Canterbury JC - 2 October 2010 - R 1

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr M Williamson, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  C Spittles, Apprentice Jockey

Information No:  240

Meeting:  Canterbury Jockey Club

Date:  2 October 2010

Venue:  Canterbury Park

Race: 1

Rule No:  605(1)

Judicial Committee:  KG Hales, Chairman - J Millar, Committee Member

Plea:  Admitted

CHARGES

Mr Williamson has filed an information alleging a breach of Rule 605(1) of the Rules of Racing.

The Stipendiary Stewards allege:

“C Spittles, declared rider for “Ashbury Attie” was late arriving to the track and was replaced on this horse.”

Rule 605(1) reads as follows:

“A Rider who has a riding engagement at a Race Meeting must present himself in the Jockeys’ Room at least 40 minutes before the starting time for the first race in which he has a riding engagement.”

Ms Spittles is an apprentice rider.  As such, she is entitled to be accompanied in a Judicial Hearing by a licence holder.  Ms Spittles acknowledged that she was well aware of this right, but chose to not have a licensed person present.  Mr Williamson informed the hearing that her employer, Mr J Parsons, Licensed Trainer, was available if required, and was aware that Ms Spittles had been charged.  However, Ms Spittles again confirmed she did not require to be accompanied. 

THE FACTS

Ms Spittles was engaged to ride “Ashbury Attie” in Race 1.  Race 1 was carded to start at 11.25 am.  This meant that Ms Spittles was to be in the Jockeys’ Room no later than 10.45 am. 

Twenty five minutes before the race, Ms Kaylene McCormick, the trainer of “Ashbury Attie”, contacted the Stewards and stated that Ms Spittles had not arrived at the track.  Ms Spittles was contacted and the information was given that she was “not far away”. 

Fifteen minutes before Race 1, Ms Spittles had still not arrived on course, and as a consequence a decision was made to replace her with Ms Amelia Denby, Apprentice Jockey.  Ms Spittles did not arrive on course until such time as Ms Denby was at the point of weighing out. 

In explanation, Ms Spittles said that she had been riding work at her place of employment, and that she was not wearing a watch.  She said the stable hands kept on presenting horses for her to work and as a consequence, she overlooked the fact that she was running late.  She did not attempt to excuse herself for her carelessness in being late to the course. 

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:

Mr Williamson submitted that Ms Spittles was in breach of her duty to the connections of “Ashbury Attie” and also to the betting public.  He drew our attention to the fact that fines of $200 had been imposed on other riders for such offences.  He submitted that a fine in the region of $200 was appropriate.

Ms Spittles acknowledged to the hearing that she thought that was a fair penalty to be imposed. 

PENALTY DECISION:

We delivered the following oral penalty decision on Race Day:

“This was a clear breach of Rule 605(1).  Ms Spittles should have been more careful.  She has let the connections of her mount down, as well as the betting public.  Ms Spittles had admitted the charge at an early opportunity, and has accepted full responsibility for her misdemeanour. 

Mr Williamson has submitted to us that a fine of $200 should be imposed. 

A fine is appropriate.”

Having regard to the penalties that have been imposed on other offenders, we see no reason to depart from the level of fines imposed in the past.

Ms Spittles is fined $200.