Rotorua RC 7 July 2021 – R4 – Daniel Cherry

EVIDENCE:

Following the running of Race 4, a Maiden 1230m event, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 614(2). The Informant, Mr B Jones, alleged that Mr D Cherry, omitted the surcingle when saddling GO YOU GOOD THING.

Mr Cherry acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule.  He also confirmed that he did admit the breach.

Rule 614(2) provides that:

A person must not be neglectful or careless in saddling a horse.

Mr Jones told the Committee that after completion of the race the Rider of GO YOU GOOD THING, E Leighton weighed in 0.2kg lighter than her recorded weigh out weight. When queried Ms Leighton confirmed that her surcingle was missing. Upon this advice Stipendiary Steward V Algar went to the saddling area and located the surcingle in question.

The Stipendiary Stewards’ investigation concluded that Mr Cherry had failed to apply the surcingle with the saddle supplied by E Leighton for GO YOU GOOD THING.

Mr Cherry confirmed the facts presented by Mr Jones and said that he was in a rush and simply forgot to apply the surcingle.

REASON FOR DECISION:

Mr Cherry has admitted the breach and it is therefore proved.

SUBMISSION FOR PENALTY:

Mr Jones said Mr Cherry had a clear record in respect to a breach of this Rule. Mr Jones said that the Stewards could find two recent breaches of a similar nature on record. In both cases the breaches attracted a penalty of a $100 fine. Mr Jones submitted that leaving the surcingle off could cause a health and safety risk if the saddle was to shift, however in this case that did not happen. Mr Jones said that E Leighton was able to draw the correct weight (taking into consideration the Clerk of the Scales 0.5kg allowance Rule 648(3)) and there was no victim on this occasion.

Mr Cherry had nothing further to add.

REASON FOR PENALTY:

The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented.

The JCA Penalty Guide provides several different penalty starting points, due to every breach being fact dependent. The Committee believe that in this circumstance the relevant starting point would fall between $100 and $150.

After taking into consideration all submissions and having regard for previous penalties, the Committee determined that an appropriate penalty would be a fine of $100.

CONCLUSIONS:

Mr Cherry was fined $100.