Wellington Racing Club - 1 May 2010 - R 6

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  M. Davidson

Defendant:  E. Dalley

Information No:  65097

Meeting:  Wellington Racing Club

Date:  1 May 2010

Venue:  Trentham

Race:  6

Rule No:  648 (5)

Judicial Committee:   N.Moffatt, Chair - T.Castles, Committee Member

Plea:  Admitted

Also Present:  Mr S Gillies

FACTS:

Following the running of Race 6, apprentice rider Mr E. Dalley, was charged with a breach of Rule 648 (5).

The information alleged that E. Dalley the rider of FLYPASS weighed in 1 kilo in excess of the weight he weighed out at.

Mr Dalley admitted the breach and as his employer, Mr R. James, was not present he was represented by licensed trainer Mr S. Gillies.

Rule 648 (5) reads:

If the Rider of a horse weighs in at a weight of 1kg or more in excess of that which the Rider weighed out, the Clerk of the Scales shall record the weight by which the Rider on weighing in exceeded the weight at which he weighed out and inform the Stipendiary Steward and that Rider commits a breach of these Rules.

Mr Davidson said that Mr Dalley was in the race book to ride at 54kgs but as an apprentice rider was able to claim 1kg. He weighed out correctly at 53kgs but weighed in after the race 1kg heavier at 54kgs.

Mr Dalley did not finish in the first six places.

He was immediately spoken to by the Stewards and reweighed again with the same result – 54kgs.

Mr Dalley’s only explanation was that he had been wasting hard and had consumed a 250ml can of V after weighing out before the race in question.

Mr Gillies said that sweat excreted from the horse during a race could also add more weight to a rider upon weighing in.

It was noted that despite the heavy nature of the track riders were not coming in covered in any mud.

SUBMISSIONS:

Mr Davidson said that Mr Dalley had breached this rule on 19 December 2009 at Awapuni and on that occasion was fined the sum of $250.  He said that Mr Dalley had been forthright and cooperative with the Stewards and his submission was for a monetary penalty of $300.

Mr Dalley did not make submissions on penalty.

DECISIONS and REASONS:

In coming to a decision on penalty the committee considered all of the submissions including Mr Dalley’s admission of the breach.  We were concerned however that there had been only one other breach of this rule in the past 12 months and that was also by Mr Dalley less than 5 months ago. The circumstances in that incident were almost identical.

Taking into consideration all of these factors Mr Dalley was given a monetary penalty of $350.

N. Moffatt                    T.Castles

CHAIR                          Committee Member

65092