Waikato RC 26 February 2014 – R 2
ID: JCA12534
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waikato RC - 26 February 2014
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Race Date:
2014/02/26
Race Number:
Race 2
Decision:
As Mr Innes admitted the breach the Committee found the charge proved.
Penalty:
Accordingly, the Committee imposes a suspension on Mr Innes which will commence after racing on March 5 as per Rule 1106 (2) and conclude after racing on March 9 (3 days)
That period of suspension encompasses meetings at Otaki - March 7, Ellerslie - March 8 and Tauherenikau - March 9.
Facts:
Following the running of race 2, Extec 2100, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Oatham, alleged that near the 350 metres Mr Innes allowed his mount CHAZELLE to shift in, dictating TIARA (V Colgan) into the line of RIVERENZA (O Bosson) which was checked.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing Mr Innes sought permission to change his plea from denied to admission of the breach. The Committee granted Mr Innes’ request and the Information was amended.
Mr Innes acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and confirmed his admission of the breach.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
Mr Williamson identified on the video films nearing the 400 metre mark CHAZELLE was racing on the extreme outside of the track with TIARA and RIVERENZA racing directly to her inside. He demonstrated on the films when CHAZELLE was placed under pressure by Mr Innes, the horse shifted into the running line of TIARA which in turn moved into the line of RIVERENZA which resulted in Mr Bosson taking hold and checking his mount.
Mr Williamson added that Mr Innes had an obligation to straighten his mount and noted in mitigation RIVERENZA was weakening at the time the interference occurred.
Mr Innes said he felt Mr Colgan had dictated him out prior to the incident and he believed he was entitled to go back to the line he was originally on. He said his mount did not move in a lot and added there was no malice on his part. Mr Innes advised that CHAZELLE was racing for the first time in pacifiers and he described the mare as being “cranky”. Mr Innes added her trainer had informed him that she “shies at everything”.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham produced Mr Innes’ record which showed 1 previous breach under this Rule in the last 12 months. He said Mr Innes record was good and noted he was one of the leading riders on the “big days”. He said Mr Innes had admitted the breach and he accepted the racing manners of CHAZELLE were not ideal. In his opinion Mr Innes’ main error was continuing to ride his mount forward with the whip when it was shifting in. He acknowledged RIVERENZA was not in contention when it was checked.
Mr Oatham assessed the overall incident as low end and a penalty in line with that would be appropriate.
Mr Innes provided the Committee with extensive submissions to consider before any proposed penalty was imposed. Mr Innes made reference to a recent penalty imposed on rider Mr H (February 23) where 2 South Island dates were included in his penalty and sought consistency from Judicial Committees. He also referred to rider, Miss M where the penalty imposed was 3 days and a fine. Mr Innes requested the Committee to also consider imposing a warning or a fine for today’s breach because any proposed suspension would impact on Auckland Cup week.
In response to a question from the Committee regarding his commitments in the next 7 days Mr Innes said he had rides in all the big races over Auckland Cup week. Mr Innes added he intended to ride at Christchurch for Mr S Kennedy on March 6.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Oatham said he can’t recollect Mr Innes riding in the South Island outside the major carnival. Mr Oatham added the meeting on March 6 was scheduled for Motukarara and not Christchurch.
Mr Innes then requested the Committee inform him in advance the number of days any proposed suspension would be. The Committee told Mr Innes the JCA policy is that riders must submit to the Committee their commitments over the next seven days before any proposed suspension is imposed.
When asked by the Committee regarding his Auckland Cup mount, Mr Innes stated in his opinion he did not have to ride ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup on March 5.
Mr Oatham advised the Committee that he had spoken to Mr Noble, the trainer of ANNIE HIGGINS. Mr Noble had informed Mr Oatham that Mr Castles, riding agent for Mr Innes, had confirmed on 25 February Mr Innes’ engagement for ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup. Mr Oatham added that this engagement had been published in the Waikato Times newspaper.
Mr Innes expressed his concern that he did not understand the 7 day deferment Rule and was therefore seeking some legal advice. Mr Innes sought an adjournment to the hearing on that basis.
Mr Oatham read aloud the Rule to Mr Innes and stated in his opinion it was very clear that Mr Innes had a firm engagement to ride ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup and therefore was obligated to comply with the Rule.
