You are here: Home / Race Days / Canterbury JC - 14 August 2004 / Canterbury JC - 14 August 2004 - Race 1

Canterbury JC - 14 August 2004 - Race 1



871.1.d

Following the running of Race 1 Stipendiary Steward Mr S. C. Ching laid an information pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) alleging Jockey I. A. Lupton (Viceroy) rode carelessly.



DECISION AND REASONS:

Following the running of Race 1 Stipendiary Steward Mr S. C. Ching laid an information pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) alleging Jockey I. A. Lupton (Viceroy) rode carelessly.

The information reads as follows.

"I the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant

committed a breach of Rule 871(1)(d) in that he allowed his mount "Viceroy" to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear causing "Nicklelite" (D. M. Crozier) to clip a heel and fall."

Rule 871(1)(d) reads as follows.

"(1) Every rider commits a breach of these Rules who in the opinion of the

Judicial Committee is guilty of riding which was:

(d) Careless'.

The defendant had indicated on the information that he admitted the breach of this rule, and he confirmed this at the hearing.

The incident was illustrated by Mr Ching by means of video coverage. This showed that the defendant had moved inwards when not clear of Nicklelite causing that horse to fall.

After hearing from Mr Ching the defendant said that he had made an "error of judgement" and that this was "bad riding".

PENALTY:

In relation to penalty Mr Ching advised the Committee that the defendant had a previous conviction for careless riding on 17 June 2004 for which he had received a three day suspension. Mr Ching also submitted that this was a breach which was at the high end of the scale. It was also submitted that the defendant's riding had placed Jockey D. M. Crozier in an impossible situation and that the resultant fall could have had very serious consequences. Finally Mr Ching submitted that this was a premier meeting and that there should be a suspension of between 8 and 10 riding days.

When asked for his views on penalty the defendant said he "probably deserved it" (the penalty suggested.).

We then adjourned to consider the question of penalty.

DECISION ON PENALTY:

In determining the appropriate penalty we have taken into account the following matters in favour of the defendant. Firstly the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge. Secondly he did not seek to minimise the seriousness of the incident or his responsibility for causing it.

Against these matters we take into account that this was a premier meeting; the defendant has a previous conviction for careless riding in June 2004, and this was a very bad piece of riding which had serious consequences, but which could have been much more serious.

On returning to the Enquiry Room the defendant was advised as follows.

"Mr Lupton this was a very bad bit of riding which could have had more

serious consequences. We give you credit for admitting the seriousness of the incident and also your admission that it was bad piece of riding.

You are suspended from the completion of racing on 15 August 2004 until after the completion of racing on 18 September 2004."

In explanation of the above suspension we found it difficult to be precise about the number of riding days that the period of suspension would include. The defendant only rides in steeple, hurdle and high weight races, and races of this kind are not programmed at some of the race meetings over the suspension period. The race meeting on 18 August 2004 at Taupo would not have been attended by the defendant and it has not been taken into account.

We believe that the defendant has been suspended for what is effectively up to ten riding days.

 

 

Document Actions