Hawkes Bay RI 13 December 2023 – R2 – Lily Sutherland

ID: RIB30810

Respondent(s):
Lily Sutherland - Apprentice Jockey

Applicant:
Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward

Adjudicators:
Hon J W Gendall KC

Persons Present:
Mr N Goodwin, Mr B Jones - Stipendiary Steward, Ms L Sutherland, Ms K Clapperton - assisting Ms Sutherland

Information Number:
A17524

Decision Type:
Race Related Charge

Charge:
Careless Riding

Rule(s):
638(1)(d) - Riding/driving infringement

Plea:
Not Admitted

Animal Name:
PLATINUM DESIGNS

Code:
Thoroughbred

Race Date:
13/12/2023

Race Club:
Hawkes Bay Race Club

Race Location:
Hastings Racecourse - 200 Prospect Road, Hastings, 4122

Race Number:
R2

Hearing Date:
13/12/2023

Hearing Location:
Hastings Racecourse

Outcome: Proved

Penalty: Apprentice Jockey Lily Sutherland is suspended for 4 National Riding Days

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 2, the “BETTA  ASBESTOS CONSULTANCY 3YO MAIDEN 1400”, Mr N Goodwin presented an Information charging Ms Sutherland and the Rider of “PLATINUM DESIGNS”, with careless riding in breach of Rule 638(1)(d).

Ms Sutherland, through the Apprentice Rider Mentor, did not admit the breach of the Rule.

Mr Goodwin alleged that Ms Sutherland “allowed her mount “PLATINUM DESIGNS” to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of “FALCONS DIAMOND” (Mr J Chung), which was checked passing the 1000 metres point”.

The evidence further presented by the Informant comprised the race head and side on films, the expert opinion of Mr Goodwin and Mr Jones as to their respective interpretation of the films.

The race films essentially are real time documentary evidence, that usually, as here, require an assessment or interpretation of, what is depicted.

The evidence of both Stipendiary Stewards was that the race films clearly depicted that “FALCONS DIAMOND”, which drew barrier 1, when racing on the fence about 400 metres after the start, was tightened from the outside, and Mr Chung was required to “take a hold” of his mount, and was checked.  The Stewards contended that there was pressure coming from outside, being from “PLATINUM DESIGNS”, ridden by Ms Sutherland, and she allowed her mount to cross that of Mr Chung when not sufficiently clear, that is by crossing without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of Mr Chung’s mount at the time of crossing.

Ms Clapperton expressed the view that she did not accept Ms Sutherland eased the pace so as to cause a check and Mr Chung’s mount was over racing which led to his having to take a hold.  Mr Chung said “I did not have to check my mount and was happy to let her come across …. I think she was clear ….. only a bit more than half a length.”

Decision:

The charge was found proved.

Reasons for Decision:

The opinions of Mr Chung are benevolent, at least, and when viewed against the incontrovertible evidence contained in both films, the Adjudicative Committee does not accept them.  Although Mr Chung may have then (or later) thought otherwise, the films clearly show that Ms Sutherland continued across with her mount not being “AT LEAST its own length and one other CLEAR length in front of Mr Chung’s mount.  She was never “one other clear length” ahead of Mr Chung.

It may well have been the case that “FALCONS DIAMOND” was inclined to over race , but once it “kicked up” inside of “PLATINUM DESIGNS”, Ms Sutherland had to correct his line, and not to cross the inside horse until she was the necessary distance ahead.  The reason for the requirement is to ensure there is no possibility of there being a clipping of heels.  The restraining of his mount, by Mr Chung, was to avert any such possibility when Ms Sutherland’s mount was not sufficiently clear.

The Adjudicative Committee found the charge to be established (proved).  It was, however, at the low end of carelessness as Ms Sutherland thought she was clear, but was not, when the other horse did not ease.  Her error was a judgment mistake in the circumstances that were developing.  As she said in evidence, she “thought I was going forward enough to get in front”.  She agreed that a Rider’s duty was to “stay outside until clear”.

Submissions for Penalty:

The Informant agreed that this was a “low range” breach and Ms Sutherland had an excellent record for a very busy and promising Apprentice Rider.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Adjudicative Committee accepts that there are no aggravating factors to consider, and Ms Sutherland was a little unfortunate in that Mr Chung’s mount pushed up but she was required to refrain for some further distance before moving across.  She deserves some concession from the Penalty Guide’s recommended 5 day starting point.

Conclusion:

The appropriate sanction is a suspension of Ms Sutherland’s Licence to ride for 4 National Riding Days to commence at the conclusion of racing on 20 December 2023, and to finish at the conclusion of racing on 24 December 2023.

Decision Date: 13/12/2023

Publish Date: 15/12/2023