Waipa RC 23 October 2015 – R 7 – Chair, Mr A Dooley
ID: JCA13840
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waipa RC - 23 October 2015
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
RSeabrook
Race Date:
2015/10/23
Race Number:
R7
Decision:
Because Ms Olney was not at least her own length and one other length in front of Mrs Allpress when moving in, we find the charge proved.
Penalty:
We grant a deferment to Ms Olney’s suspension as per Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Ms Olney had her license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 29 October and conclude after racing on 6 November 2015 (4 days)
That period of suspension encompasses meetings at Tauranga, Ellerslie, Avondale and Rotorua.
Facts:
Following the running of race 7, PIC Insurance 1150, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d).The Informant, Mr Jones alleged that Ms Olney permitted her mount SABER to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of SPRINGLOADED which was dictated inwards into the line of ORANGE PEEL which was checked near the 1,000 metres going back onto SHEBANG which was checked.
Ms Olney acknowledged that she understood the Rule and confirmed she denied the breach. Her employer Mr Rogerson assisted Ms Olney at the hearing.
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 Jones told the Committee he would be calling 2 witnesses namely Mrs Allpress the rider of SPRINGLOADED and Mr Coleman the rider of ORANGE PEEL.
The following are the salient points of the hearing.
Mr Oatham demonstrated the incident using all the available video films. He pointed out to the Committee that ORANGE PEEL was racing adjacent to the running rail and approximately half a length behind SPRINGLOADED with SABER racing in a 3 wide position outside the pair and going forward to take up the lead near the 1,000 metres. He identified that Mrs Allpress had to take a hold of her mount to avoid the heels of SABER when Ms Olney permitted her mount to shift in when only a bare length clear of SPRINGLOADED. This resulted in Mrs Allpress being dictated inwards into the rightful running line of ORANGE PEEL who had to be checked losing several lengths. The further impact of this crowding was ORANGE PEEL interfering with SHEBANG when she came back on that runner.
Mr Oatham also demonstrated the video footage from the tower at the top of the straight which showed Ms Olney was no more than 1 length clear when shifting in.
Mr Rogerson told the Committee that he did not agree with Mr Oatham’s interpretation of the incident but elected not to cross examine him.
Mr Jones called Mr Coleman as a witness. Mr Coleman submitted that Mrs Allpress was on his outside and approximately a neck in front of him when he observed her being crowded. He said that Ms Olney crowded Mrs Allpress when only ¾ of a length ahead of her. He said that he anticipated the incident was going to happen 4 to 5 strides before it occurred. He said as a result of Mrs Allpress being dictated in he received pressure which caused him to check sharply and lose about 4 lengths in total. He added that his horse reacted unkindly to the interference.
Mr Jones called Mrs Allpress as the next witness. Mrs Allpress submitted that she had to take a hold of her mount when Ms Olney came across and dictated her inwards when only 1 length clear. Mrs Allpress said she was mindful that Mr Coleman was racing on her inside adjacent to the running rail and about ½ a length behind her.
Mr Rogerson told the Committee that he would be talking on behalf of his Apprentice. He commenced by saying the charge was simple in that there is no evidence to say that Ms Olney was not clear when shifting in. He said both Mrs Allpress and Mr Coleman were both checking their mounts before Ms Olney moved in. He stated Mr Coleman said in his evidence ORANGE PEEL had over – reacted to the incident and he believed that Mrs Allpress was checking her mount in anticipation of Ms Olney’s shift inwards.
Mr Jones in summing up submitted that the evidence from the video films and the 2 witnesses were clear that Ms Olney was not the required distance clear when permitting her mount to shift in.
Mr Rogerson in summing up submitted that Ms Olney was the victim of this Stewards inquiry and it was a marginal incident. He stated that both riders had over – reacted to the incident because they anticipated the shift inwards. He concluded by saying the films do not show that Ms Olney was not the required distance clear.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times we established that Ms Olney jumped out of barrier 5 with Mrs Allpress barrier 2 and Mr Coleman barrier 1. Approximately 100 metres after the start Ms Olney looked to her inside where Mrs Allpress and Mr Coleman were racing. The films clearly show that Ms Olney allowed her mount to shift in when only ¾ of a length clear of SPRINGLOADED. This resulted in Mrs Allpress having to check her mount who was then dictated inwards into the rightful running line of ORANGE PEEL which was checked sharply and that horse went back onto SHEBANG which was also checked.
