing line it was on and have the opportunity to compete.
The discretion for the Stipendiary Steward to warn, or proceed by way of laying an Information was a decision for the Stipendiary Steward based on his judgement and any relevant guidelines. The Committee had no issue with this aspect.
Accordingly the charge was proved.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Zarb advised Mr Hutchings had been suspended 4 times in the last 12 months, the most recent on 4th August 2012 (for a period of 3 days, reduced to 2 days on appeal). He told the Committee Mr Hutchings was a busy rider with an excellent record considering the number of race day rides he undertakes. He indicated that the level of the breach was in the mid to high range and his submission for penalty was for 3 days suspension.
Mr Hutchings told the Committee he normally rode on average six to seven horses on each race day he attended. Mr Hutchings, supported by Mr Kennedy requested consideration be given for a small fine.
Mr Zarb was not prepared to make any submission in this regard.
Reasons for Penalty:
We took a 5 day suspension as a starting point for a penalty in this case. Mr Hutchings has an excellent riding record, considering the number of rides he takes and we considered the level of the breach was at most at mid level.
From viewing the race video and hearing the evidence we accepted “Royal Governess” was probably a beaten horse at the time of the interference and Mr Hutchings' actions did not have any significant affect on the outcome of the race. We did take into account the potential safety aspects of Mr Hutchings' actions.
We did not consider this case warranted a minimal fine as requested by the Respondent.
Taking all these matters into account, we determined that a reduction from a 5 day suspension to a 2 day suspension was appropriate.
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: c7ff5a0289d5155d6c26eeadc59057d7
informantnumber: A4906
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 24/11/2012
hearing_title: South Canterbury RC 29 November 2012 - R 2
charge:
Careless Riding
facts:
Following the running of Race 2, The Lion Ltd Dash Rating 65, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr M Zarb alleging a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) by Apprentice Jockey Mr R Hutchings in that he rode carelessly.
The Information reads as follows:
“I, the above named informant allege that the above named Respondent committed a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) (in that) he allowed his mount “Dozintmateranyway” to shift out when not clear checking “Royal Governess” (S Muniandy) passing the 250m.”
Rule 638 (1) (d) reads as follows:
“(1) A rider shall not ride a horse: in a manner which the Judicial Authority considers to be; (d) careless;…”
Mr Hutchings had indicated on the information that this breach was not admitted, and he confirmed this at the hearing. He also agreed he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Zarb said he relied on the video coverage of the race as evidence. He illustrated how “Dozintmateranyway” (Mr Hutchings) had been travelling approximately 2 wide with 250m to run when he drifted out at least 2 horse widths into the racing line of “Royal Governess” (M Muniandy), when not significantly clear. As a consequence “Royal Governess” received a check. Mr Zarb acknowledged Mr Hutchings allowed his horse to drift out rather than “direct” the horse out.
Mr Zarb conceded “Royal Governess” appeared to have been a beaten horse but had been entitled to the racing room denied as a consequence of Mr Hutchings' actions.
Mr Kennedy acknowledged Mr Hutchings had moved out into Mr Muniandy's racing room causing interference. He said “Dozintmateranyway” was a difficult horse to ride and Mr Hutchings had handled the situation well. He gave an opinion that “Royal Governess” had “laid in” and contributed to the incident. Mr Kennedy submitted the incident was minor and should have been dealt with by way of warning.
Mr Hutchings gave evidence saying the horse was “fresh up”and difficult to ride. He said he had taken corrective action when the horse drifted out and this action had not been too late. He also believed “Royal Governess” had laid in contributing to the incident.
Mr Zarb, referring to the race video, gave evidence illustrating when “Dozintmateranyway” began to drift out, at least 2 horse widths within 50 metres, Mr Hutchings continued to ride the horse only taking corrective action after the interference had occurred. He also gave evidence confirming Mr Hutchings was not having difficulty controlling the horse immediately before the interference. Following the interference the horse had responded quickly to Mr Hutchings' corrective action, running true from that point.
reasonsfordecision:
The movement of Mr Hutchings' mount and the interference to “Royal Governess” (Mr Muniandy) at about the 250m was accepted by both parties.
Mr Hutchings, and Mr Kennedy, contended “Dozintmateranyway” was a difficult horse to ride and this had contributed to the interference. Both made submissions the incident was minor and should have been dealt with by way of a warning.
The Committee after viewing the race video did not accept that “Royal Governess” had contributed to any significant extent by “laying in”.
The movement of Mr Hutchings' mount and the resulting interference was admitted by both parties. The Committee were satisfied Mr Hutchings had made little if any effort to keep his mount straight until after the interference had occurred. Once Mr Hutchings took corrective action, following the interference, his horse immediately straightened.
While “Royal Governess” may have failed to finish in a place if the interference had not occurred, the horse was entitled to the racing line it was on and have the opportunity to compete.
The discretion for the Stipendiary Steward to warn, or proceed by way of laying an Information was a decision for the Stipendiary Steward based on his judgement and any relevant guidelines. The Committee had no issue with this aspect.
Accordingly the charge was proved.
Decision:
The charge was found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Zarb advised Mr Hutchings had been suspended 4 times in the last 12 months, the most recent on 4th August 2012 (for a period of 3 days, reduced to 2 days on appeal). He told the Committee Mr Hutchings was a busy rider with an excellent record considering the number of race day rides he undertakes. He indicated that the level of the breach was in the mid to high range and his submission for penalty was for 3 days suspension.
Mr Hutchings told the Committee he normally rode on average six to seven horses on each race day he attended. Mr Hutchings, supported by Mr Kennedy requested consideration be given for a small fine.
Mr Zarb was not prepared to make any submission in this regard.
reasonsforpenalty:
We took a 5 day suspension as a starting point for a penalty in this case. Mr Hutchings has an excellent riding record, considering the number of rides he takes and we considered the level of the breach was at most at mid level.
From viewing the race video and hearing the evidence we accepted “Royal Governess” was probably a beaten horse at the time of the interference and Mr Hutchings' actions did not have any significant affect on the outcome of the race. We did take into account the potential safety aspects of Mr Hutchings' actions.
We did not consider this case warranted a minimal fine as requested by the Respondent.
Taking all these matters into account, we determined that a reduction from a 5 day suspension to a 2 day suspension was appropriate.
penalty:
On resuming the hearing and after further discussion between Mr Kennedy and Mr Hutchings' employee regarding Mr Hutchings' riding commitments, a 2 day suspension was imposed from the completion of racing on 2nd December until completion of racing on 5th December 2012 (incorporating meetings at Paeroa and Counties).
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1) (d)
Informant: Mr M Zarb - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr R Hutchings - Apprentice Jockey
Otherperson: Mr Kennedy - assisting Mr Hutchings
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: cd1c712713ee30587150e51bbb832a4e
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: ef9fce5a621c17cae3bb3b30defb0920
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 29/11/2012
meet_title: South Canterbury RC - 29 November 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: south-canterbury-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: JMillar
meet_pm1: PKnowles
meet_pm2: none
name: South Canterbury RC