Waverley RC 12 April 2018 – R 3 – Chair, Mr N McCutcheon
ID: JCA14274
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waverley RC - 12 April 2018
Meet Chair:
NMcCutcheon
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMoffatt
Race Date:
2018/04/12
Race Number:
R 3
Decision:
The charge preferred against Ms Hirini under the provisions of Rule 636(1)(d) was upheld.
Penalty:
Ms Hirini’s Apprentice Jockey’s Licence was suspended from the conclusion of racing on 14 April up to and including 12 May 2018 (4 weeks).
Facts:
Following the running of Race 3 (Ultrascan Mdn), Information No.A9218 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged by the Informant that Ms Hirini, the Rider of RAINBOW DUNDEE failed to ride the horse out fully to the finish and was beaten for first place. (Margin between first and second was a nose).
Rule 636(1)(d) provides:
A person: being the rider of a horse in a race, must ride his horse out to the end of the race if there is a reasonable chance of it running into a position for which there is prize money to be awarded or a dividend to be declared.
Ms Hirini and Mr Breslin acknowledged that they understood the Rule, the Charge and confirmed that they did not admit the breach.
The Committee then advised Ms Hirini and Mr Breslin of their rights in a defended hearing.
Submissions for Decision:
The Informant, Mr Goodwin, showed head and side-on film replays simultaneously and identified Ms Hirini and her mount who was racing in the lead early in the home-straight. Mr Goodwin said that Ms Hirini had been riding RAINBOW DUNDEE out with vigour with the whip. He said that she then rode hands and heels and inside the final 100m again drew the whip and then with two and a half strides to travel Ms Hirini appeared to relax her ride and put her hands back on the reins and was beaten (by a nose). He said that in mitigation that PLATINUM WILDCARD racing on the outside was in front of Ms Hirini’s mount when she stopped riding.
Mr Breslin asked Mr Goodwin if Ms Hirini’s mount had stopped its momentum enough to cause it to be beaten. Mr Goodwin responded by saying that he did not believe the horse had slowed down.
Ms Hirini when invited by the Committee to submit her case said that the Rules do not state that you have to hit your horse continuously up until the finish line. She said that in about the last stride she put the stick away and that the front-on view shows that she pushed for one more stride. She said that her mount was also veering out slightly so she put her hands back on the reins. Ms Hirini then showed the head-on film and said that her horse did not rail properly for the entire race. She said that she disagreed with the Stipendiary Steward that she had stopped riding out 2 ½ strides before the post. Ms Hirini said that she had pushed for one more stride after putting the stick away. She added that at the time she put the stick away her horse had been headed and that it had not lost momentum and slowed down.
Mr Breslin said that the outside shot (film) clearly showed that Ms Hirini’s horse had been headed two strides from the post. He said that the head-on film showed that she had hit her horse for the last time 2 strides from the post and then put her hands back on the reins. Mr Breslin said that there is no evidence that Ms Hirini has stopped as her hands had not dropped, that the horse had not lost its momentum and that it (her action) had not affected the result of the race. In conclusion Mr Breslin said that although she had put the stick away there was still some movement from her.
Summation from Both Parties
Mr Goodwin said that Ms Hirini’s riding style was to push her mount in the early stages of the home-straight. He said that she then drew the whip inside the 200m and was clearly riding with some vigour, then inside the 100m she put her hands back on the rein and pushed. He said it would appear that a pattern had developed by Ms Hirini of riding with the whip and pushing out. He said that the Committee needed to determine whether that was part of the riding pattern of Ms Hirini to put her hands back on the reins or did she simply relax her ride. Mr Goodwin said that it was not an easy one for the Stewards nor would it be for the Committee. He said that it could be argued that Mr Riddell (PLATINUM WILD CARD) was in front or at least equal with Ms Hirini’s mount when she relaxed her ride. He reiterated that it was a difficult one to decide in that did it cost her the race, a question we will never know the answer to and that he was happy for the Committee to make the determination.
Mr Breslin said that the Rule states that the Rider has to stop the horse from finishing in a better position. (to be in breach of the Rule).
