Wellington RC 22 October 2011 – R 9
ID: JCA14712
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Wellington RC - 22 October 2011
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMcCutcheon
Race Date:
2011/10/22
Race Number:
R 9
Decision:
The committee was satisfied that the breach was proved.
Penalty:
Ms Johnson was fined the sum of $200.00.
Charge:
A rider shall not strike a horse forward of it's shoulder.
Facts:
Following race 9 an information was lodged by Mr N Goodwin alleging a breach of rule 638(3) (c) in that V Johnson the rider of PRIMED AND READY struck her mount on at least three occasions in the home straight forward of the shoulder.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Neal played the head-on film of the race down the final home straight. He showed how Ms Johnson began to use the whip on PRIMED AND READY both behind the saddle and on the shoulder soon after rounding the home turn. At this stage she was riding within the rules however when her horse began to lay outwards Ms Johnson applied the whip to the neck region on two occasions in an attempt to straighten it.
Ms Johnson denied hitting PRIMED AND READY on the neck. She said that she was riding in her usual style and was only hitting the horse on the shoulder. She explained that her whip was long and if she had hit it forward of the shoulder the whip would have hit the horse’s head. At no stage did the horse flinch or move its head away which proves that she wasn’t hitting it forward of the shoulder. Ms Johnson said that during the race she was not aware of the horse laying out and only became aware of that fact when she watched the replay on the video.
The committee requested both the side-on and rear-view videos of the incident be played.
Reasons for Decision:
Rule 638(3) (c) reads: “A rider shall not strike a horse forward of the shoulder.”
The rule is quite clear and the committee had only to decide if Ms Johnson had in fact used her whip forward of the shoulder. We viewed all the videos of the final stage of the race again in detail. Because of the positions of the horses the rear-view camera angle did not show the incident clearly and was of no benefit to us. The head-on view however was clear and at approximately the 400m Ms Johnson could be seen to change her whip style and hit the horse forward of the shoulder. At this point she tapped it once on the right-hand side of the neck. At the 200m she again used the whip in the same way applying two more taps forward of the shoulder. These actions coincided with an obvious outward movement by PRIMED AND READY which suggested that Ms Johnson was in fact trying to encourage her mount to run straight, even if this was done subconsciously. In the side-on video Ms Johnson was at times obscured by other horses but when visible it did confirm to the committee that she had applied the whip incorrectly.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Goodwin said that Ms Johnson had a clear record under this rule and that a fine was an appropriate penalty. The breach was at the lower end of the scale. The committee pointed Mr Goodwin towards previous recent breaches of the same rule which showed Rider H fined the sum of $500 and Rider A fined the sum of $150. Mr Goodwin said that Ms Johnson’s breach could not be compared with these two because Rider H had struck the horse in anger and frustration and Rider A was an amateur rider.
Ms Johnson said that she believed the breach was of such a nature that a fine towards the lower end was appropriate.
Reasons for Penalty:
The committee considered all of the submissions. We took into account Ms Johnson’s good record, other breaches of the rule and the nature of the offence. While Ms Johnson did hit her mount forward of the shoulder the strikes were little more than taps and did appear to be an attempt to keep PRIMED AND READY on a straight and true line. Riders are expected to correct their mounts line of running and Ms Johnson did so without realising that her whip was striking the neck region. In our opinion the offending was at the lower end.
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: 73347f06762f6d93e68411bd0ced26d4
informantnumber: A3453
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 26/10/2011
hearing_title: Wellington RC 22 October 2011 - R 9
charge:
A rider shall not strike a horse forward of it's shoulder.
facts:
Following race 9 an information was lodged by Mr N Goodwin alleging a breach of rule 638(3) (c) in that V Johnson the rider of PRIMED AND READY struck her mount on at least three occasions in the home straight forward of the shoulder.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Neal played the head-on film of the race down the final home straight. He showed how Ms Johnson began to use the whip on PRIMED AND READY both behind the saddle and on the shoulder soon after rounding the home turn. At this stage she was riding within the rules however when her horse began to lay outwards Ms Johnson applied the whip to the neck region on two occasions in an attempt to straighten it.
Ms Johnson denied hitting PRIMED AND READY on the neck. She said that she was riding in her usual style and was only hitting the horse on the shoulder. She explained that her whip was long and if she had hit it forward of the shoulder the whip would have hit the horse’s head. At no stage did the horse flinch or move its head away which proves that she wasn’t hitting it forward of the shoulder. Ms Johnson said that during the race she was not aware of the horse laying out and only became aware of that fact when she watched the replay on the video.
The committee requested both the side-on and rear-view videos of the incident be played.
reasonsfordecision:
Rule 638(3) (c) reads: “A rider shall not strike a horse forward of the shoulder.”
The rule is quite clear and the committee had only to decide if Ms Johnson had in fact used her whip forward of the shoulder. We viewed all the videos of the final stage of the race again in detail. Because of the positions of the horses the rear-view camera angle did not show the incident clearly and was of no benefit to us. The head-on view however was clear and at approximately the 400m Ms Johnson could be seen to change her whip style and hit the horse forward of the shoulder. At this point she tapped it once on the right-hand side of the neck. At the 200m she again used the whip in the same way applying two more taps forward of the shoulder. These actions coincided with an obvious outward movement by PRIMED AND READY which suggested that Ms Johnson was in fact trying to encourage her mount to run straight, even if this was done subconsciously. In the side-on video Ms Johnson was at times obscured by other horses but when visible it did confirm to the committee that she had applied the whip incorrectly.
Decision:
The committee was satisfied that the breach was proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Goodwin said that Ms Johnson had a clear record under this rule and that a fine was an appropriate penalty. The breach was at the lower end of the scale. The committee pointed Mr Goodwin towards previous recent breaches of the same rule which showed Rider H fined the sum of $500 and Rider A fined the sum of $150. Mr Goodwin said that Ms Johnson’s breach could not be compared with these two because Rider H had struck the horse in anger and frustration and Rider A was an amateur rider.
Ms Johnson said that she believed the breach was of such a nature that a fine towards the lower end was appropriate.
reasonsforpenalty:
The committee considered all of the submissions. We took into account Ms Johnson’s good record, other breaches of the rule and the nature of the offence. While Ms Johnson did hit her mount forward of the shoulder the strikes were little more than taps and did appear to be an attempt to keep PRIMED AND READY on a straight and true line. Riders are expected to correct their mounts line of running and Ms Johnson did so without realising that her whip was striking the neck region. In our opinion the offending was at the lower end.
penalty:
Ms Johnson was fined the sum of $200.00.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(3)(c)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms V Johnson - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mr R Neal - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 2f78dd0eced5025ae5dec566b269ee5a
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 46373fd31ddce3356091df1b1e14ae95
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 22/10/2011
meet_title: Wellington RC - 22 October 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wellington-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: NMcCutcheon
meet_pm2: none
name: Wellington RC