Wellington RC 2 November 2010 – R 8

hearingid: 48d2e66c961f026bef04fa381f4c1d52

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 02/11/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Wellington RC 2 November 2010 - R 8

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr R Neal, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  Mr H Tinsley, Licensed Jockey

Information No:  5267

Meeting:  Wellington Racing Club

Date:  02 November 2010

Venue:  Trentham

Race:  8

Rule No:  638 (1) (d)

Judicial Committee:  Paul Williams, Chairman – Nicki Moffatt, Committee Member 

Plea:  Admitted

Also Present: Mr N Goodwin, Stipendiary Steward

CHARGES

Following the running of race 8, information 5267 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr R Neal under rule 638 (1) (d).  The information stated that “H Tinsley, the rider of “The Foreman” allowed his mount to shift inward passing the 150m when not clear of “CoolRoss” (R Hannam) which was checked”.

Rule 638 (1) (d) states “A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be .....careless”

Mr Tinsley indicated the breach of the rule was admitted and also that he understood the charge and the rule it was laid under.  As the breach of the rule was admitted the charge was found to be proven.

FACTS

Mr Goodwin used the head-on view of the film to identify the three horses involved and used the head on and side on views of the film to demonstrate how the interference had occurred.  He pointed out Mr Tinsley who was racing 3 wide with “CoolRoss” (R Hannam) on his inside and “Ben Hogan” (D Bradley) on the inside of Mr Hannam with all three racing tight together.  He said at approximately the 150m point Mr Tinsley allowed his horse to move inwards – probably more than he anticipated - and put pressure onto Mr Hannam who was in turn pushed inwards onto Mr Bradley.  Mr Bradley’s mount had reacted to that inward pressure and then moved back out marginally and the combination of Mr Hannam being moved in and then out caused him to check out of the gap he was in and off the heels of Mr Tinsley’s horse.   Mr Goodwin said that whilst Mr Hannam’s horse had possibly come to the end of its run it had lost significant momentum and its rightful line of running because Mr Tinsley had moved in from a 3 wide position to being 1 off the rails. 

Mr Tinsley said that prior to the 150m he had been wider out on the track and both he and Mr Hannam had moved in together.  He said that at the 150m point any further inwards movement by him was minimal, that he did not force Mr Hannam onto Mr Bradley and that the situation Mr Hannam found himself in was primarily as a result of Mr Bradley moving out.  He said he was racing alongside Mr Hannam and things became tight when Mr Bradley moved out and whilst conceding he had moved very slightly at the 150m he believed the interference to Mr Hannam happened after that inwards movement had ceased and he (Mr Tinsley) had straightened his mount.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

Mr Neal said Mr Tinsley was a national rider and this was his first charge under this rule since 7 February 2010 - his riding record was therefore excellent.  In his view the incident was at the low end of the scale and whilst the movement of Mr Tinsley was not significant Mr Hannam did end up being crowded and squeezed out.  He submitted that a “period of suspension towards the low end” would be appropriate.

Mr Tinsley said that he had only moved in a fraction and it was the actions of Mr Bradley moving out that had been primarily responsible for Mr Hannam being squeezed out.  He thought his inward movement so minor that it did not justify a charge of careless riding being made.

REASONS

The Committee has reviewed the films of the incident referred to and listened to all the submissions made.  We believe there was inward movement from Mr Tinsley at the 150m point and that on receiving the inward movement from Mr Tinsley Mr Hannam also moved in marginally onto Mr Bradley.  The film shows Mr Bradley’s horse then moving out slightly onto Mr Hannam who ended up behind Mr Tinsley who had moved from a 3 wide position to 1 off the rail.  Had Mr Tinsley not allowed his mount to move in the other movements of Mr Hannam and Mr Bradley would not have occurred and all three would have enjoyed a straight run to the line.  That said, we believe the interference to be at the low end of the scale.  We have also taken into account Mr Tinsley’s admission of the breach and his excellent riding record and also that any penalty given must be consistent with similar recent “low end” breaches of the careless riding rule.

DECISION

The Committee has decided that a suspension is appropriate in this case and Mr Tinsley is suspended for 4 riding days.  As he confirmed he has no upcoming riding engagements Mr Tinsley is suspended from the close racing on Wednesday 3 November 2010 to the close of racing on Thursday 9 November 2010 – the 4 riding days being Poverty Bay (5 and 7 November), Te Rapa (6 November) and Awapuni (9 November).

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 638(1)(d)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 356db2d24b079176960c455697406ea6

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R 8

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 346ca0f591e847614d3fc5a7330c068c

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 02/11/2010

meet_title: Wellington Racing Club - 2 November 2010

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: wellington-racing-club

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair: tom

meet_pm1: tom

meet_pm2: tom

name: Wellington Racing Club