At this time of proceedings the Committee had the Rule read once again for the benefit of all persons present.
Mr Breslin continued by saying that if Danielle had held on by a nose there would be no difference and that we would not be sitting here (Judicial Room). He said that there has to be no doubt that Danielle’s mount was going to beat the other horse before a charge could be proven. He said that when a horse is a long way in front and hangs on to win by a nose there are no repercussions. Mr Breslin said that he believed that there was no way that anybody in the room could say unequivocally that Danielle’s horse would have won the Race. He further said that the head-on film showed that there was no actual “sitting up” on the horse. He concluded by saying that it would be very harsh if Danielle was to be suspended and should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Ms Hirini had nothing further to add.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee considered all of the evidence from both parties and the film replays that were shown at length. When it stood back and looked at the case in its entirety objectively, the Committee was comfortably satisfied that Ms Hirini’s ride over the concluding stages of the Race was in breach of Rule 636(1)(d). Ms Hirini and her mount had been racing in the lead and in the opinion of the Committee were at least sharing the lead when Ms Hirini stopped riding her horse out and was beaten for first position by the barest margin of a nose.
Rule 636(1)(d) states that the rider of a horse in a race, must ride his horse out to the end of the race if there is a reasonable chance of it running into a position for which there is prize money to be awarded or a dividend to be declared. It was clear to the Committee that Ms Hirini did not ride her horse out to the end of the race when there was a reasonable chance of it winning the race.
The Committee rejected Mr Breslin’s submission that there had to be no doubt that Ms Hirini’s mount was going to beat the other horse before a charge could be proved. The wording of the Rule is such that it is obligatory for all riders to ride their mounts out to the end of the race if there is a reasonable chance of finishing in a stake or dividend bearing position. As to the outcome of the race if Ms Hirini had continued riding out, one will never know for sure, however Ms Hirini and her mount were in a position to win the race if she had have continued to ride her mount out to the end of the race.
It has been generally accepted within racing circles that when a horse has been ridden out and fully extended, and then it ceases to be ridden out, it will relax rather quickly and shorten stride. Hence the reason why riders should continue to ride out their mounts to the conclusion of the race. It is not acceptable for a rider to say that although they did not ride their mount out to the end of the race, it made no difference to the result.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Goodwin said that Ms Hirini had a clear record under the Rule. He said that the JCA penalty guideline for the breach called for a five week suspension. He submitted that there were a number of mitigating factors to be taken into account:
1. Clear record
2. Ms Hirini is an Apprentice Jockey
3. It was not a blatant breach
4. It was a lack of judgement only
5. Conjecture whether Mr Riddell’s mount had headed Ms Hirini’s mount when she stopped riding.
Prior to the presentation of penalty submissions Mrs Allpress kindly offered her services to assist Ms Hirini as Mr Breslin had left the course unbeknown to the Stipendiary Stewards and the Committee.
Before hearing from Mrs Allpress she was shown all official film replays.
Mrs Allpress in her submission said that Ms Hirini was a kind rider and also a clean rider, that it was her first offence (under this Rule) and that it was a lack of judgement. She added that Ms Hirini was unlucky that the horse on the outside of her was ridden by a very strong rider in Mr Riddell.
Reasons for Penalty:
The JCA starting points for a breach of Rule 636(1)(d) if it relates to the potential placing deemed to have been lost as a result of the breach is as follows:
First Placing - 5 Weeks suspension
Second Placing - 4 Weeks suspension
Third Placing - 3 Weeks suspension
Fourth Placing - 2 Weeks suspension
Fifth Placing - $200 Fine
As this breach of the Rule related to a potential first placing the starting point was 5 weeks suspension. In fixing penalty the Committee considered Ms Hirini’s clear record, the fact that she is an Apprentice Jockey and that it was a lack of judgement and not an intentional act on her part.
Taking all these matters into consideration the Committee gave a deduction of one week from the starting point guideline.
