You are here: Home / Race Days / Waikato RC - 26 February 2014 / Waikato RC 26 February 2014 - R 2

Waikato RC 26 February 2014 - R 2

Created on 28 February 2014

Rules:
638(1)(d)
Committee:
ADooley (chair)
Name(s):
Mr R Hutchings - Apprentice rider of YULEANNE
Miss K Myers - Rider of THRILLA IN MANILLA
Mr O Bosson - Rider of RIVERENZA
Mr M Williamson -Stipendiary Steward
Mr G Rogerson - assisting Mr Hutchings
Informant
Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Information Number
A6557
Plea:
Denied
Charge:
Careless Riding
Evidence:

Following the running of race 2, Extec 2100, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d).  The Informant, Mr Oatham alleged that near the 1900 metres Mr Hutchings allowed his mount YULEANNE to shift in, dictating RIVERENZA (O Bosson) into the line of THRILLA IN MANILLA ( K Myers) which was checked.

Mr Hutchings acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule. Mr Hutchings denied the breach and was assisted at the hearing by his employer Mr G Rogerson.

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

Submission For Decision:

Mr Oatham submitted that he would be calling 3 witnesses, namely Stipendiary Steward, Mr Williamson, Mr O Bosson rider of RIVERENZA and Miss K Myers the rider of THRILLA IN MANILLA.

Mr Williamson demonstrated the incident using all the available video films. He pointed out to the Committee that Mr Hutchings permitted his mount to shift in when not the required distance clear of RIVERENZA which had its rightful line dictated. He identified as a result of this inward movement Miss Myers had to take a hold of her mount, THRILLA IN MANILLA, to avoid the heels of RIVERENZA. Mr Williamson showed on the head-on film where THRILLA IN MANILLA comes to the outside of RIVERENZA to avoid his heels.

Mr Williamson said Mr Hutchings was approximately 1 length clear when shifting in. In mitigation he accepted Mr Hutchings was unaware THRILLA IN MANILLA was racing to the inside of RIVERENZA.

Mr Rogerson questioned Mr Williamson as to whether Mr Hutchings was his length and another length clear Miss Myers.

Mr Williamson said the issue was with the distance between Mr Hutchings and Mr Bosson’s mount.

Mr Hutchings had no questions of Mr Williamson’s interpretation of the alleged incident.

Miss Myers was called as a witness by Mr Oatham. Miss Myers, when asked by Mr Oatham submitted that, prior to the incident she had a clear line of running to the inside of Mr Bosson’s mount. She acknowledged that Mr Bosson had shifted in when a length clear which resulted in her mount being checked. Miss Myers said she was looking for a position going into the bend and before the incident occurred was prepared to drop in behind.

Mr Rogerson then questioned Miss Myers. Miss Myers said she was easing for a position and had to avoid the heels of Mr Bosson’s mount for a stride or two. Miss Myers confirmed to Mr Rogerson that her mount over raced during the race.

Mr Oatham than called Mr Bosson as a witness. Mr Bosson said he had suffered some interference when Mr Hutchings slightly brushed him which required him to take hold of his mount for a stride. Mr Bosson believed Mr Hutchings was about 1 ½ lengths clear when shifting in. Mr Bosson said he turned his horse’s head in to avoid heels and noted he was unable to relieve the pressure to his inside.

Mr Rogerson questioned Mr Bosson as to whether he called out to Mr Hutchings. Mr Bosson advised he did not call out to Mr Hutchings. Mr Bosson said to Mr Rogerson he was not aware Miss Myers was racing to his inside. Mr Bosson stated Miss Myers had not called out to him.

Mr Rogerson was then given the opportunity to present his submissions. He said Mr Hutchings had come over a “little bit quick” and believed Mr Hutchings was 1 ½ lengths clear going forward. He described the interference as slight which carried on for a stride or two. He said there were a lot of contributing factors for the Committee to consider. These included THRILLA IN MANILLA was inclined to over race, Mr Bosson and Miss Myers did not call out to Mr Hutchings. He said Mr Hutchings was unaware Miss Myers was racing behind Mr Bosson. He submitted Mr Hutchings was “very unlucky to be sitting here today”.

