You are here: Home / Race Days / Canterbury JC - 7 August 2019 / Canterbury JC 7 August 2019 - R 9 (heard 10 August 2019 at Riccarton) - Chair, Mr S Ching

Canterbury JC 7 August 2019 - R 9 (heard 10 August 2019 at Riccarton) - Chair, Mr S Ching



614(2)

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Meeting: Canterbury Racing

Date: 7 August 2019

Race: 9

Rules: 614(2)

Committee: S Ching, Chairman - R McKenzie, Panellist

Names: D Crozier - Licensed Class A Trainer

Informant: J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward

Information Number: A11524

Plea: Admitted

Charge: Alleged breach of Rule 614(2)(d) - Neglect in saddling

Evidence: This hearing had been adjourned from the meeting on Wednesday 7 August and heard on Saturday 10 August at the Canterbury Racing meeting at Riccarton Park.

Following the running of Race 9, the Hoteliers Challenge Maiden, an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr J Oatham, against Licensed Trainer Mr D Crozier, alleging that he saddled both (2) STEELE CANYON and (5) RED MAGICIAN incorrectly.

Rule 614(2) reads as follows;

(2) A person must not be neglectful or careless when saddling a horse.

Mr Crozier had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was admitted. Mr Crozier confirmed his admission of the breach at the hearing and that he understood the charge and rule it was brought under.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Oatham informed the Committee that Mr Crozier had two runners in the race being (2) STEELE CANYON and (5) RED MAGICIAN which, he said, were presented in the birdcage with the wrong saddles in position. Mr Oatham said that Mr S Weatherley noticed, before mounting RED MAGICIAN, that the saddle on his mount was not his. Mr Oatham stated that there had been some confusion with the saddles at the tie up stalls and both horses were late arriving. He said that in the birdcage both horses were required to be unsaddled, reweighed and then re-saddled, causing a delay in the start by 2 to 3 minutes.

Mr Crozier stated that he had picked up the saddles prior to the National Hurdles, being race 8, and left them over the rail in the horse tie up area. On return to the stalls, he said, both saddles had fallen to the ground with lead bag and number cloths still on the rail. Mr Crozier said that both saddles were identical, and he ran back to the jockeys’ room to check with both riders to assist in identifying which saddle was which. Mr Weatherley informed him that the saddle with the widest irons was his. When about to mount in the birdcage, Mr Weatherley noticed that the saddle on RED MAGICIAN was not his and re-saddling of both horses then occurred. Mr Crozier said that the numbers and lead bag were on the correct horses, but the saddles were not.

Reasons For Decision:

As Mr Crozier had admitted the breach, the charge was found proved.

Decision:

The charge was found to be proved.

Submissions on Penalty:

Mr Oatham stated that Mr Crozier had a clear record in regard to this rule. He said that there were three historic breaches on record with similar circumstances where two horses had been incorrectly saddled and presented to race. These were as follows;

M Faber at Rotorua on 27 December 2018 -$300 fine

M Daly at Timaru on 28 December 2018 - $300 fine

J Gordon at Ashburton on 4 July 2019-$300.

He stated that this breach was very similar to the above historic breaches and submitted that a fine in the vicinity of $300 be considered as penalty.

Mr Crozier elected to make submissions on penalty.

Reasons For Penalty:

The JCA Penalty Guide does not provide a starting point for a breach of this Rule where two horses have been presented with incorrect saddles or saddlecloth numbers. The starting point is therefore left to the individual committees to determine, depending on the circumstances of the particular case. It is clear that the Daly, Faber and Gordon cases were very similar in facts to this case, all resulting in $300 fines. The Penalty Guide states that its key purpose is to “ensure consistency in the imposition of penalties”. Where there is no guideline in the Penalty Guide, consistency is still an important factor in determining penalty. Mr Oatham submitted a fine in the vicinity of $300 as penalty and, with that in mind, determined that for the sake of consistency a fine of $300 be imposed.

Penalty:

Accordingly, Mr Crozier is fined the sum of $300.

Document Actions