You are here: Home / Race Days / Canterbury Racing - 13 November 2010 / Canterbury JC 13 November 2010 - R 6

Canterbury JC 13 November 2010 - R 6

Created on 18 November 2010

KHales (chair)
Mr H Tinsley
Mr C George
Chief Stipendiary Steward
Information Number

Careless Riding

As a result of an incident in the New Zealand Bloodstock Guineas at Riccarton Park on Saturday 13th November 2010, at approximately the 200 metre mark, Licensed Jockey HS Tinsley was charged with careless riding pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing. 
Rule 638(1)(d) reads as follows:
A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be:
(d)        careless.
It was alleged that Mr Tinsley, the rider of ‘Magic Briar”, permitted his mount to shift ground inwards when not clear causing crowding to “Twilight Savings” (L Innes), “Miss Maximuss” (M Coleman) and “We Can Say It Now” (M du Plessis) which was severely checked near the 200 metre mark. 
Mr Tinsley did not admit the charge.
We record that the incident had been viewed on the video coverage numerous times during the protest hearing which preceded the charge against Mr Tinsley. We further record that in the protest hearing, it was said that the incident was at the 150 metre mark. Wherever the incident occurred, we are in this case dealing with the same incident.
Submission For Decision:
Mr George submitted to the hearing that at approximately the 200 metre mark, when there were three horses racing inside of Mr Tinsley, that around the 200 metre mark, Mr Innes on “Twilight Savings” was held up, just at the point that room for a run to the post presented itself. “Magic Briar”, in the process of making an inward movement, effectively took the racing line of “Twilight Savings”.
Mr George also said that at that point, that there was also sufficient room for “Miss Maximuss” and “We Can Say It Now” to have a clear run to the post. Furthermore, he said that Mr Tinsley on “Magic Briar” was not his own length and another length clear at a time when he began to drift inwards. Prior to the inwards movement onMr Tinsley’s part, there was ample room for him to have a clear run to the post. 
Mr George submitted that Mr Tinsley on “Magic Briar” could not shift ground as he was not clear. The evidence made it clear that Mr Tinsley, by his actions, reduced the racing room for the horses inside of him from a point where there was room for three horses inside him to only two. As a consequence, even though Mr Tinsley’s movement was not a sharp shift inwards, the consequences were that significant crowding occurred with the result that “Twilight Savings” was forced on to “Miss Maximuss” which in turn caused significant interference to “We Can Say It Now”, and as a consequence of that, “We Can Say It Now” lost at least two and a half lengths. 
In response, Mr Tinsley admitted that he rolled in but maintained there was always clear room for three horses on his inside, and that the movement that he made as the race progressed inwards was minimal. He said it was the hind quarters of a horse that was tiring which moved abruptly, that made the incident look a lot worse than it was, because the actions of that horse, in fact, filled a space which would otherwise have been available to other runners.
In cross examination by Mr George, it was put to Mr Tinsley that his inward movement meant that he took the rightful line of running of “Twilight Savings”. Mr Tinsley did not agree with that, and stated that Mr Innes could have “leant on him” and raced competitively. Mr Tinsley also maintained that he was not passing Mr Innes, but moving over. 
Reasons For Decision:
Prior to the interference occurring, the situation was that “Magic Briar”, “Twilight Savings”, “Miss Maximuss” and “We Can Say It Now” were racing on relatively even terms, but all with sufficient racing room in terms of a run to the finishing post. However, Mr Tinsley’s mount began to move inwards. The movement was able to be observed by reference to the mowing strips on the track. As the horses progressed, the racing room for the horses inside of Mr Tinsley was gradually reduced from a three horse width to approximately a two and a half horse width, and probably even less than that. The consequence was that “Miss Maximuss”, which we accept was a tiring horse, was crowded by “Twilight Savings”. The reason for “Miss Maximuss” beingcrowded was because Mr Tinsley’s mount was taking the ownership of the lineof “Twilight Savings”, which racing line, “Twilight Savings” was entitled to maintain. “Miss Maximuss” then made significant contact with “We Can Say It Now”. Mr du Plessis, the rider of “We Can Say It Now” then had to check his mount, and as a consequence, lost between two and two and a half lengths. As we concluded in the protest hearing, the impact of this interference was such that we were able to uphold the protest because we were firmly of the view that “We Can Say It Now” would have beaten “Magic Briar” had it not been for the interference it received. We are satisfied that Mr du Plessis was the author of the interference that was caused to “We Can Say It Now” and accordingly we find the charge proved.
We further find that even though Mr Tinsley may not have intended it, the result of his carelessness was to afford him an advantage in terms of the position in which his horse crossed the finishing line. This factor is relevant to penalty.


We have given very careful thought to the matter. In our opinion, it was Mr Tinsley’s actions which caused the interference to the horses inside him, namely “Twilight Savings”, “Miss Maximuss” and “We Can Say It Now”. Although the movement was gradual, it was sufficient to take the rightful line of “Twilight Savings”, in particular.
We find the charge proved.


Submission For Penalty:
Mr George advised the hearing that Mr Tinsley had received a four day suspension on 2nd November 2010 but prior to that, his last suspension was in February of this year, when he also received a four day suspension. Mr George acknowledged that Mr Tinsley was a busy national rider. However, he did say that the race had Group 1 status, and the ramifications which followed Mr Tinsley’s carelessness, in terms of the protest being upheld, were significant. He submitted that a suspension of between three and four weeks should be imposed, together with a fine of between $500 and $1,000. Mr Tinsley stated that he was shocked by Mr George’s submission, but otherwise had no other submissions to make. 
When asked about his riding engagements, Mr Tinsley informed the hearing that he did not wish to apply for his suspension to be deferred.
Reasons For Penalty:
In determining penalty we must have regard to the following:
·         The status of the race (Group 1).
·         The stake competed for - $300,000.
·         The stage of the race at which the careless riding occurred, and the consequences.
·         The degree of carelessness.
·         Mr Tinsley’s record.
·         Mr George’s submissions.
The aggravating factor in terms of Mr Tinsley’s carelessness was the consequences in that at least three other horses were significantly affected and a protest was upheld. 
The mitigating factor was that the degree of carelessness was not at the highest end of the scale, even though the ramifications were most unfortunate. 
Mr George has, in light of the aggravating factors, called for a suspension of between three and four weeks, as well as a monetary penalty. However, we consider that Mr George’s submissions for penalty may be at the high end, and we do not necessarily share Mr George’s views on the question of penalty. 


Mr Tinsley is suspended for a period of two weeks as from the conclusion of racing on 13th November 2010 until the conclusion of racing on Saturday 27th November 2010.
Mr George also submitted that a fine should be imposed. In line with previous penalty decisions for Group 1 status races, we must be consistent with decisions that have been imposed in the past twelve months and accordingly, Mr Tinsley is also fined the sum of $1,000.
Document Actions