Wairoa RC 23 February 2014 – R 6
ID: JCA13934
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Wairoa RC - 23 February 2014
Meet Chair:
TCastles
Race Date:
2014/02/23
Race Number:
R6
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
Penalty:
Mr. Hutchings you are suspended from race riding after Saturday the 1st of March 2014 until the completion of racing on Friday the 7th of March 2014. A total of 4 days.
Facts:
Mr. R. Hutchings, represented by Mr. G. Rogerson (his employer), did not admit a breach of rule 638 (1) (d) in that Mr. Hutchings (Grace O'malley) allowed his mount to shift inward passing the 800 metres dictating Lilly Belle (A. Jones) inwards onto the line of Prefontaine (R. Myers) which was checked. Rule 638 (1) (d) reads: “A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless”.
Mr. G. Rogerson retained the right to call Jockey K. Smith as a witness while Mr. Goodwin indicated the stewards wished to call as witnesses jockeys R. Myers and A. Jones.
The available films of the incident were shown – head, side and back on. Mr. Robinson Stipendiary Steward submitted that near the 800 metre mark Mr. R. Hutchings, rider of Grace OMalley, angled his mount inwards causing tightening to the two horses down on his inside. He informed the Chairman that the pressure placed on Lilly Belle (A. Jones) by Mr. Hutchings caused R. Myers (Prefontaine) to take hold and was checked. Miss Jones’ mount's head was turned outwards indicating that she had taken hold and was attempting to pull off realising that the pressure from Mr. Hutchings had forced her inwards on to Miss Myers' mount.
Mr. Robinson indicated that Mr. Hutchings was not the required distance clear when he crossed placing pressure on the two horses down on the inside. There was no way there was enough room for the three horses and Miss Myers had no option but to take hold. He believed that Miss Myers made contact with the running rail a point later confirmed by Miss Myers. Mr. Rogerson questioned Mr. Robinson on whether or not Miss. Jones contributed to the incident by moving off her line. Mr. Robinson did not believe that Miss. Jones' actions contributed to the incident.
Submissions for Decision:
Miss. R. Myers, rider of (Prefontaine) was called as a witness. She submitted that passing the 800 metre mark, pressure was placed on her mount by the horse on her outside which in turn was under pressure from Mr. Hutchings' mount. She called and took hold, but still did make contact with the running rail. She was asked by Mr. Hutchings whether the pressure came from Miss Jones’ mount and indicated that was the case but the pressure placed on her mount by Mr. Hutchings' actions caused that pressure.
Miss. A. Jones, rider of Lilly Belle, was called as a witness. She submitted that in the run down the back straight she was two off the rail travelling well when Mr. Hutchings angled his mount inward causing her to take hold and forcing her down onto Miss. Myers' mount. She felt there was no room for them both and that she couldn’t relieve the pressure placed on her without moving inwards onto Miss Myers' mount.
Mr. Rogerson asked Miss Jones if her mount was laying in and contributed to the incident. Miss Jones believed that she did not contribute to the incident, her actions were totally dictated to by Mr. Hutchings' inward movement.
Mr. Goodwin had no further comment except to ask Miss Jones if Mr. Hutchings was sufficiently clear of her when he moved inwards. She was adamant he was not sufficiently clear. Mr. Rogerson, on Mr. Hutchings' behalf, indicated he wished to call jockey K. Smith as a witness.
Mr. Rogerson submitted that the quality of the films were not all that good and possibly gave an unfair picture of the incident. He felt that Mr. Hutchings was clear when he came across, it was close to the point of the bend and horses tend to drift toward the rail. The tightening and the interference to both the horses down on the inside happened, he believed, after Mr. Hutchings crossed. He was adamant that Miss. Jones contributed to the incident. She was after all a claiming jockey, a little inexperienced, and possibly overreacted when Mr. Hutchings came up on her outside. He believed that Miss Jones laid in but this was denied by Miss Jones.
He was asked by the Chairman if he believed under the rules of racing Mr. Hutchings was sufficiently clear when he came across to which he replied maybe and anyway he was clear after the incident.
Mr. K. Smith was then called as a witness. He believed that as he was travelling behind the leaders he decided to follow Mr. Hutchings into the race and consequently moved in behind his mount. He saw the tightening down on the rail and believed Miss Jones’ mount may have moved slightly and placed pressure on Miss Myers. He was asked by Mr. Goodwin if Miss Jones’ mount was laying in to which he replied he wasn’t sure. The films gave a different picture of what happened. He felt Miss Jones was partially pressured by the incident but it was a different kind of pressure.