Mr Hutchings submitted he was riding forward and believed he was close to the required distance clear when shifting in. He said he only brushed Mr Bosson’s mount and noted Miss Myers and Mr Bosson did not call out to him. He added that further on in the race THRILLA IN MANILLA over raced and did not come back to its rider.

In summing up Mr Oatham said the films were very clear and it ties in with the evidence at the hearing. He demonstrated on the head-on film that Mr Hutchings was racing in a 5 wide position and it was his obligation to be sufficiently clear when moving into a position of 3 wide. He assessed Mr Hutchings was at best 1 ¼ lengths clear when shifting in. He described the interference as relatively minor which resulted in Miss Myers receiving a sharp check to avoid the heels of RIVERENZA.

Mr Rogerson in summing up for Mr Hutchings said Miss Myers did not yell out and her mount did over race. He said the interference was minor and not severe. He added Mr Hutchings was not aware Miss Myers was to racing his inside.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times the Committee established that Mr Hutchings made an error of judgement in allowing his mount to shift in from a 5 wide position to a 3 wide position approximately 200 metres after the start. Mr Hutchings was approximately 1 ¼ clear when shifting in which resulted in RIVERENZA having its rightful running line dictated. This in turn placed THRILLA IN MANILLA in a tight position that resulted in Miss Myers having to check her mount for approximately 6 strides to avoid the heels of RIVERENZA. The head on film shows THRILLA IN MANILLA's head going up in the air when restrained.

Decision:

The Committee note that “interference” is defined as: a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.

Because Mr Hutchings was not the required distance clear of RIVERENZA when moving in, the Committee finds the charge proved.

Submission For Penalty:

Mr Oatham produced Mr Hutchings which showed 3 previous breach under this Rule in the last 12 months, the most recent being on 23 February 2014 at Wairoa which attracted a 4 day suspension.

He said that Mr Hutchings was riding under a deferment and was due to commence his suspension after racing on 1 March 2014 and recommence riding after racing on 7 March 2014.

Mr Oatham submitted Mr Hutchings record was an average one as he was one the busiest riders around. He assessed the level of carelessness as low end and it was unfortunate Miss Myers was in her position and received a reasonable check. He submitted a suspension at the lower end would be appropriate.

Mr Rogerson submitted that Mr Hutchings rides all over the country and assessed the interference as low end of the scale. Mr Rogerson submitted Mr Hutchings was a busy rider who had a confirmed ride in the Group 1 race on March 8. Mr Rogerson requested the Committee consider a fine or a warning on the basis the breach was a minor offence.

Mr Hutchings advised the Committee he was suspended up to and including 7 March.

Reasons For Penalty:

The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The Committee have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension for this careless riding charge. The mitigating fact is the level of carelessness is at the low end of the scale. The Committee considers Mr Hutchings record under this Rule as average which includes taking into account his quantity of rides.

The Committee notes Mr Hutchings made an error of judgement when permitting his mount to shift in when not the required distance clear of RIVERENZA which had its rightful running line dictated. This in turn resulted in THRILLA IN MANILLA receiving a short sharp check.

The Committee carefully considered the various submissions made by Mr Rogerson surrounding penalty but were not satisfied a warning or a fine were appropriate on this occasion.

The Committee considered that this type of breach would generally attract a 5 day suspension. However, the Committee had regard that Mr Hutchings would miss the race meeting on March 8 which includes two Group 1 races with stake money of $200,000. Mr Rogerson submitted Mr Hutchings did have an engagement for one of the Group 1 races. For this reason along with the low level of carelessness discretion has been exercised for this particular breach. Accordingly, Mr Hutchings’ penalty has been adjusted downwards by 1 day.

The Committee explained to Mr Hutchings that he is a very experienced apprentice rider with the knowledge that Auckland Cup week was in March and any breach incurred today would result in a penalty.
Taking into account all the above factors the Committee considers an appropriate period of suspension is 4 days.

Penalty:

The Committee notes that Mr Hutchings was riding under a deferment and was due to commence his suspension after racing on 1 March 2014 and recommence riding after racing on 7 March 2014.

Accordingly, the Committee impose a suspension on Mr Hutchings which will commence after racing on March 7 and conclude after racing on March 12 (4 North Island days)

That period of suspension encompasses meetings at Ellerslie - March 8, Tauherenikau - March 9, Hawera - March 10 and Matamata - March 12.

Document Actions