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: 6f31dbec09adfb57ce6dde03e8beccda
informantnumber: A9218
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Failing to ride out to finish of race
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 15/04/2018
hearing_title: Waverley RC 12 April 2018 - R 3 - Chair, Mr N McCutcheon
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 3 (Ultrascan Mdn), Information No.A9218 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged by the Informant that Ms Hirini, the Rider of RAINBOW DUNDEE failed to ride the horse out fully to the finish and was beaten for first place. (Margin between first and second was a nose).
Rule 636(1)(d) provides:
A person: being the rider of a horse in a race, must ride his horse out to the end of the race if there is a reasonable chance of it running into a position for which there is prize money to be awarded or a dividend to be declared.
Ms Hirini and Mr Breslin acknowledged that they understood the Rule, the Charge and confirmed that they did not admit the breach.
The Committee then advised Ms Hirini and Mr Breslin of their rights in a defended hearing.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
The Informant, Mr Goodwin, showed head and side-on film replays simultaneously and identified Ms Hirini and her mount who was racing in the lead early in the home-straight. Mr Goodwin said that Ms Hirini had been riding RAINBOW DUNDEE out with vigour with the whip. He said that she then rode hands and heels and inside the final 100m again drew the whip and then with two and a half strides to travel Ms Hirini appeared to relax her ride and put her hands back on the reins and was beaten (by a nose). He said that in mitigation that PLATINUM WILDCARD racing on the outside was in front of Ms Hirini’s mount when she stopped riding.
Mr Breslin asked Mr Goodwin if Ms Hirini’s mount had stopped its momentum enough to cause it to be beaten. Mr Goodwin responded by saying that he did not believe the horse had slowed down.
Ms Hirini when invited by the Committee to submit her case said that the Rules do not state that you have to hit your horse continuously up until the finish line. She said that in about the last stride she put the stick away and that the front-on view shows that she pushed for one more stride. She said that her mount was also veering out slightly so she put her hands back on the reins. Ms Hirini then showed the head-on film and said that her horse did not rail properly for the entire race. She said that she disagreed with the Stipendiary Steward that she had stopped riding out 2 ½ strides before the post. Ms Hirini said that she had pushed for one more stride after putting the stick away. She added that at the time she put the stick away her horse had been headed and that it had not lost momentum and slowed down.
Mr Breslin said that the outside shot (film) clearly showed that Ms Hirini’s horse had been headed two strides from the post. He said that the head-on film showed that she had hit her horse for the last time 2 strides from the post and then put her hands back on the reins. Mr Breslin said that there is no evidence that Ms Hirini has stopped as her hands had not dropped, that the horse had not lost its momentum and that it (her action) had not affected the result of the race. In conclusion Mr Breslin said that although she had put the stick away there was still some movement from her.
Summation from Both Parties
Mr Goodwin said that Ms Hirini’s riding style was to push her mount in the early stages of the home-straight. He said that she then drew the whip inside the 200m and was clearly riding with some vigour, then inside the 100m she put her hands back on the rein and pushed. He said it would appear that a pattern had developed by Ms Hirini of riding with the whip and pushing out. He said that the Committee needed to determine whether that was part of the riding pattern of Ms Hirini to put her hands back on the reins or did she simply relax her ride. Mr Goodwin said that it was not an easy one for the Stewards nor would it be for the Committee. He said that it could be argued that Mr Riddell (PLATINUM WILD CARD) was in front or at least equal with Ms Hirini’s mount when she relaxed her ride. He reiterated that it was a difficult one to decide in that did it cost her the race, a question we will never know the answer to and that he was happy for the Committee to make the determination.
Mr Breslin said that the Rule states that the Rider has to stop the horse from finishing in a better position. (to be in breach of the Rule).
At this time of proceedings the Committee had the Rule read once again for the benefit of all persons present.
Mr Breslin continued by saying that if Danielle had held on by a nose there would be no difference and that we would not be sitting here (Judicial Room). He said that there has to be no doubt that Danielle’s mount was going to beat the other horse before a charge could be proven. He said that when a horse is a long way in front and hangs on to win by a nose there are no repercussions. Mr Breslin said that he believed that there was no way that anybody in the room could say unequivocally that Danielle’s horse would have won the Race. He further said that the head-on film showed that there was no actual “sitting up” on the horse. He concluded by saying that it would be very harsh if Danielle was to be suspended and should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Ms Hirini had nothing further to add.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee considered all of the evidence from both parties and the film replays that were shown at length. When it stood back and looked at the case in its entirety objectively, the Committee was comfortably satisfied that Ms Hirini’s ride over the concluding stages of the Race was in breach of Rule 636(1)(d). Ms Hirini and her mount had been racing in the lead and in the opinion of the Committee were at least sharing the lead when Ms Hirini stopped riding her horse out and was beaten for first position by the barest margin of a nose.
