You are here: Home / Race Days / Wellington RC - 24 October 2015 / Wellington RC 24 October 2015 - R 1 - Chair, Mr N McCutcheon

Wellington RC 24 October 2015 - R 1 - Chair, Mr N McCutcheon

Created on 29 October 2015

Rules:
638(1)(d)
Committee:
NMcCutcheon (chair)
NMoffatt
Name(s):
Mr R Hannam - Licensed Jockey
Miss K Myers - Rider of TICKET CLIPPER
Mr H Tinsley - Rider of HUNDYAMONTH
Mr G Whiterod - Stipendiary Steward
Informant
Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
Information Number
A6824
Plea:
Denied
Charge:
Careless riding
Evidence:

Following the running of Race 1 (Hiremaster Premier) Information No. A6824 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged that Mr Hannam allowed his mount ROSEOFPLATINUM to shift out near the 350m causing interference to HUNDYAMONTH.

Rule 638(1)(d) reads:

A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be: (d) Careless.

Mr Hannam acknowledged that he understood the rule, the charge and confirmed that he did not admit the breach.

Submission For Decision:

Mr Tinsley, the rider of HUNDYAMONTH gave evidence. He said that after he straightened up he had Miss Myers racing tight on his outside and that the inside horse came out and took his line. He said he called to Robert (Mr Hannam); he said that he heard him and straightened but that the majority of the damage had been done by then. He repeated that Mr Hannam had come out onto him and that Kelly (Miss Myers) may have contributed a little as well.

In answer to a question from Mr Goodwin as to the movement of the horse to his inside (ROSEOFPLATINUM) and the horse on the outside (TICKET CLIPPER) Mr Tinsley responded by saying that Miss Myers (ROSEOFPLATINUM) really only blocked him. He said that Miss Myers rolled in but had straightened before Mr Hannam came out onto him.

Mr Tinsley, in answer to a further question from Mr Goodwin, said that Miss Myers' mount probably did not cause interference to his mount, but did not help the situation by not giving his mount more room.

Mr Hannam in cross-examination put it to Mr Tinsley that had Kelly (Miss Myers) not rolled in slightly, would there have been as much interference as there was? Mr Tinsley answered no, because it would have given him another half a horse-width of room. He added that Miss Myers had rolled in and brushed his mount.

Miss Myers the rider of TICKET CLIPPER gave evidence. She told the hearing that early in the run home her mount was running around a little bit and that she had to straighten her horse up. She added that her horse was lugging in and would not change legs and that she changed her whip to the inside hand in an endeavour to correct him. Then Mr Tinsley’s horse touched her horse’s back end. She said at that time of the race she was not sure whether her horse had shifted in or Mr Tinsley’s mount had shifted out. She said that she could not tell what was happening to her inside as what had occurred was a little behind her.

Mr Hannam cross-examined Miss Myers and said that while she did not cause interference, asked had she rolled in slightly? Miss Myers responded by saying that her horse did shift about and brushed Mr Tinsley’s mount.

Mr Whiterod then showed the incident on all available films and said that Mr Hannam’s mount ROSEOFPLATINUM did not have any gaps ahead and shifted away from near the running rail when not clear of HUNDYAMONTH which resulted in a check to that runner. He added that TICKET CLIPPER was racing hard on the outside of HUNDYAMONTH and may have contributed a little, but that the majority of the movement was from ROSEOFPLATINUM. This in the opinion of the Stipendiary Stewards was what caused the interference.

In cross-examination Mr Hannam asked Mr Whiterod if he believed that Miss Myers had moved in slightly. Mr Whiterod said that the films showed that she had shifted slightly off the line she had been on and came in to be close to Mr Tinsley’s mount.

Mr Goodwin in summation said that there was no argument that Miss Myers’ mount had deviated slightly off its line. He said that Mr Tinsley had said that this had not caused any interference to his mount, and that the outward movement by Mr Hannam’s mount caused the interference. He said that the side-on film clearly showed that Mr Tinsley’s mount’s head was turned away from Mr Hannam’s mount. He added that the Stipendiary Stewards would concede that Miss Myers’ mount contributed to the incident, but that that did not excuse Mr Hannam’s carelessness.

In his defence Mr Hannam said that early in the run home Miss Myers’ mount shifted in and touched Mr Tinsley’s mount. He said that whilst he was not innocent and that the bulk of the interference was from his mount, he said that Miss Myers’ mount had shifted about two horse widths and that she had changed whip hands and that her horse had put pressure on Mr Tinsley’s horse. He added that he was not innocent by any means but that Miss Myers had not helped the situation.

Reasons For Decision:

After careful consideration of all the evidence the committee found that Mr Hannam allowed his mount ROSEOFPLATINUM to shift out when not clear of HUNDYAMONTH resulting in that horse being tightened and checked between ROSEOFPLATINUM and TICKET CLIPPER. Whilst TICKET CLIPPER did roll in a little, this was a mitigating factor but did not excuse Mr Hannam for allowing his mount to shift out when not sufficiently clear. The film evidence together with the evidence of the riders concerned was very clear as to what had occurred. Mr Hannam himself stated that whilst TICKET CLIPPER did roll in, that he was not innocent.

Decision:

The charge of careless riding under the provisions of Rule 638(1)(d) was found to be proved.

Submission For Penalty:

Mr Goodwin said that Mr Hannam had an excellent race riding record. He said that Mr Hannam had not been suspended for careless riding for approximately 18 months. He added that in the opinion of the Stipendiary Stewards a suspension was warranted but asked that the committee be mindful of Mr Hannam’s excellent record when fixing quantum of penalty.

Mr Hannam said that since his last suspension he had had 800 rides and that due to his excellent record asked that the committee consider that a lesser term of suspension be imposed together with a fine. He said that he would prefer that any suspension imposed commence after racing on 31 October 2015.

Reasons For Penalty:

The Judicial Control Authority’s penalty guide has a starting point of 5 riding days suspension for careless riding. The mitigating factors on this occasion was that TICKET CLIPPER contributed to the incident by shifting in, albeit minimally, which resulted in HUNDYAMONTH racing in tight quarters. However the most significant mitigating factor was that Mr Hannam had had approximately 800 race rides since last being penalised for careless riding; that penalty being imposed in May 2014. This is an exemplary record for one who has had such a high number of raceday rides. As there were not any aggravating matters to be considered and that the carelessness was deemed to be in the low to mid-range, the committee reached the conclusion that a tangible discount was warranted on this occasion.

Penalty:

Mr Hannam’s Jockey’s Licence was suspended from the end of racing on 31 October up to and including racing on 6 November 2015 (3 days) and in addition was fined $500.

The 3 days being:

1 November Banks Peninsula
3 November Otaki
6 November Rotorua

(Avondale scheduled to race on 4 November was not considered as Mr Hannam advised the committee that he would not be seeking riding engagements for that meeting).

Document Actions