The Committee firmly advised Mr Innes that he is required to fulfil his engagement to ride ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup on March 5. The Committee reminded Mr Innes that he was well aware of this Rule (1106) and it has been in use for several years. The Committee is mindful Mr Innes has utilised this Rule in the past. Mr Innes denied he has used this Rule in the past.
At this point Mr Innes sought to change his plea. The Committee told Mr Innes this was not appropriate under the circumstances.
The Committee rejected Mr Innes’ request to seek an adjournment to the hearing knowing that Mr Innes was well aware of Rule 1106, contrary to his submissions.
Mr Innes was then requested by the Committee to make some form of solid submission. Mr Innes said he had a good record and the carelessness was at the low end which in his view deserved a warning.
Mr Innes submitted any proposed suspension could start after racing on March 1 because he was still of the view that he did not have to fulfil his engagement for ANNIE HIGGINS on March 5. Mr Innes submitted a 3 day suspension and a fine would be an appropriate penalty for today’s breach in line with Miss M penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee noted that Mr Innes had left the course and elected not to be present when reasons for penalty and penalty were announced.
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The Committee has adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension. The mitigating factors are Mr Innes’ admission of the breach, his good record in relation to this Rule and the level of carelessness is assessed at the low end.
The Committee noted that Mr Innes made an error of judgement when continuing to ride his mount forward with the whip when shifting ground. The Committee also noted that Mr Innes was not the required distance clear of TIARA which resulted in RIVERENZA being checked.
The Committee does not accept Mr Innes’ view that he does not have to fulfil his engagement for ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup ($500,000, Group 1) on March 5. There was credible evidence provided by Mr Oatham that Mr Innes has a firm engagement for ANNIE HIGGINS. The Committee can confirm this having read articles in the press during this week which stated Mr Innes was engaged to ride ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup on March 5. As stated earlier the Committee firmly advised Mr Innes that he is required to fulfil his engagement to ride ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup on March 5.
The Committee rejected Mr Innes’ submission he was intending to ride at Motukarara on March 6. This is based on Mr Innes having no history of riding at South Island meetings on industry days. The Committee noted that Mr Oatham had no record of Mr Innes riding at South Island meetings on industry days. Mr Innes was unable to inform the Committee when he last rode at Motukarara.
The Committee reminded Mr Innes during penalty submissions that Committees need to test firmly the evidence of riders in respect of where they will be riding. This procedure as per JCA newsletter December 2011 is consistently adopted for all riders in this region.
The Committee carefully considered the various submissions made by Mr Innes surrounding penalty but is not satisfied a warning, fine or combination of fine and suspension is appropriate on this occasion. The Committee was not in a position to comment on the penalty imposed on Mr H but noted Mr Innes’ concern around consistency.
The Committee considered Mr Innes submission of a suspension and a fine similar to Miss M to allow him to ride on March 8. However, this would have meant Mr Innes incurred a 1 day suspension (March 7) and a fine which is clearly not an appropriate penalty. The Committee is aware that in Miss M case the last day of her suspension involved a Group 1 race when a combination of a 3 day suspension and a fine was imposed.
The Committee considers this type of breach would generally attract a 4 day suspension. However, the Committee had regard that Mr Innes would miss the race meeting on March 8 which includes two Group 1 races with stake money of $200,000. For this reason along with the mitigating factors involved in this particular breach discretion has been exercised and Mr Innes’ penalty has been adjusted downwards by 1 day.
The Committee during penalty submissions explained to Mr Innes that he is an experienced senior rider with the knowledge that Auckland Cup week was in March and any breach incurred today would result in a penalty.
The Committee when verifying Mr Innes’ record noted that he was suspended on February 13 and February 17 last year. The Committee noted that on February 17 Mr Innes and his agent made submissions that he was intending to ride at Omakau and Cromwell. This was rejected by the Committee on the day because Mr Innes had no history of riding at those meetings.
Taking into account all the above factors the Committee considers an appropriate period of suspension is 3 days.
Finally, the Committee is also mindful a 3 day penalty is a rare occurrence in this region. The reason for exercising discretion for this particular breach has been recorded above.
