The RIB has to fund its budget deficit somehow!

[Chief Stipe]

BACKGROUND:

Information No. A14169 was filed by Stipendiary Steward, John Oatham, against Class A Jockey, Brett Murray, alleging that he failed to gain permission to leave the Jockey’s room area.

The Information was filed with the Adjudicative Committee on the raceday and was adjourned to be heard at the meeting of Canterbury JC on 6 August 2022.

The Respondent confirmed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge, and he indicated that he admitted the charge.

Rule 606 provides:

Unless otherwise permitted by a Stipendiary Steward, once a Rider has presented himself in the jockeys’ room in accordance with Rule 605(1),  that Rider must remain in the jockeys’ room and other areas specified by the Stipendiary Stewards, until he has completed his riding engagements, when he shall seek the permission of Stipendiary Stewards to leave.

EVIDENCE:

Chief Stipendiary Steward, John Oatham, said that this charge is not a common one. The Respondent had previously been spoken to concerning the same issue. On this occasion, the Respondent had failed to get permission when there were outstanding matters affecting him.

The Respondent had no comment.

DECISION:

The Respondent has admitted the breach which is therefore deemed proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Mr Oatham said that he had been able to find only one charge under this Rule in recent times. In that case the fine was $100. A fine in the vicinity of $100-200 would be appropriate, he submitted.

The Respondent had nothing he wished to say concerning penalty.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

This not a common breach. However, the Penalty Guide (2018) suggests a starting point of a $100 fine for a breach of the Rule. There being no particular aggravating or mitigating factors, the Adjudicative Committee decided that a $100 fine was the appropriate penalty.

CONCLUSION:

Jockey, Brett Murray, is fined $100.

[Chief Stipe]

Evidence:

At the conclusion of Race 7, Information A17228 was lodged by Stipendiary Steward, Mr B Jones alleging that Jockey T Harris weighed in .6kg over his weigh out weight, a breach of Rule 648(5).

Mr Harris was present at the hearing and confirmed he understood the Rule and that he admitted the breach.

Mr Jones submitted that Mr Harris had weighed out at 60.4kg and had weighed in after the race at 61kg.

By way of explanation Mr Harris said he had consumed some fluid between weighing out and weighing back in and believed this had resulted in him weighing back in heavy.

Decision:

As Mr Lowry admitted the breach it is found proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Jones stated that Mr Harris had a clear recent record under this Rule and outlined 3 previous penalties (for other Riders) that had resulted in fines from $100-$200.

Reasons For Penalty:

After considering submissions, Mr Harris’ clear record and admission of the breach, the Adjudicative Committee determined an appropriate penalty was $150.

Conclusion:

Mr Harris is fined $150.

[Chief Stipe]

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 2, the STEWART BROWNE MEMORIAL HURDLE race, Mr Jones presented an Information charging Mr Karnicnik with failing to retire his mount RED RACKET from the race “when it was not in contention”.

Rule 638(5)(b) provides (where relevant): that a Rider in a Jumping Race must retire his …horse in the Race, immediately if ….

(d)  the horse is not in contention and/or is fatigued.

The Informant’s case was that RED RACKET was completely out of contention (that is being a long last on turning into the home straight so as to not have any chance of attaining any placing in the 11 horse field), and the Rule placed an obligation on the Rider to retire the horse from the contest.

Mr Dooley identified from the race films that Mr Karnicnik’s mount RED RACKET, whilst running last commenced to drop away from the field at about the 1000 metres point.  Upon the field entering the straight, with 3 hurdles left to jump, RED RACKET had been detached from the 2nd last horse by many lengths.  Three horses of the remainder of the field, (MAJOR TOM, MIGHTY COLOMBO, and AFITUSI), which were many lengths in front of RED RACKET, (running 8th, 9th, 10th) were retired from the race before jumping the 3 hurdles in the straight.  Being out of any contention, their Riders met their obligations under the Rule.  Mr Karnicnik however did not.  He proceeded to continue in the race, by jumping the last 3 fences (at times when the remainder of the field were at least at a distance of a further fence ahead).  RED RACKET finished a distant last, 61.4 lengths from the winner.

Mr Karnicnik said that his mount was not tired, but one paced and that he was intending to educate it.

But as Mr Karnicnik admitted the charge it must follow that he accepted his mount was out of contention (which was obvious) and could not possibly have finished in any place other than last.

Decision:

As Mr Karnicnik admitted the charge, it was deemed proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Jones submitted that to his knowledge there was no record of an Adjudicative Committee having to previously deal with a charge under this Rule.  However, Mr Karnicnik had recently been warned on 18 June 2022 when appearing to breach this Rule.  He submitted that this was an “animal welfare” related Rule, and a breach of it required a stern fine at least.

Mr Karnicnik did not advance penalty submissions other than to say that he was educating the horse which was not tired.

Reasons for Penalty:

This Rule is framed so as to impose a mandatory obligation on Riders (it uses the word “must”) in ‘jumps’ races.  It is designed to ensure that a horse which engages as a competitor in such races, must not be required by its Rider to continue in such race when clearly they are out of contention (that is not having any chance of successfully gaining a dividend earning place).  It will be a question of fact, which will include the expert opinion of those who are knowledgeable about such racing matters, whether such a criterion exists where, as here, a horse has been fairly tired during the race, but a point has been reached when no realistic chance exists for the horse to be competitive, it must be retired from the race.

Conclusion:

Given the previous recent warning given to Mr Karnicnik, and the need to signal to Jumps Riders and the community, that animal welfare issues will be strictly enforced, a fine of $500 is imposed.

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said:

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 2, the STEWART BROWNE MEMORIAL HURDLE race, Mr Jones presented an Information charging Mr Karnicnik with failing to retire his mount RED RACKET from the race “when it was not in contention”.

