Matamata RC 20 April 2022 – R1 and 2 – Toni Moki
THE DASH (R1) and TAIKA (R2)
Matamata Racing Club
Matamata Racecourse - 7555 State Highway 27, R D 3, Matamata, 3440
Penalty: Jockey Toni Moki is fined $350
The Applicant, Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones filed an Information pursuant to Rule 330(3)(c) alleging that Class D Rider Toni Moki failed to make the contracted weight for her mounts in Race 1 and 2.
The Respondent was present at the hearing and confirmed her admission of the breach.
She is a Class D (Jumps) Rider who can claim 3 kg.
Rule 330(3)(c) provides:
“A rider shall not fail to ride a horse at the weight at which it is handicapped to carry”.
Race 1 THE DASH 68 kg
Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones advised that THE DASH was handicapped to carry 68 kg (reduced to 65 kg with 3 kg claim) and that at weigh out the Respondent was 1.5 kg overweight and carried 67 kg.
Race 2 TAIKA 65 kg
Mr Jones advised that TAIKA was handicapped to carry 65 kg (reduced to 63 kg with 3 kg claim) and that at weight out the Respondent was 2.5 kg overweight and carried 67.5 kg.
Mr Jones advised that a breach of this Rule is normally dealt with by way of Minor Infringement Notice (MIN) but on this occasion Stewards elected to file an Information due to the fact that there were two breaches of the Rule and with respect to both mounts, the Respondent was significantly overweight. He said that Stewards permitted her to take both mounts because there were no suitable replacement Rider(s) available and the connections were agreeable.
By way of explanation, the Respondent said that she realised the night before the meeting that she would struggle to make the handicapped weight for both rides and took steps to identify whether there was any replacement Rider(s) available. Further she said that prior to attending the race meeting she knew she would not be able to ride both horses at their carded weight but did not want to let the connections down.
As the Respondent admitted the breach the Adjudicative Committee finds the breach proved.
Submission for Penalty:
Mr Jones said that whilst the Respondent has not previously breached this Rule within the last 120 days, she has in the past 12 months been issued with two MINS which have resulted in $100 fines, respectively. Mr Jones submitted a fine in the vicinity of $300 or an amount equivalent to her $160 riding fees would be appropriate.
The Respondent submitted that she “felt bad for the trainers and owners” concerned and was lucky that one of her mounts (TAIKA) won. She added that she did everything possible to make weight and tried to identify replacement riders.
Reasons for Penalty:
The MIN schedule establishes a $100 fine as the starting point for a first breach of this Rule. In circumstances where Stewards elect to file an Information, determination of penalties are fact dependent.
The Adjudicative Committee considered the submissions and for consistency took some guidance from previous penalties for similar breaches.
Aggravating factors included:
- The Respondents record under this Rule, which includes no breaches within the 120-day reset period, but she has breached the Rule twice in the past 12 months from limited riding opportunities.
- The breaches resulted in both runners having to carry overweight.
- Although there were no suitable replacement Riders available (on-course), the Respondent knew the previous evening that she would not be able to make the carded weight for both runners and should have at least advised connections and Stewards.
- The betting public and indeed the connections of the horses under normal circumstances are reluctant to put up additional weight.
Mitigating factors included:
- The admission of the breach and the Respondent’s record within the 120-day reset period, albeit the Jumps season has just commenced.
An additional factor considered was that the Respondent’s mount in Race 2 won the race for which she received a percentage of the winning stake as well as riding fees for both mounts.
Given the circumstances, and balancing the interests of the Respondent, other stakeholders, and consistency, the Adjudicative Committee determined that a $350 fine is an appropriate penalty.
The Respondent is fined $350.
Decision Date: 20/04/2022
Publish Date: 21/04/2022