Rule 636(1)(d) states that the rider of a horse in a race, must ride his horse out to the end of the race if there is a reasonable chance of it running into a position for which there is prize money to be awarded or a dividend to be declared. It was clear to the Committee that Ms Hirini did not ride her horse out to the end of the race when there was a reasonable chance of it winning the race.
The Committee rejected Mr Breslin’s submission that there had to be no doubt that Ms Hirini’s mount was going to beat the other horse before a charge could be proved. The wording of the Rule is such that it is obligatory for all riders to ride their mounts out to the end of the race if there is a reasonable chance of finishing in a stake or dividend bearing position. As to the outcome of the race if Ms Hirini had continued riding out, one will never know for sure, however Ms Hirini and her mount were in a position to win the race if she had have continued to ride her mount out to the end of the race.
It has been generally accepted within racing circles that when a horse has been ridden out and fully extended, and then it ceases to be ridden out, it will relax rather quickly and shorten stride. Hence the reason why riders should continue to ride out their mounts to the conclusion of the race. It is not acceptable for a rider to say that although they did not ride their mount out to the end of the race, it made no difference to the result.
Decision:
The charge preferred against Ms Hirini under the provisions of Rule 636(1)(d) was upheld.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Goodwin said that Ms Hirini had a clear record under the Rule. He said that the JCA penalty guideline for the breach called for a five week suspension. He submitted that there were a number of mitigating factors to be taken into account:
1. Clear record
2. Ms Hirini is an Apprentice Jockey
3. It was not a blatant breach
4. It was a lack of judgement only
5. Conjecture whether Mr Riddell’s mount had headed Ms Hirini’s mount when she stopped riding.
Prior to the presentation of penalty submissions Mrs Allpress kindly offered her services to assist Ms Hirini as Mr Breslin had left the course unbeknown to the Stipendiary Stewards and the Committee.
Before hearing from Mrs Allpress she was shown all official film replays.
Mrs Allpress in her submission said that Ms Hirini was a kind rider and also a clean rider, that it was her first offence (under this Rule) and that it was a lack of judgement. She added that Ms Hirini was unlucky that the horse on the outside of her was ridden by a very strong rider in Mr Riddell.
reasonsforpenalty:
The JCA starting points for a breach of Rule 636(1)(d) if it relates to the potential placing deemed to have been lost as a result of the breach is as follows:
First Placing - 5 Weeks suspension
Second Placing - 4 Weeks suspension
Third Placing - 3 Weeks suspension
Fourth Placing - 2 Weeks suspension
Fifth Placing - $200 Fine
As this breach of the Rule related to a potential first placing the starting point was 5 weeks suspension. In fixing penalty the Committee considered Ms Hirini’s clear record, the fact that she is an Apprentice Jockey and that it was a lack of judgement and not an intentional act on her part.
Taking all these matters into consideration the Committee gave a deduction of one week from the starting point guideline.
penalty:
Ms Hirini’s Apprentice Jockey’s Licence was suspended from the conclusion of racing on 14 April up to and including 12 May 2018 (4 weeks).
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 636(1)(d)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms D Hirini - Rider of RAINBOW DUNDEE
Otherperson: Mr M Breslin - Licensed Trainer assisting Ms Hirini, Mrs L Allpress - Licensed Jockey assisting during latter part meeting
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 28cccf4dc4b58311ffbed7fd60e36a7d
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 1f4c69d7ea7a628a50a16c47b31a5f18
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 12/04/2018
meet_title: Waverley RC - 12 April 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waverley-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMcCutcheon
meet_pm1: NMoffatt
meet_pm2: none
name: Waverley RC