When asked by the Chairman if, in his opinion as a senior jockey, was Mr. Hutchings sufficiently clear when coming across, he replied no. In summing up Mr. Goodwin reiterated that in the steward's opinion Mr. Hutchings was not sufficiently clear when he crossed. Pressure was exerted onto Miss Jones who in turn had nowhere to go except onto Miss Myers on her inside. Miss. Myers had to take hold and was checked. The incident caused her to make contact with the running rail.
Mr. Rogerson in summing up stressed his belief that Miss Jones’ actions were a contributing factor. He felt she was laying inwards onto Miss Myers' mount and that she may have overreacted. The horses down on the inside, he believed, were not in a good position approaching the bend, and that if Miss. Jones' mount laid in and contributed even in a small way Mr. Hutchings was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Hutchings had no comment except to reiterate he felt he was sufficiently clear.
Reasons for Decision:
There was no doubt that this hearing was vigorously pursued by all parties. Mr. Goodwin and the stewards believed strongly that Mr. Hutchings was not the required distance clear when he moved inward. The films and Mr. Robinson's interpretation of them confirmed that submission.
Mr. Rogerson on the other hand, while accepting that Mr. Hutchings did move inward, felt that he was sufficiently clear when the interference occurred. He strongly believed that Miss Jones' actions (the laying in on Miss Myers) was a contributing factor.
Miss Myers, as the rider of the horse that was most effected, was adamant that the interference she suffered came from Miss Jones who had nowhere to go after being forced inwards by Mr. Hutchings' actions. Miss Jones strongly denied the suggestion that her laying in on Miss Myers was a contributing factor.
Mr. K. Smith's submission was a little confusing. His interpretations of riding in the race and then seeing the incident on film were different. He did confirm however that in his opinion Mr. Hutchings was not the prescribed distance clear when crossing.
The playing of the films again on a number of occasions did not convince me that Miss Jones' actions were a contributing factor in the incident. Both Miss Myers and Miss Jones were entitled to be where they were and the inward movement by Miss Jones onto Miss Myers only came after Mr. Hutchings moved inwards. All of the films, even allowing for a slight lack of clarity, clearly showed that Mr. Hutchings was not sufficiently clear when crossing causing tightness to Miss Jones’ mount and then interference to Miss Myers' mount down on the fence.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr. Goodwin submitted that Mr. Hutchings' record under this rule was good. He is a busy jockey who rides all over New Zealand. He was last charged on the 7th of December 2013 and received a 4 day suspension, prior to that in May 2013 at Hawks Bay he was suspended for 5 days. This incident Mr. Goodwin believe could be classed in the mid range category and he asked for a period of suspension of at least 4 days.
Mr. Rogerson, on Mr. Hutchings' behalf, while accepting a period of suspension would be imposed, did enquire about a combination of a fine and suspension thereby allowing Mr. Hutchings to ride at the lucrative Auckland Carnival. I quickly confirmed to Mr. Rogerson I was not prepared to consider that option. Basically because that option, while it has been used in the past, had to be one of extenuating circumstances. I did not believe this charge and the resultant penalty justified that. With co-operation from all parties I was sure that a compromise allowing Mr. Hutchings to ride for part of the carnival could be arrived at. After discussion between the two Mr. Rogerson submitted that their preference would be for Mr. Hutchings to ride in the Derby on Saturday the 1st of March and any penalty to commence after that. He asked for consideration to be given for Mr. Hutchings to ride on the final day of the carnival as he hoped to be riding a horse bound for overseas with a possibility of retaining that ride.
Reasons for Penalty:
In arriving at a decision to impose a period of suspension for this breach I was mindful of the important racing carnival just around the corner. However a breach of careless riding was found to be proved, interference occurred to two horses, one making contact with the running rail. The incident could be classed in the mid range. Mr. Hutchings' record is good. He is a busy rider travelling around New Zealand to ride. The decision does involve a deferment as allowed under the rules of racing and this was done with the co-operation of both parties. It was important I believe to allow Mr. Hutchings an opportunity as an apprentice to possibly ride in the New Zealand Derby, a prestige race.
