Waikato RC – 1 March 2006 – Race 1

hearingid: 6b29340072163ebb4270e34330b638da

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/03/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Waikato RC - 1 March 2006 - Race 1

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following Race 1 an information was filed pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) when it was alleged by the informant, Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham, that Mr L Innes shifted inwards on COPPER SHOES when insufficiently clear of BROWN STAR ridden by D Hain, and continued to shift inwards when insufficiently clear of VIADUCT BELLE ridden by L Cropp.

Following Race 1 an information was filed pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) when it was alleged by the informant, Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham, that Mr L Innes shifted inwards on COPPER SHOES when insufficiently clear of BROWN STAR ridden by D Hain, and continued to shift inwards when insufficiently clear of VIADUCT BELLE ridden by L Cropp. This resulted in interference to both horses.

Mr Innes did not admit the breach of the rule.

Mr Oatham asked Mr Hain and Miss Cropp to appear as witnesses. Mr Manning appeared as a witness for Mr Innes.

Mr Oatham asked Mr Hain, rider of BROWN STAR, for his interpretation of the incident. He said Mr Innes who was on his outside moved in when three-quarters length clear of him. This hampered him and caused him to check.

Mr Innes asked Mr Hain to view the film and then asked him if he had received outward movement from Miss Cropp and thus pushing out into Mr Innes. Mr Hain said Miss Cropp might have moved out very slightly.

Mr Oatham then asked Miss Cropp for her interpretation of the incident. She agreed she moved out slightly, but said she received buffeting from Mr Innes all the way down the straight. Asked by Mr Oatham if there was any severe tightening she said she was tightened on 3 or 4 occasions.

Mr Innes asked Miss Crop is she moved out. She said only slightly, but continued to receive the buffeting from him. She repeated the evidence she gave to Mr Oatham.

Mr Oatham in his evidence demonstrated the film, which confirmed all the evidence we have heard. This showed Mr Innes being four off the fence soon after turning for home. He then showed Mr Innes start an inward movement onto Mr Hain's mount when only three-quarters length clear. He then continued on the movement, which caused buffeting for most of the straight to Miss Cropp's mount.

Mr Innes asked Mr Oatham if there was any outward movement by both inside horses. Mr Oatham said there may have been slight outward movement. Mr Innes in his statement said that initially Mr Hain came out into his line, which was caused by Miss Cropp coming out. He said her horse's head was turned out. He said it was clear his mount had moved in, but he made every endeavour to pull off to relieve the pressure. He further added the mare was heavily in season.

Mr Oatham in his summing up, said that Mr Innes continued to ride forward at all times and did insufficient to correct the inward movement. He was not the required distance clear when moving in and caused buffeting to Miss Cropp most of the way down the straight.

The Committee has carefully considered all evidence and viewed the films several times.

We prefer the evidence of Mr Oatham and are clearly of the opinion that Mr Innes allowed his mount to move in, firstly onto Mr Hain and then onto Miss Cropp. He was not the required distance clear in both cases and did not take corrective measures. In fact he hit the horse three times with the whip. We do not believe the outward movements from Mr Hain and Miss Cropp had any bearing on the later inward movements of COPPER SHOES. We also acknowledge COPPER SHOES was in season, which again we do not believe had any bearing on Mr Innes' culpability.

Accordingly we find the charge proven.

PENALTY:

The Committee carefully considered all submissions. We have take into account Mr Innes' riding record, his non-guilty plea and the fact that a relegation occurred as a result of Mr Innes' ride.

Mr C Wood, trainer, appeared for Mr Innes and said he had engaged Mr Innes to ride COMMAND ?N CONQUER in the Auckland Cup on March 8. He said his owners had gone to considerable expense bringing the horse back and had backed the horse at fixed odds. He asked the Committee to consider a fine.

Mr Innes outlined his riding engagements and the considerable money he was riding for in the next week or so. He asked the Committee for a substantial fine.

Mr Oatham produced Mr Innes' record and reiterated a relegation had taken place.

In achieving a fair and correct penalty we need to balance these factors against the charge in question.

Mr Innes, we do not believe this particular transgression warrants you missing out on two northern premier days. Accordingly we impose a suspension to commence after racing on Saturday 4 March 2006 and conclude after racing on 8 March 2006. In addition we impose a fine of $5000.

CHAIRMAN

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 319239cc5a3044d5344a02a7f64cee9e

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 1

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: e8d52f4d01b9cb975670bbd676ed94ee

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 01/03/2006

meet_title: Waikato RC - 1 March 2006

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: waikato-rc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Waikato RC