The evidence of Mr Oatham, Mrs Allpress and Mr Coleman was compelling and supported by the available video footage.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Jones produced Ms Olney’s record which showed no previous breach under this Rule. He said the level of carelessness was low to mid – range and believed the level of interference was mid – range. He submitted that he would let the Committee determine an appropriate penalty.
Mr Rogerson submitted that Ms Olney has had a very limited riding career to date. He said the level of carelessness was low to mid – range and asked the Committee to consider a fine due to Ms Olney’s record. He asked the Committee to also consider a warning because in his opinion Mrs Allpress and Mr Coleman contributed to the interference.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Rogerson sought a deferment to any proposed penalty because Ms Olney was intending to ride at New Plymouth on 29 October a meeting scheduled for Apprentice riders only.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension for this careless riding charge. The mitigating factors were Ms Olney’s inexperience as an Apprentice rider, her very good record from a limited number of rides and we assess the level of carelessness was low end for which she has been given credit. However, this has to be balanced against the consequences of Ms Olney’s actions which resulted in 3 horses being checked to varying degrees with ORANGE PEEL being the worst affected. The impact of Ms Olney’s carelessness was assessed as mid – range and an aggravating factor.
The Committee advised Ms Olney that she was not penalised for denying the breach but she loses the benefit of a discount on penalty that might otherwise have been given for an admission of a breach.
In our opinion there were no compelling or exceptional circumstances placed before us to merit a fine or warning.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a 4 day suspension.
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: 75f906e6c553ab00f10d44ed5e6e781b
informantnumber: A4577
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 26/10/2015
hearing_title: Waipa RC 23 October 2015 - R 7 - Chair, Mr A Dooley
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 7, PIC Insurance 1150, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d).The Informant, Mr Jones alleged that Ms Olney permitted her mount SABER to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of SPRINGLOADED which was dictated inwards into the line of ORANGE PEEL which was checked near the 1,000 metres going back onto SHEBANG which was checked.
Ms Olney acknowledged that she understood the Rule and confirmed she denied the breach. Her employer Mr Rogerson assisted Ms Olney at the hearing.
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 Jones told the Committee he would be calling 2 witnesses namely Mrs Allpress the rider of SPRINGLOADED and Mr Coleman the rider of ORANGE PEEL.
The following are the salient points of the hearing.
Mr Oatham demonstrated the incident using all the available video films. He pointed out to the Committee that ORANGE PEEL was racing adjacent to the running rail and approximately half a length behind SPRINGLOADED with SABER racing in a 3 wide position outside the pair and going forward to take up the lead near the 1,000 metres. He identified that Mrs Allpress had to take a hold of her mount to avoid the heels of SABER when Ms Olney permitted her mount to shift in when only a bare length clear of SPRINGLOADED. This resulted in Mrs Allpress being dictated inwards into the rightful running line of ORANGE PEEL who had to be checked losing several lengths. The further impact of this crowding was ORANGE PEEL interfering with SHEBANG when she came back on that runner.
Mr Oatham also demonstrated the video footage from the tower at the top of the straight which showed Ms Olney was no more than 1 length clear when shifting in.
Mr Rogerson told the Committee that he did not agree with Mr Oatham’s interpretation of the incident but elected not to cross examine him.
Mr Jones called Mr Coleman as a witness. Mr Coleman submitted that Mrs Allpress was on his outside and approximately a neck in front of him when he observed her being crowded. He said that Ms Olney crowded Mrs Allpress when only ¾ of a length ahead of her. He said that he anticipated the incident was going to happen 4 to 5 strides before it occurred. He said as a result of Mrs Allpress being dictated in he received pressure which caused him to check sharply and lose about 4 lengths in total. He added that his horse reacted unkindly to the interference.