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: 826506b1f3855c71e5b2328022f014d1
informantnumber: A4020
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Alledged breach of rule 638 (1) (d)
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 23/02/2014
hearing_title: Wairoa RC 23 February 2014 - R 6
charge:
facts:
Mr. R. Hutchings, represented by Mr. G. Rogerson (his employer), did not admit a breach of rule 638 (1) (d) in that Mr. Hutchings (Grace O'malley) allowed his mount to shift inward passing the 800 metres dictating Lilly Belle (A. Jones) inwards onto the line of Prefontaine (R. Myers) which was checked. Rule 638 (1) (d) reads: “A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless”.
Mr. G. Rogerson retained the right to call Jockey K. Smith as a witness while Mr. Goodwin indicated the stewards wished to call as witnesses jockeys R. Myers and A. Jones.
The available films of the incident were shown – head, side and back on. Mr. Robinson Stipendiary Steward submitted that near the 800 metre mark Mr. R. Hutchings, rider of Grace OMalley, angled his mount inwards causing tightening to the two horses down on his inside. He informed the Chairman that the pressure placed on Lilly Belle (A. Jones) by Mr. Hutchings caused R. Myers (Prefontaine) to take hold and was checked. Miss Jones’ mount's head was turned outwards indicating that she had taken hold and was attempting to pull off realising that the pressure from Mr. Hutchings had forced her inwards on to Miss Myers' mount.
Mr. Robinson indicated that Mr. Hutchings was not the required distance clear when he crossed placing pressure on the two horses down on the inside. There was no way there was enough room for the three horses and Miss Myers had no option but to take hold. He believed that Miss Myers made contact with the running rail a point later confirmed by Miss Myers. Mr. Rogerson questioned Mr. Robinson on whether or not Miss. Jones contributed to the incident by moving off her line. Mr. Robinson did not believe that Miss. Jones' actions contributed to the incident.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Miss. R. Myers, rider of (Prefontaine) was called as a witness. She submitted that passing the 800 metre mark, pressure was placed on her mount by the horse on her outside which in turn was under pressure from Mr. Hutchings' mount. She called and took hold, but still did make contact with the running rail. She was asked by Mr. Hutchings whether the pressure came from Miss Jones’ mount and indicated that was the case but the pressure placed on her mount by Mr. Hutchings' actions caused that pressure.
Miss. A. Jones, rider of Lilly Belle, was called as a witness. She submitted that in the run down the back straight she was two off the rail travelling well when Mr. Hutchings angled his mount inward causing her to take hold and forcing her down onto Miss. Myers' mount. She felt there was no room for them both and that she couldn’t relieve the pressure placed on her without moving inwards onto Miss Myers' mount.
Mr. Rogerson asked Miss Jones if her mount was laying in and contributed to the incident. Miss Jones believed that she did not contribute to the incident, her actions were totally dictated to by Mr. Hutchings' inward movement.
Mr. Goodwin had no further comment except to ask Miss Jones if Mr. Hutchings was sufficiently clear of her when he moved inwards. She was adamant he was not sufficiently clear. Mr. Rogerson, on Mr. Hutchings' behalf, indicated he wished to call jockey K. Smith as a witness.
Mr. Rogerson submitted that the quality of the films were not all that good and possibly gave an unfair picture of the incident. He felt that Mr. Hutchings was clear when he came across, it was close to the point of the bend and horses tend to drift toward the rail. The tightening and the interference to both the horses down on the inside happened, he believed, after Mr. Hutchings crossed. He was adamant that Miss. Jones contributed to the incident. She was after all a claiming jockey, a little inexperienced, and possibly overreacted when Mr. Hutchings came up on her outside. He believed that Miss Jones laid in but this was denied by Miss Jones.
He was asked by the Chairman if he believed under the rules of racing Mr. Hutchings was sufficiently clear when he came across to which he replied maybe and anyway he was clear after the incident.
Mr. K. Smith was then called as a witness. He believed that as he was travelling behind the leaders he decided to follow Mr. Hutchings into the race and consequently moved in behind his mount. He saw the tightening down on the rail and believed Miss Jones’ mount may have moved slightly and placed pressure on Miss Myers. He was asked by Mr. Goodwin if Miss Jones’ mount was laying in to which he replied he wasn’t sure. The films gave a different picture of what happened. He felt Miss Jones was partially pressured by the incident but it was a different kind of pressure.