Rule 638(5)(b) provides (where relevant): that a Rider in a Jumping Race must retire his …horse in the Race, immediately if ….

(d)  the horse is not in contention and/or is fatigued.

The Informant’s case was that RED RACKET was completely out of contention (that is being a long last on turning into the home straight so as to not have any chance of attaining any placing in the 11 horse field), and the Rule placed an obligation on the Rider to retire the horse from the contest.

Mr Dooley identified from the race films that Mr Karnicnik’s mount RED RACKET, whilst running last commenced to drop away from the field at about the 1000 metres point.  Upon the field entering the straight, with 3 hurdles left to jump, RED RACKET had been detached from the 2nd last horse by many lengths.  Three horses of the remainder of the field, (MAJOR TOM, MIGHTY COLOMBO, and AFITUSI), which were many lengths in front of RED RACKET, (running 8th, 9th, 10th) were retired from the race before jumping the 3 hurdles in the straight.  Being out of any contention, their Riders met their obligations under the Rule.  Mr Karnicnik however did not.  He proceeded to continue in the race, by jumping the last 3 fences (at times when the remainder of the field were at least at a distance of a further fence ahead).  RED RACKET finished a distant last, 61.4 lengths from the winner.

Mr Karnicnik said that his mount was not tired, but one paced and that he was intending to educate it.

But as Mr Karnicnik admitted the charge it must follow that he accepted his mount was out of contention (which was obvious) and could not possibly have finished in any place other than last.

Decision:

As Mr Karnicnik admitted the charge, it was deemed proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Jones submitted that to his knowledge there was no record of an Adjudicative Committee having to previously deal with a charge under this Rule.  However, Mr Karnicnik had recently been warned on 18 June 2022 when appearing to breach this Rule.  He submitted that this was an “animal welfare” related Rule, and a breach of it required a stern fine at least.

Mr Karnicnik did not advance penalty submissions other than to say that he was educating the horse which was not tired.

Reasons for Penalty:

This Rule is framed so as to impose a mandatory obligation on Riders (it uses the word “must”) in ‘jumps’ races.  It is designed to ensure that a horse which engages as a competitor in such races, must not be required by its Rider to continue in such race when clearly they are out of contention (that is not having any chance of successfully gaining a dividend earning place).  It will be a question of fact, which will include the expert opinion of those who are knowledgeable about such racing matters, whether such a criterion exists where, as here, a horse has been fairly tired during the race, but a point has been reached when no realistic chance exists for the horse to be competitive, it must be retired from the race.

Conclusion:

Given the previous recent warning given to Mr Karnicnik, and the need to signal to Jumps Riders and the community, that animal welfare issues will be strictly enforced, a fine of $500 is imposed.

By finishing the horse did earn $450 rather than $338 by withdrawing.

[Assange]

19 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 2, the STEWART BROWNE MEMORIAL HURDLE race, Mr Jones presented an Information charging Mr Karnicnik with failing to retire his mount RED RACKET from the race “when it was not in contention”.

Rule 638(5)(b) provides (where relevant): that a Rider in a Jumping Race must retire his …horse in the Race, immediately if ….

(d)  the horse is not in contention and/or is fatigued.

The Informant’s case was that RED RACKET was completely out of contention (that is being a long last on turning into the home straight so as to not have any chance of attaining any placing in the 11 horse field), and the Rule placed an obligation on the Rider to retire the horse from the contest.

Mr Dooley identified from the race films that Mr Karnicnik’s mount RED RACKET, whilst running last commenced to drop away from the field at about the 1000 metres point.  Upon the field entering the straight, with 3 hurdles left to jump, RED RACKET had been detached from the 2nd last horse by many lengths.  Three horses of the remainder of the field, (MAJOR TOM, MIGHTY COLOMBO, and AFITUSI), which were many lengths in front of RED RACKET, (running 8th, 9th, 10th) were retired from the race before jumping the 3 hurdles in the straight.  Being out of any contention, their Riders met their obligations under the Rule.  Mr Karnicnik however did not.  He proceeded to continue in the race, by jumping the last 3 fences (at times when the remainder of the field were at least at a distance of a further fence ahead).  RED RACKET finished a distant last, 61.4 lengths from the winner.

Mr Karnicnik said that his mount was not tired, but one paced and that he was intending to educate it.

But as Mr Karnicnik admitted the charge it must follow that he accepted his mount was out of contention (which was obvious) and could not possibly have finished in any place other than last.

Decision:

As Mr Karnicnik admitted the charge, it was deemed proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Jones submitted that to his knowledge there was no record of an Adjudicative Committee having to previously deal with a charge under this Rule.  However, Mr Karnicnik had recently been warned on 18 June 2022 when appearing to breach this Rule.  He submitted that this was an “animal welfare” related Rule, and a breach of it required a stern fine at least.

Mr Karnicnik did not advance penalty submissions other than to say that he was educating the horse which was not tired.

Reasons for Penalty:

This Rule is framed so as to impose a mandatory obligation on Riders (it uses the word “must”) in ‘jumps’ races.  It is designed to ensure that a horse which engages as a competitor in such races, must not be required by its Rider to continue in such race when clearly they are out of contention (that is not having any chance of successfully gaining a dividend earning place).  It will be a question of fact, which will include the expert opinion of those who are knowledgeable about such racing matters, whether such a criterion exists where, as here, a horse has been fairly tired during the race, but a point has been reached when no realistic chance exists for the horse to be competitive, it must be retired from the race.

Conclusion:

Given the previous recent warning given to Mr Karnicnik, and the need to signal to Jumps Riders and the community, that animal welfare issues will be strictly enforced, a fine of $500 is imposed.

Would be interested to know who qualifies as "the expert opinion of those who are knowledgeble about such matters".