Wairarapa RC – 6 February 2005 – Race 10

Following the running of Race 10, Ms Johnston was charged with careless riding. The allegation was that in the early stages of the race Ms Johnston allowed her mount, Yarra Gold, to shift inwards, taking the line of Kiwi Union (Ms L Cropp), forcing that horse over onto Justice at Last (H Tinsley), interfering with that horse.

Ms Johnston did not admit the breach of rule. She was represented at the hearing by Mr B Herd.

Ms Cropp gave evidence that in the early stages of Race 10 she was racing on the outside of Justice At Last, the horse being ridden by Mr Tinsley. Yarra Gold, which was being ridden by Ms Johnston, came around outside her. It shifted in, although not clear of her, taking her line. That action forced her mount, Kiwi Union, to shift inwards, causing tightening Mr Tinsley's mount. She said that Yarra Gold was not more than one length ahead when it shifted in and that it shifted in about a horse's length. She had to take action to clear the heels of Yarra Gold. She also said that she called out but was given no relief.

Mr Tinsley confirmed that he was riding about two out from the fence with Ms Cropp on his outside. He said he saw Ms Johnston coming around Ms Cropp and anticipated what was likely to happen by shifting his horse out somewhat to create room. Nevertheless, Ms Johnston's horse took the line of Ms Cropp's horse, tightening occurred when Kiwi union was forced inwards onto his horse and he had to check Justice At Last out to avoid an accident.

Mr McCutcheon then showed video footage of the early stages of the race from the front and side perspectives. He expressed the opinion that the video clearly confirmed the evidence given by both Ms Cropp and Mr Tinsley. He drew attention to the side on view in particular, as it showed that the mounts of both riders lost considerable ground as a result of the checks received.

Mr Herd then made a submission on Ms Johnston's behalf. Using the video to illustrate what he was staying, he argued that there was ample room between Ms Johnston's mount and Ms Cropp's mount and that the check suffered by Mr Tinsley's mount occurred because Ms Cropp's horse shifted inwards onto it and not because of any action by Ms Johnston.

The Committee found as a fact that in the early stages of the race when Yarra Gold was going past Kiwi Union, its rider, Ms Johnston, allowed the horse to shift inwards approximately two horse's width when insufficiently clear of Kiwi Union. As a result, Kiwi Union (ridden by Ms Cropp) suffered a check and was forced to shift inwards also, causing a severe check to Justice at Last (ridden by Mr Tinsley).

In coming to that conclusion, the Committee considered, but expressly rejected, the argument advanced for Ms Johnston namely that there was ample room between her horse and that ridden by Ms Cropp, and that any interference to Mr Tinsley's horse was caused by Ms Cropp's horse. The evidence advanced at the hearing did not provide any support for that argument at all.

The Committee was satisfied, on the evidence presented, that the charge of careless riding had been proved.

Mr McCutcheon noted that Ms Johnston had had four previous charges of careless riding in the last 12 months, namely in November, October, June and February 2004. He also noted that the checks received by Kiwi Union and Justice At Last were substantial with both horses losing considerable ground as a result. Further, Ms Johnston failed to take any action to relieve the situation. He considered that a significant suspension was warranted.

Mr Herd noted that Ms Johnston, although still an apprentice, received a lot of rides, which spoke well of her ability and promise. He submitted that the number of charges was not excessive given the number of rides Ms Johnston had. Ms Johnston confirmed that she rode in both the Northern and Central Districts.

The Committee noted that Ms Johnston received a lot of rides and accepted that she was clearly a rider of ability and substantial promise. Nevertheless, this was the fifth charge of careless riding in the space of twelve months and that was not a good riding record even given the number of rides that she had. That fact must be reflected in the penalty to be imposed on this occasion.

In addition, the Committee was of the opinion that the degree of carelessness in this case was on the high side. Two horses received substantial checks as a result of Ms Johnston allowing her mount to shift inwards a significant distance although not sufficiently clear of the horses inside her, and from her failure to take any action to relieve the situation. It was fortunate that her actions did not cause an accident and indeed, in the Committee's opinion, an accident was only avoided by the skill and experience of the rider's affected by her action namely Ms Cropp and Mr Tinsley. In the circumstances, suspension is inevitable.

Having regard to the fact that this is the fifth careless riding charge in a year as well as the seriousness of the offence on this occasion, the Committee concluded that the appropriate term of suspension must be more than the 3 or 4 days generally imposed for careless riding. Ms Johnston was suspended from after the close of racing on Wednesday 9 February 2005 until after the close of racing on Thursday 24 February 2005 (which in the opinion of the Committee is a suspension of seven days).