When asked by the Chairman if, in his opinion as a senior jockey, was Mr. Hutchings sufficiently clear when coming across, he replied no. In summing up Mr. Goodwin reiterated that in the steward's opinion Mr. Hutchings was not sufficiently clear when he crossed. Pressure was exerted onto Miss Jones who in turn had nowhere to go except onto Miss Myers on her inside. Miss. Myers had to take hold and was checked. The incident caused her to make contact with the running rail.
Mr. Rogerson in summing up stressed his belief that Miss Jones’ actions were a contributing factor. He felt she was laying inwards onto Miss Myers' mount and that she may have overreacted. The horses down on the inside, he believed, were not in a good position approaching the bend, and that if Miss. Jones' mount laid in and contributed even in a small way Mr. Hutchings was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Hutchings had no comment except to reiterate he felt he was sufficiently clear.
reasonsfordecision:
There was no doubt that this hearing was vigorously pursued by all parties. Mr. Goodwin and the stewards believed strongly that Mr. Hutchings was not the required distance clear when he moved inward. The films and Mr. Robinson's interpretation of them confirmed that submission.
Mr. Rogerson on the other hand, while accepting that Mr. Hutchings did move inward, felt that he was sufficiently clear when the interference occurred. He strongly believed that Miss Jones' actions (the laying in on Miss Myers) was a contributing factor.
Miss Myers, as the rider of the horse that was most effected, was adamant that the interference she suffered came from Miss Jones who had nowhere to go after being forced inwards by Mr. Hutchings' actions. Miss Jones strongly denied the suggestion that her laying in on Miss Myers was a contributing factor.
Mr. K. Smith's submission was a little confusing. His interpretations of riding in the race and then seeing the incident on film were different. He did confirm however that in his opinion Mr. Hutchings was not the prescribed distance clear when crossing.
The playing of the films again on a number of occasions did not convince me that Miss Jones' actions were a contributing factor in the incident. Both Miss Myers and Miss Jones were entitled to be where they were and the inward movement by Miss Jones onto Miss Myers only came after Mr. Hutchings moved inwards. All of the films, even allowing for a slight lack of clarity, clearly showed that Mr. Hutchings was not sufficiently clear when crossing causing tightness to Miss Jones’ mount and then interference to Miss Myers' mount down on the fence.
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr. Goodwin submitted that Mr. Hutchings' record under this rule was good. He is a busy jockey who rides all over New Zealand. He was last charged on the 7th of December 2013 and received a 4 day suspension, prior to that in May 2013 at Hawks Bay he was suspended for 5 days. This incident Mr. Goodwin believe could be classed in the mid range category and he asked for a period of suspension of at least 4 days.
Mr. Rogerson, on Mr. Hutchings' behalf, while accepting a period of suspension would be imposed, did enquire about a combination of a fine and suspension thereby allowing Mr. Hutchings to ride at the lucrative Auckland Carnival. I quickly confirmed to Mr. Rogerson I was not prepared to consider that option. Basically because that option, while it has been used in the past, had to be one of extenuating circumstances. I did not believe this charge and the resultant penalty justified that. With co-operation from all parties I was sure that a compromise allowing Mr. Hutchings to ride for part of the carnival could be arrived at. After discussion between the two Mr. Rogerson submitted that their preference would be for Mr. Hutchings to ride in the Derby on Saturday the 1st of March and any penalty to commence after that. He asked for consideration to be given for Mr. Hutchings to ride on the final day of the carnival as he hoped to be riding a horse bound for overseas with a possibility of retaining that ride.
reasonsforpenalty:
In arriving at a decision to impose a period of suspension for this breach I was mindful of the important racing carnival just around the corner. However a breach of careless riding was found to be proved, interference occurred to two horses, one making contact with the running rail. The incident could be classed in the mid range. Mr. Hutchings' record is good. He is a busy rider travelling around New Zealand to ride. The decision does involve a deferment as allowed under the rules of racing and this was done with the co-operation of both parties. It was important I believe to allow Mr. Hutchings an opportunity as an apprentice to possibly ride in the New Zealand Derby, a prestige race.
penalty:
Mr. Hutchings you are suspended from race riding after Saturday the 1st of March 2014 until the completion of racing on Friday the 7th of March 2014. A total of 4 days.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638 (1) (d)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr R Hutchings
Otherperson: G Rogerson, K Smith, R Myers, A Jones
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 7fb9d179bde6093b9505b89023e45108
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 01fdcd23bef7d09791329cc9bcc021e9
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 23/02/2014
meet_title: Wairoa RC - 23 February 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wairoa-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TCastles
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Wairoa RC