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: 69cfa434b044d84ac846eb04f2ee533d
informantnumber: A6558
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 23/02/2014
hearing_title: Waikato RC 26 February 2014 - R 2
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 2, Extec 2100, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Oatham, alleged that near the 350 metres Mr Innes allowed his mount CHAZELLE to shift in, dictating TIARA (V Colgan) into the line of RIVERENZA (O Bosson) which was checked.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing Mr Innes sought permission to change his plea from denied to admission of the breach. The Committee granted Mr Innes’ request and the Information was amended.
Mr Innes acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and confirmed his admission of the breach.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
Mr Williamson identified on the video films nearing the 400 metre mark CHAZELLE was racing on the extreme outside of the track with TIARA and RIVERENZA racing directly to her inside. He demonstrated on the films when CHAZELLE was placed under pressure by Mr Innes, the horse shifted into the running line of TIARA which in turn moved into the line of RIVERENZA which resulted in Mr Bosson taking hold and checking his mount.
Mr Williamson added that Mr Innes had an obligation to straighten his mount and noted in mitigation RIVERENZA was weakening at the time the interference occurred.
Mr Innes said he felt Mr Colgan had dictated him out prior to the incident and he believed he was entitled to go back to the line he was originally on. He said his mount did not move in a lot and added there was no malice on his part. Mr Innes advised that CHAZELLE was racing for the first time in pacifiers and he described the mare as being “cranky”. Mr Innes added her trainer had informed him that she “shies at everything”.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
As Mr Innes admitted the breach the Committee found the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham produced Mr Innes’ record which showed 1 previous breach under this Rule in the last 12 months. He said Mr Innes record was good and noted he was one of the leading riders on the “big days”. He said Mr Innes had admitted the breach and he accepted the racing manners of CHAZELLE were not ideal. In his opinion Mr Innes’ main error was continuing to ride his mount forward with the whip when it was shifting in. He acknowledged RIVERENZA was not in contention when it was checked.
Mr Oatham assessed the overall incident as low end and a penalty in line with that would be appropriate.
Mr Innes provided the Committee with extensive submissions to consider before any proposed penalty was imposed. Mr Innes made reference to a recent penalty imposed on rider Mr H (February 23) where 2 South Island dates were included in his penalty and sought consistency from Judicial Committees. He also referred to rider, Miss M where the penalty imposed was 3 days and a fine. Mr Innes requested the Committee to also consider imposing a warning or a fine for today’s breach because any proposed suspension would impact on Auckland Cup week.
In response to a question from the Committee regarding his commitments in the next 7 days Mr Innes said he had rides in all the big races over Auckland Cup week. Mr Innes added he intended to ride at Christchurch for Mr S Kennedy on March 6.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Oatham said he can’t recollect Mr Innes riding in the South Island outside the major carnival. Mr Oatham added the meeting on March 6 was scheduled for Motukarara and not Christchurch.
Mr Innes then requested the Committee inform him in advance the number of days any proposed suspension would be. The Committee told Mr Innes the JCA policy is that riders must submit to the Committee their commitments over the next seven days before any proposed suspension is imposed.
When asked by the Committee regarding his Auckland Cup mount, Mr Innes stated in his opinion he did not have to ride ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup on March 5.
Mr Oatham advised the Committee that he had spoken to Mr Noble, the trainer of ANNIE HIGGINS. Mr Noble had informed Mr Oatham that Mr Castles, riding agent for Mr Innes, had confirmed on 25 February Mr Innes’ engagement for ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup. Mr Oatham added that this engagement had been published in the Waikato Times newspaper.
Mr Innes expressed his concern that he did not understand the 7 day deferment Rule and was therefore seeking some legal advice. Mr Innes sought an adjournment to the hearing on that basis.
Mr Oatham read aloud the Rule to Mr Innes and stated in his opinion it was very clear that Mr Innes had a firm engagement to ride ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup and therefore was obligated to comply with the Rule.
The Committee firmly advised Mr Innes that he is required to fulfil his engagement to ride ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup on March 5. The Committee reminded Mr Innes that he was well aware of this Rule (1106) and it has been in use for several years. The Committee is mindful Mr Innes has utilised this Rule in the past. Mr Innes denied he has used this Rule in the past.
At this point Mr Innes sought to change his plea. The Committee told Mr Innes this was not appropriate under the circumstances.