Mr Jones called Mrs Allpress as the next witness. Mrs Allpress submitted that she had to take a hold of her mount when Ms Olney came across and dictated her inwards when only 1 length clear. Mrs Allpress said she was mindful that Mr Coleman was racing on her inside adjacent to the running rail and about ½ a length behind her.
Mr Rogerson told the Committee that he would be talking on behalf of his Apprentice. He commenced by saying the charge was simple in that there is no evidence to say that Ms Olney was not clear when shifting in. He said both Mrs Allpress and Mr Coleman were both checking their mounts before Ms Olney moved in. He stated Mr Coleman said in his evidence ORANGE PEEL had over – reacted to the incident and he believed that Mrs Allpress was checking her mount in anticipation of Ms Olney’s shift inwards.
Mr Jones in summing up submitted that the evidence from the video films and the 2 witnesses were clear that Ms Olney was not the required distance clear when permitting her mount to shift in.
Mr Rogerson in summing up submitted that Ms Olney was the victim of this Stewards inquiry and it was a marginal incident. He stated that both riders had over – reacted to the incident because they anticipated the shift inwards. He concluded by saying the films do not show that Ms Olney was not the required distance clear.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times we established that Ms Olney jumped out of barrier 5 with Mrs Allpress barrier 2 and Mr Coleman barrier 1. Approximately 100 metres after the start Ms Olney looked to her inside where Mrs Allpress and Mr Coleman were racing. The films clearly show that Ms Olney allowed her mount to shift in when only ¾ of a length clear of SPRINGLOADED. This resulted in Mrs Allpress having to check her mount who was then dictated inwards into the rightful running line of ORANGE PEEL which was checked sharply and that horse went back onto SHEBANG which was also checked.
The evidence of Mr Oatham, Mrs Allpress and Mr Coleman was compelling and supported by the available video footage.
Decision:
Because Ms Olney was not at least her own length and one other length in front of Mrs Allpress when moving in, we find the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Jones produced Ms Olney’s record which showed no previous breach under this Rule. He said the level of carelessness was low to mid – range and believed the level of interference was mid – range. He submitted that he would let the Committee determine an appropriate penalty.
Mr Rogerson submitted that Ms Olney has had a very limited riding career to date. He said the level of carelessness was low to mid – range and asked the Committee to consider a fine due to Ms Olney’s record. He asked the Committee to also consider a warning because in his opinion Mrs Allpress and Mr Coleman contributed to the interference.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Rogerson sought a deferment to any proposed penalty because Ms Olney was intending to ride at New Plymouth on 29 October a meeting scheduled for Apprentice riders only.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension for this careless riding charge. The mitigating factors were Ms Olney’s inexperience as an Apprentice rider, her very good record from a limited number of rides and we assess the level of carelessness was low end for which she has been given credit. However, this has to be balanced against the consequences of Ms Olney’s actions which resulted in 3 horses being checked to varying degrees with ORANGE PEEL being the worst affected. The impact of Ms Olney’s carelessness was assessed as mid – range and an aggravating factor.
The Committee advised Ms Olney that she was not penalised for denying the breach but she loses the benefit of a discount on penalty that might otherwise have been given for an admission of a breach.
In our opinion there were no compelling or exceptional circumstances placed before us to merit a fine or warning.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a 4 day suspension.
penalty:
We grant a deferment to Ms Olney’s suspension as per Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Ms Olney had her license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 29 October and conclude after racing on 6 November 2015 (4 days)
That period of suspension encompasses meetings at Tauranga, Ellerslie, Avondale and Rotorua.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr B Jones - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms S Olney - Apprentice Rider
Otherperson: Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr G Rogerson - assisting Ms Olney, Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward, Mr W Robinson - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 7aa6a17f3056ac513040ff14126b73d5
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: d08cb081d8d7144340347f1971904f98
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 23/10/2015
meet_title: Waipa RC - 23 October 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waipa-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: RSeabrook
meet_pm2: none
name: Waipa RC