Auckland TR 19 October 2024 – R5 – Wiremu Pinn

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 5, the Respondent Mr W Pinn defended a charge of careless riding which was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d).  The Information alleged that as the Rider of LEGALLY BINDING, he allowed his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of MANORBIER, which was dictated inwards crowding LITTLE THIEF, which was checked near the 1100m

Rule 638(1)(d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Adjudicative Committee considers to be careless.

Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham showed the available films to demonstrate the incident and identify the horses and Riders concerned.

Mr Oatham started by showing the head on film, he said Mr Pinn jumped from barrier 5 and made an angled run towards the corner. He identified that Mr Pinn looked inwards, so was aware that there were two runners inside him, at which point he tried to straighten his mount, but in the Stewards’ opinion, it was too late. Mr Oatham said that both runners to the inside of Mr Pinn’s mount had their rightful running taken. He illustrated this on the head on film, referring to the fact that you were unable to see both shoulders of the horses to the inside of LEGALLY BINDING. He said as a result of Mr Pinn’s inward shift, there was only ever room for 1 horse to his inside and as a result, Masa Hashizume had to check his mount quite severely, and there was no room for Mr Parmar, who was trying to relieve the pressure on Mr Hashizume.

Mr Oatham then showed the Adjudicative Committee the side on film, he identified that Mr Parmar’s mount began slowly and he then rode forward to recover his position. He identified that as Mr Parmar came to the outside of Mr Hashizume, at no point was Mr Pinn clear of him and he estimated that Mr Parmar was always 1 length to 1 ¼ length behind Mr Pinn. He said that Mr Parmar then goes ahead of Mr Hashizume and appears to be inside the heels of Mr Pinn (prior to the interference occurring). He said that when both Riders had to take a hold of their mounts (due to tightening), Mr Pinn was a bare length in front of Mr Parmar.

Mr Hashizume was called as a witness for the Stewards.

Mr Hashizume said he was on the fence and easing his horse, to let Mr Pinn come across him. He said that Mr Parmar was behind him and quickened up to try and ride between him and Mr Pinn. He said that Mr Parmar tried to use Mr Pinn to dictate him onto the fence. He said that he had to check off Mr Parmar’s heels, and Mr Parmar was a half length clear when the interference happened.

Mr Parmar was called as a witness for the Stewards.

Mr Parmar said his horse jumped out awkwardly and he started pushing his horse to get a better position to sit outside the leader or lead. He said that when Mr Pinn went to go to the inside, he “dug up” his horse and it got a bit keen and “hung a bit”. Mr Jones asked Mr Parmar if he was able to relieve the pressure placed on Mr Hashizume and Mr Parmar responded by saying he couldn’t, as his horse was a bit keen. Mr Jones asked Mr Parmar if he had shifted out off Mr Hashizume, would he have been on Mr Pinn’s heels. Mr Parmar said “yes, I would have clipped heels.”

Mr Pinn commenced by saying “it was mind blowing that he was being charged due to someone else’s mistake.” He said “there have been two Trainers in here and three Riders tell you (the Stewards) that it was Mr Parmar’ s fault. He said that even Mr Parmar said it was him (at fault), yet Mr Pinn had to suffer. Mr Pinn said that the camera angle is really bad. He said he was coming across and coming across quite slowly, in the three wide line, until he was clear and then ridden over to the fence. He said that it did get tight to the inside for other runners, but he never caused any contact or interference. He said that in his opinion, Mr Parmar was in the wrong, but he was suffering. Mr Pinn said that Mr Ormsby had lodged a protest against his mount (due to interference), but had also said that it was Mr Parmar’s fault.

The Adjudicative Committee asked Mr Pinn if there was anything specifically he wished to reference in relation to the films (at this point Mr Pinn hadn’t asked the films to be played to outline /illustrate his interpretation of the incident). He chose not to, instead saying that all the evidence he had put forward, he believed to be true. Mr Pinn said that the camera angle was very weird, and the inside horse was hidden away a little bit, but he always maintained a 3 wide line, he looked to his inside 3-4 times and knew the Riders were there and did his best to look after them, eventually clearing Mr Parmar and moving to the rail.

Mr Jones summed up for the Stewards. He said, as identified, the angle that Mr Pinn commenced to ride to get to the rail, was fraught with danger, when there were runners to your inside and the Rule states that you must be your own length and another length clear when shifting ground. He said that the Stewards had identified that at no stage, was Mr Pinn clear of the runners to his inside, and Mr Hashizume was in the unfortunate position of receiving the majority of the interference.

Mr Pinn summed up by saying he couldn’t understand what he was supposed to be clear of, as he was in a 3 wide position. He said he was coming across, to eventually work his way onto the fence. He said not once had he got into Mr Parmar’s line, as he was working his way to the fence. Mr Pinn said that we had heard from 2 Trainers and 3 Riders and one was Mr Parmar. Mr Pinn concluded by saying it was mind blowing.

Decision:

The Adjudicative Committee took the opportunity to view the films independently. The films illustrated Mr Pinn looking to cross the field to take the lead position on the fence, after jumping from barrier 5. Mr Parmar, who had begun a little slowly, improved past Mr Hashizume, to take up a position to the inside and approximately 1 & ¼ lengths in arrears of Mr Pinn. Initially, there was room for all 3 horses, however Mr Pinn persisted with coming across and consequently, tightened Mr Parmar onto Mr Hashizume, who was checked. Mr Pinn did attempt to relieve some pressure, but this occurred too late.

The video evidence was compelling. At the time of the interference, Mr Pinn was no more than 1.5 lengths clear of Mr Parmar and in his running line. Mr Pinn was not his length plus another length clear and had not allowed enough room for the runners to his inside, before crossing them. On this basis, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

The Stewards submitted that Mr Pinn’s riding record indicated 5 previous breaches of the Careless Riding Rule, which they considered to be a poor record.

The Breaches were:

28/9/24  – 7 day suspension

7/7/24 – 4 week suspension

24/1/24 – 7 day suspension

24/1/24 – 5 day suspension

23/12/23 – 8 meeting suspension (Australia)

Mr Pinn had 266 NZ rides and additional rides in Australia.

Mr Jones said that Stewards placed the level of carelessness in the low to mid range, and a penalty in line with the Guidelines was appropriate. Mr Jones said, in mitigation, Mr Parmar had improved from behind Mr Pinn, but at no stage was he clear.

Mr Pinn said, in his opinion, if he was charged, it was a very minor breach, taking into consideration the evidence and what everyone said. He said it felt like a kick in the guts.

Mr Pinn requested a deferment up until after the 28th of October.

Reasons for Penalty:

After considering all submissions, the Adjudicative Committee determined that Mr Pinn’s carelessness sat just above the low range, and adopted a 6-day (suspension) as the starting point. This conforms with the NZTR Penalty Guide (as of 1 March 2022).

The available films clearly established that Mr Pinn crossed to the rail, when he wasn’t clear to do so, dictating Mr Parmar’s mount inwards onto Mr Hashizume’s mount, which was checked.

The only mitigating factor to be considered, was that Mr Parmar had improved into the space inside and behind Mr Pinn, however Mr Parmar’s mount had established this position prior to the interference occurring.  From a starting point of 6 days, Mr Pinn had a 2 day uplift due to his poor record (this being his 6th breach in 12 months from an estimated 400 rides).

Conclusion:

Mr Pinn’s Licence to ride in races is suspended for a period of 8 days, commencing after racing on the 28th of October and concluding after racing on the 10th of November 2024.