You are here: Home / Race Days / Racing Rotorua - 17 October 2015 / R Rotorua 17 October 2015 - R 1 - Chair, Mr A Dooley

R Rotorua 17 October 2015 - R 1 - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Created on 19 October 2015

Rules:
638(1)(d)
Committee:
ADooley (chair)
RSeabrook
Name(s):
Mr L Innes - Licensed Jockey
Mrs L Allpress- Rider of LUCKY BOY
Ms S Collett - Rider of MOSSOMAK
Mr W Robinson - Stipendiary Steward
Informant
Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
Information Number
A4394
Plea:
Denied
Charge:
Careless Riding
Evidence:

Following the running of race 1, Lion Red 1200, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Goodwin alleged that near the 800 metres DIVA ACHIEVER shifted in when not the required distance clear of MOSSOMAK which had to be sharply checked dropping back onto FLYING RIO which also had to be steadied.

Mr Innes acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and confirmed he denied the breach. Mr Innes was the rider of DIVA ACHIEVER.

Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.

Submission For Decision:

Mr Goodwin advised the Committee he would be calling 2 witnesses namely Mrs Allpress and Ms Collett.

Mrs Allpress submitted that her mount suddenly moved outwards for no apparent reason but added it may have been shunted. She said prior to this her mount had shown no inclination to move off the running rail. Mrs Allpress said she was unsure why the outward movement occurred. She confirmed to Mr Goodwin that her mount was racing in a tractable manner.

Mr Innes did not wish to cross examine Mrs Allpress.

At this point Mr Robinson demonstrated the video footage of the alleged incident. He identified that LUCKY BOY (Mrs Allpress) was racing in the lead and railing well with no tendency to lay out. He observed that Mr Innes’ mount was improving quickly when he went up on the outside of Ms Collett. He believed that Mr Innes was about ¾ of a length clear of Ms Collett when he moved into her line which caused her to check her mount. He said this check forced Ms Collett onto the hind quarters of Mrs Allpress’ mount.

Mr Innes did not wish to cross examine Mr Robinson.

Ms Collett was then called as a witness. She submitted that she was racing in a 1 off position and approximately 1 length behind Mrs Allpress’ mount. She said at this stage Mr Innes improved sharply on the outside of her which caused her to receive pressure from his mount. She said this resulted in her running out of racing room which cost her 1 to 1 ½ lengths. She added that Mr Innes was a bare length clear and there was no movement from Mrs Allpress until after the incident.

Mr Innes did not wish to cross examine Ms Collett.

Mr Innes submitted that there was no doubt that Ms Collett had to check her mount. He said that he had moved up to a 3 wide position when the pace slackened. He said for some reason LUCKY BOY (Mrs Allpress) who was racing on the rail has definitely moved out. He said at no point did he put any pressure on Ms Collett and he was adamant that he was in a 3 wide position when she was checked. Mr Innes expressed his concerns to Mr Goodwin that there was not a genuine head – on film to prove his point and in his opinion the films were not very adequate.

Mr Goodwin used all the available video footage many times to demonstrate the incident.

Mr Goodwin in summing up said that Mrs Allpress was going easily in front and she was not aware of her mount shifting out. He said there was clear evidence that Mrs Allpress felt something happened which resulted in her mount's hind quarters being touched. Mr Goodwin was of the view this occurred when Mr Innes shifted in. He stated Ms Collett was entitled to be where she was in the race. In conclusion he said the evidence from Ms Collett and Mrs Allpress was compelling.

Mr Innes in summing up reiterated that he was 3 wide when Ms Collett received a check and was adamant he did not put pressure on Ms Collett. He was of the view that Mrs Allpress shifted off the rail and was disappointed there wasn’t a proper head – on film available to confirm this. He acknowledged that once Ms Collett was checked he moved in which he said he was entitled to do.

In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Goodwin said he would like to clarify that the check to Ms Collett occurred when Mr Innes was in the process of shifting ground inwards to a 1 off position.

In response to a question from the Committee, Mrs Allpress submitted that her mount did not move off the running rail.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. Having reviewed the video footage several times we established that approaching the 600 metres DIVA ACHIEVER was racing in a 3 wide position. At this stage LUCKY BOY (L Allpress) was racing in the lead and adjacent to the running rail with MOSSOMAK (S Collett) racing approximately 1 length behind and 1 off the rail. It appeared that Mr Innes was maintaining a 3 wide position when Ms Collett started to check her mount. This was supported by the back on film when we analysed the video footage frame by frame. When we synchronised the films the side - on showed that Mr Innes was ½ a length in front of Ms Collett and still in a 3 wide position when she was checking her mount. The check to Ms Collett’s mount could be seen plainly enough and it occurred near the 600 metres and not the 800 metres as alleged in the Information. However, the circumstances which brought about the check could not be precisely found when analysing the films. The Committee has come to the view that the available video footage did not fully assist in determining exactly how the check to Ms Collett’s mount, MOSSOMAK came about. The incident may well have been contributed to by LUCKY BOY moving away slightly from the running rail on the point of the bend while Mr Innes was in a 3 wide position. Regrettably the quality of the available video footage where the incident occurred (near 600 metres) was rather sub – standard. On the basis of the evidence presented to us we do not believe the charge was proved to the required standard.

Decision:

Accordingly, after taking into account all of the above factors the charge against Mr Innes was dismissed.

Document Actions