You are here: Home / Race Days / Gore RC - 21 January 2017 / Gore RC 21 January 2017 - R 8 - Chair, Prof G Hall

Gore RC 21 January 2017 - R 8 - Chair, Prof G Hall

Created on 23 January 2017

Rules:
638(1)(d)
Committee:
GHall (chair)
VMUnro
Name(s):
Ms E Farr - Apprentice Jockey
Mr C Johnson - Licensed Jockey assisting Ms Farr
Mr J McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward
Informant
Mr M Davidson - Stipendiary Steward
Information Number
A7792
Plea:
Admitted
Charge:
Careless riding
Evidence:

Mr Davidson alleged that Ms Farr in race 8, the LIQUORLAND GORE GUINEAS, allowed her mount WONDER WOMAN to shift inwards near the 150 metres when not clear of STROWAN (S Muniandy), which was checked.

Mr McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward, demonstrated on the videos that Mr Callaway on WHAT CHOUX WANT was laying in up the straight and immediately prior to the 150 metres. He had thus placed some pressure on the respondent. He had then straightened his mount. The respondent, who was racing inside Mr Callaway and outside Mr Muniandy, then gave her mount 3 strikes with the whip whilst her horse was shifting ground inwards. There was a further strike to the horse but by this time Mr Muniandy had taken a strong hold of STROWAN and had then taken a run to the outside of WONDER WOMAN. He emphasised Ms Farr was not her length and another clear when she had shifted ground.

Mr Davidson said he accepted WONDER WOMAN had initially shied away from WHAT CHOUX WANT but Ms Farr had continued to use her whip when WONDER WOMAN was shifting inwards into the line of Mr Muniandy.

Ms Farr said WONDER WOMAN had shifted in when she first used the whip and she had only hit the horse twice when it was shifting ground. She said there was no yelling and she was not aware that Mr Muniandy was there. At the Committee’s request Mr Davidson rewound the videos which clearly demonstrated that Mr Muniandy was racing to the inside of the respondent for some distance before the incident in question. Ms Farr responded that she thought she had gone past Mr Muniandy and was therefore not causing interference. She added her filly was responding and was hitting the line well.

Mr Johnson emphasised that WONDER WOMAN was running away from WHAT CHOUX WANT. The filly was pretty green in his opinion.

Decision:

As the respondent has admitted the breach, we find the breach proved.

Submission For Penalty:

Mr Davidson produced the respondent’s record, which evidenced 3 previous breaches of this rule in the past 12 months. He said the respondent was a national jockey and the 5-day starting point in the Penalty Guide should be adopted. The appropriate number of days’ suspension was for this Committee to determine. He believed the breach was towards the lower end of the scale. Had Ms Farr put her stick away after her horse had earlier been dictated to, there would have been no breach of the Rules.

Mr Davidson emphasised the status of the race should be considered but he was also of the view that the chances of the horse interfered with were not significantly affected as that horse had had its chance in the race and was under pressure to maintain its position when the interference occurred.

Ms Farr asked that the suspension be as short as possible and that it be deferred as she had riding engagements for the Dennis Brothers at Wingatui on 26 January. Mr Davidson did not object to this.

Reasons For Penalty:

We regard the breach as towards but not at the lower end of the scale of careless riding. We accept that the respondent’s horse had initially moved away from Mr Callaway’s horse that had been shifting in. However, her decision to continue to use the whip on WONDER WOMAN when that horse was continuing an inwards movement into the racing line of Mr Muniandy was most unwise and constituted the breach of the careless riding rule. Mr Muniandy has had to check his mount, come around Ms Farr, and take a run to her outside, when his rightful line was a run to her inside. Ms Farr was clearly not her length and another clear, as she accepts, when WONDER WOMAN shifted ground.

We accept the parties’ submissions that the respondent is a national jockey and adopt the 5-day starting point. We make no adjustment for the nature of the breach, which we regard as a neutral factor. We note that STROWAN, although clearly inconvenienced by Ms Farr’s carelessness, had had its chance in the race.

Ms Farr has 3 previous breaches of the careless riding rule in the past 12 months. In fact it is within the last 6 months, as there is one in July, one in September and another in October. We have regard to the fact that she is a busy apprentice, but this is now her fourth breach of this rule in 6 months.

The only personal mitigating factor is the respondent’s ready admission of the breach.

We uplift the starting point by one day for the status of the race. The race in question was the feature race on today’s programme, the Gore Guineas, and the stake was $50,000. We also have regard to Ms Farr’s record. We do not give a further uplift for this. We believe it can fairly be encapsulated in our one day uplift. From that 6-day point, we give a one day’s discount for Ms Farr’s frank admission of the breach.

We grant Ms Farr’s request to seek a deferment to her suspension as per r 1106(2)(b).

Penalty:

Ms Farr is suspended from riding at end of the meeting at Wingatui on 26 January up to and including Gore on 2 February. This is 5 days: 28 January Pukekohe; 29 January Ellerslie; 30 January Te Teko; 1 February Hastings; and 2 February Gore.

Document Actions