The Committee rejected Mr Innes’ request to seek an adjournment to the hearing knowing that Mr Innes was well aware of Rule 1106, contrary to his submissions.
Mr Innes was then requested by the Committee to make some form of solid submission. Mr Innes said he had a good record and the carelessness was at the low end which in his view deserved a warning.
Mr Innes submitted any proposed suspension could start after racing on March 1 because he was still of the view that he did not have to fulfil his engagement for ANNIE HIGGINS on March 5. Mr Innes submitted a 3 day suspension and a fine would be an appropriate penalty for today’s breach in line with Miss M penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee noted that Mr Innes had left the course and elected not to be present when reasons for penalty and penalty were announced.
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The Committee has adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension. The mitigating factors are Mr Innes’ admission of the breach, his good record in relation to this Rule and the level of carelessness is assessed at the low end.
The Committee noted that Mr Innes made an error of judgement when continuing to ride his mount forward with the whip when shifting ground. The Committee also noted that Mr Innes was not the required distance clear of TIARA which resulted in RIVERENZA being checked.
The Committee does not accept Mr Innes’ view that he does not have to fulfil his engagement for ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup ($500,000, Group 1) on March 5. There was credible evidence provided by Mr Oatham that Mr Innes has a firm engagement for ANNIE HIGGINS. The Committee can confirm this having read articles in the press during this week which stated Mr Innes was engaged to ride ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup on March 5. As stated earlier the Committee firmly advised Mr Innes that he is required to fulfil his engagement to ride ANNIE HIGGINS in the Auckland Cup on March 5.
The Committee rejected Mr Innes’ submission he was intending to ride at Motukarara on March 6. This is based on Mr Innes having no history of riding at South Island meetings on industry days. The Committee noted that Mr Oatham had no record of Mr Innes riding at South Island meetings on industry days. Mr Innes was unable to inform the Committee when he last rode at Motukarara.
The Committee reminded Mr Innes during penalty submissions that Committees need to test firmly the evidence of riders in respect of where they will be riding. This procedure as per JCA newsletter December 2011 is consistently adopted for all riders in this region.
The Committee carefully considered the various submissions made by Mr Innes surrounding penalty but is not satisfied a warning, fine or combination of fine and suspension is appropriate on this occasion. The Committee was not in a position to comment on the penalty imposed on Mr H but noted Mr Innes’ concern around consistency.
The Committee considered Mr Innes submission of a suspension and a fine similar to Miss M to allow him to ride on March 8. However, this would have meant Mr Innes incurred a 1 day suspension (March 7) and a fine which is clearly not an appropriate penalty. The Committee is aware that in Miss M case the last day of her suspension involved a Group 1 race when a combination of a 3 day suspension and a fine was imposed.
The Committee considers this type of breach would generally attract a 4 day suspension. However, the Committee had regard that Mr Innes would miss the race meeting on March 8 which includes two Group 1 races with stake money of $200,000. For this reason along with the mitigating factors involved in this particular breach discretion has been exercised and Mr Innes’ penalty has been adjusted downwards by 1 day.
The Committee during penalty submissions explained to Mr Innes that he is an experienced senior rider with the knowledge that Auckland Cup week was in March and any breach incurred today would result in a penalty.
The Committee when verifying Mr Innes’ record noted that he was suspended on February 13 and February 17 last year. The Committee noted that on February 17 Mr Innes and his agent made submissions that he was intending to ride at Omakau and Cromwell. This was rejected by the Committee on the day because Mr Innes had no history of riding at those meetings.
Taking into account all the above factors the Committee considers an appropriate period of suspension is 3 days.
Finally, the Committee is also mindful a 3 day penalty is a rare occurrence in this region. The reason for exercising discretion for this particular breach has been recorded above.
penalty:
Accordingly, the Committee imposes a suspension on Mr Innes which will commence after racing on March 5 as per Rule 1106 (2) and conclude after racing on March 9 (3 days)
That period of suspension encompasses meetings at Otaki - March 7, Ellerslie - March 8 and Tauherenikau - March 9.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr L Innes - Rider of CHAZELLE
Otherperson: Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d2b1270691c7e93b01b26cdfcc790351
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: d1eb5d9ad4e299b02c4ac252d26786e5
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/02/2014
meet_title: Waikato RC - 26 February 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikato-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Waikato RC