You are here: Home / Race Days / Hawkes Bay RI - 28 February 2015 / Hawkes Bay RI 28 February 2015 - R 5

Hawkes Bay RI 28 February 2015 - R 5

Created on 02 March 2015

Rules:
638(1)(d)
Committee:
NMoffatt (chair)
TCastles
Name(s):
Ms K Myers - Licensed Rider
Mr K Smith - Licensed Rider
Mr G Whiterod - Stipendiary Steward
Informant
Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
Information Number
A6768
Plea:
Denied
Charge:
Careless Riding
Evidence:

Following the running of Race 8, the www.hawkesbayracing.co.nz “GET OUT” Handicap, an information was lodged by Mr N Goodwin alleging a breach of Rule 638(1) (d). The information alleged that K Myers (PERONI) caused interference in the home straight to PERRY MASON, LE’VANTOS and RED SUNSET.

Mr Goodwin read out the careless riding rule. Ms Myers acknowledged she understood the nature of the charge and confirmed she did not admit the breach. She advised she would be calling Mr K Smith as a witness. Mr Smith was asked to wait outside the Judicial Room until required.

Submission For Decision:

Mr Goodwin asked Mr Whiterod to demonstrate the incident using the films. He said Ms Myers was racing back near the fence behind a wall of horses. In order to find clear room she angled her mount outwards and moved into a position where Mr Whiterod said there was insufficient room for her to go. He maintained she “forced a run” and in doing so brushed Mr Smith who was dictated outwards crowding two horses outside of him ridden by Mr Holmes and Ms Allpress. Head-on, side-on and rear view films were all played. Mr Whiterod said there may have been half a horse width gap available for Ms Myers to take but in his opinion she forced her mount through creating room that otherwise was not there. In doing so the outside three runners were all affected.

Ms Myers asked Mr Whiterod why Mr Smith had ended up out where he did. His reply was that Mr Smith’s horse probably overreacted because it had been dictated to by Ms Myers' mount.

Ms Myers replayed the films and said initially there was a definite gap available for her to take but it was made smaller by an inward movement from Mr Smith and slight outward movement from Mr Parkes’ mount in front. At no stage did she believe she had dictated the line of Mr Smith. Ms Myers called Mr Smith as her witness. He told the committee that his horse was hanging from the turn into the straight and he was on one rein the whole way. When Ms Myers angled out to make her run his horse ran away from her. When asked specifically if Ms Myers had dictated his line of running he replied “no she hadn’t”. Ms Myers maintained that the incident only happened because Mr Smith’s horse overreacted.

Mr Goodwin asked Mr Smith if contact had been made between his horse and Ms Myers. Mr Smith replied there had been no contact. Mr Goodwin asked if Mr Smith’s horse had been racing in a tractable manner prior to the incident. Mr Smith said no, it hadn’t been. He used the head-on film to show where he and Mr Holmes had bumped on several occasions down the home straight. Mr Smith concluded by saying that had Mr Holmes not made contact and moved him inwards the incident with Ms Myers would not have happened.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee had careful regard to all of the submissions and evidence placed before it by both the Stewards and Ms Myers.

We considered all the films at length and looked in particular at the running lines of Mr Smith (PERRY MASON) and Mr Holmes (LE’VANTOS). It was apparent on the head-on film that both these horses came together on several occasions down the home straight and this contact caused general bumping and sideways movement across the track. As Ms Myers was angling for her run there appeared to be a gap available for her, albeit narrow, between Mr Smith and the runner in front (Mr Parkes). As she entered the gap it was our opinion that there was movement from Mr Smith’s horse which narrowed this gap. There was sufficient evidence produced to put doubt in our minds that the interference suffered to the outside three horses was wholly attributable to Ms Myers' actions.

The evidence submitted by the Stipendiary Stewards was therefore insufficient to meet the threshold required to prove Ms Myers' carelessness in relation to this matter.

Decision:

Accordingly, the charge was dismissed.

Document Actions