Matamata RC 24 January 2024 – R7 – Wiremu Pinn

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 7, the “CENTIGRADE 2000”, and after the final race of the meeting, Mr Jones presented an Information charging Mr Pinn with a breach of Rule 636(1)(b) when riding “STATE OF FEAR” in Race 7.  It was alleged that Mr Pinn “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to win or obtain the best possible placing by failing to ride his mount with sufficient vigour when detached from the body of the field in the early to middle stages of the race”.

Mr Pinn did not admit the alleged breach of the Rule and the Information was heard by the Adjudicative Committee, after Race 10, on a defended basis.

Reasons for Decision:

After considering the evidence of Mr Dooley as an expert Stipendiary Steward, the race films, and evidence and submissions from Mr Pinn, and of Mr Jones, the Adjudicative Committee determined that the charge had been established to the required standard of proof.  Following submissions as to penalty from Mr Jones and Mr Pinn, the Adjudicative Committee imposed a penalty of suspension of Mr Pinn’s Licence to ride for a period of 4 weeks, to commence at the conclusion of racing on 18 February 2024 and to end at the conclusion of racing on 17 March 2024.

The Adjudicative Committee advised that reasons in writing would follow as soon as possible.  These are now delivered as follows.

Reasons:

Mr Pinn was riding “STATE OF FEAR”, the favourite in Race 7, which was run over a distance of 2000 metres.

Rule 636(1)(b) provides that a Rider of a horse “in a race, must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible finishing place.”

The evidence of Mr Dooley and the race film, which was accepted by the Adjudicative Committee, established that from barrier No. 7, Mr Pinn initially restrained his mount to settle in the rear of the field.  His instructions from Mr Richardson, the Trainer of “STATE OF FEAR” were to ride the horse” back of midfield”, not last.  After about 200 metres and at the winning post, the horse had been allowed to be 3 lengths behind the second last horse, “SUPER GUNN”.  This gap increased to 4 lengths, and further as the field negotiated the bend towards the back straight. Mr Pinn allowing his mount to drift further away, until negotiating the back straight, when his mount was about 6-7 lengths in arrears of “SUPER GUNN”.  Mr Pinn showed no sign of vigour at all to maintain contact with the field.  His mount was then about 25 lengths behind the leading horse, at about the 1200 metre mark, it was 25-30 lengths from the leaders.  Mr Pinn made no effort to improve and maintain reasonable contact.  From about the 1000 metre mark, he was 7 lengths behind the second last horse and 20 lengths from the leader.  Approaching the 400 metre mark, he began to improve to catch the field, and was able to improve on the inside approaching the 300 metre mark (the length of the straight).  He was held up momentarily before his mount finished strongly into third, about 3 lengths from the winner, and only half a length from second place.  But it had been set too big a burden or task to finish closer because of being tailed off for some distance.  Mr Pinn’s explanation was the horse was a “difficult ride in a fast run race”, was often on “one rein”, was going “as fast as it could” but despite him “niggling at it all the time”, it would not respond until approaching the turn.

The Adjudicative Committee did not accept those explanations of Mr Pinn which were not supported by Mr Dooley’s evidence and the film.  “STATE OF FEAR” was the favourite, having had 4 seconds and 1 first in its last 5 starts and obviously had shown ability.  By finishing third, as it did, from such a disadvantaged position for much of the race, illustrated that it could have improved earlier from the rear if Mr Pinn had urged it and applied some vigour.  But the horse was simply allowed to race well behind the second last horse for a substantial portion of the race. It was then set the burdensome task of overtaking the field, so as to winning or finishing at least second.  That it was held up initially in the 300 metre straight was not an excuse for what had been allowed to occur for a long distance previously (and the charge did not relate to what occurred in the straight).  The horse had been allowed to drift and race in such a manner that the damage had been done before the home turn.

That Rule requires a Rider to take “all reasonable” measures to ensure the horse is given its full opportunity to gain the best possible place. To allow this horse, a well backed favourite, to drift out and fall behind the second last horse, and far from the leaders, to the extent and for the distance that it did, was unreasonable.  A breach of the Rule does not require deliberate action, but rather error of judgement (or negligence) and this was the case here.  The reasonable measures Mr Pinn ought to have taken was to ride his mount forward so as to maintain close contact with the field between the 1700 and 400 metre points. Mr Pinn’s failure to ensure his mount maintained reasonable contact with the rest of the field was an error of judgement on his part.  Mr Pinn’s claims that the horse was unable to close the gap because of its inability have a hollow ring.  As evidenced by its strong finish, the horse was well capable of responding to any urging or vigour if such had been applied very much earlier.  The horse, on later post-race veterinary examination, showed no sign of any abnormality.  Mr Pinn failed to take all reasonable measures required under the Rule and for those reasons, the Adjudicative Committee found on the balance of probabilities, that the charge of breaching Rule 636(1)(b) was established.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Jones submitted that a breach of this Rule was serious.  The latest Penalty Guide provided for a starting point of 6 weeks suspension.  He accepted that all cases were fact dependent and penalties would differ according to the actual breach.  He advised that Mr Pinn had 3 previous breaches of this Rule between January and May of 2021.  He advised that some suspensions of other Riders between 2 and 5 weeks had been imposed for such breaches. He submitted that this breach fell into the lower end of similar offences.

Mr Pinn did not make any submissions as to type or extent of penalty other than to reiterate that he was not guilty of a breach of the Rule, that had done his best, and the charge and decision was not justified.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Adjudicative Committee, although taking into account the NZTR Guide of 6 weeks suspension, was very cognisant of the need for any penalty to not be “crushing” to Mr Pinn.  The previous breaches were when he was a young Apprentice, 3 years ago, were historic and Mr Pinn has since then become a prominent and experienced Rider, and did not require an uplift.  It is not an aggravating factor to defend the charge, but simply an absence of a mitigating factor.

The Adjudicative Committee regards the offence as one of misjudgment (given that for the 2 admitted careless riding breaches earlier in Races 1 and 2, had resulted in an effective total suspension of 12 days, any further length of suspension could be “crushing”.  A significant penalty is necessary to reflect the concerns of Owners, Trainer and the betting public which had made the horse the favourite.  But a term of 4 calendar weeks commencing from the end of the suspensions for careless riding, namely 18 February 2024, was regarded as sufficient and appropriate in all the circumstances.

Conclusion:

For those reasons, the suspension of Mr Pinn’s Licence is for 4 weeks, from the end of racing on 18 February 2024, until the end of racing on 17 March 2024.