R Tauranga 7 February 2025 – R5 – Ace Lawson-Carroll

BACKGROUND

Following the running of race 5, the Laser Electrical Mount Manganui Maiden 3YO 1200, an Information was lodged alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) in that the Respondent, Apprentice Jockey Ace Lawson-Carroll, permitted his mount SISTA SUGAR to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of VIVA GLAM, which was checked near the 50 metres.

The Respondent acknowledged that he understood the Rule and endorsed the Information “I do admit a breach of the rule”.

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

EVIDENCE

Using the available race films, Senior Stipendiary Steward B Jones demonstrated the incident that occurred in the home straight and identified the horses and Riders concerned. In particular, he identified SISTA SUGAR, ridden by the Respondent and VIVA GLAM (Wiremu Pinn). SISTA SUGAR was on the outside of VIVA GLAM – inside VIVA GLAM was IVY’S DANCER. Mr Jones pointed out that approaching the 50m mark, the Respondent has ridden his horse forward with the whip and then allowed it to shift ground inwards, taking the line of VIVA GLAM, when his mount was not the required distance in front of that horse, causing it to be checked. Mr Jones indicated that SISTA SUGAR was only a bare length in front and not the distance required by the Rules. This resulted in his mount getting into the line of Mr Pinn.

In response, the Respondent said he hit his mount twice, but once it shifted, he put his hands on the reins to straighten it. He considered that the check was over accentuated by the actions of the Rider of VIVA GLAM. He also referred to the presence of IVY’S DANCER, as a contributing factor to that over accentuation.

Mr Clotworthy supported the Respondent’s statement as to the overreaction of VIVA GLAM and the presence of the Wexford horse (IVY’S DANCER). He considered that the Respondent’s mount had run past VIVA GLAM and then laid in. It ran greenly, noting that it was only its second start and that the Respondent had taken appropriate action to straighten his horse as soon as possible.

Mr Harris also referred to the alleged overreaction on the part of VIVA GLAM and demonstrated by use of the head on video, what was being referred to. He pointed out that the Respondent accepted that Mr Pinn was entitled to be where he was on VIVA GLAM, but that that horse was a bit  sensitive in the mouth – as a consequence it was carrying its head higher and that that over accentuated the consequence of the check, particularly given the reactions of Mr Pinn to the check.

DECISION

As the Respondent admitted the breach, it was deemed proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY

Mr Dooley advised that the Respondent was a busy Apprentice, having had 566 rides in the previous 12 month period. He said this was a large amount of rides for an Apprentice Rider. The Respondent had 4 prior suspensions for a breach of this Rule, the last being on 29/12/2024, attracting a suspension of six days. It was noted that the breach had been admitted.

The Stewards deemed the level of carelessness to be low to mid range. It was accepted that there had been some exaggerated action by Mr Pinn following the check – the way he stands up. This has made it look worse. On balance, the recommendation as to penalty was for a five-day suspension.

Mr Harris, as Apprentice Mentor, said that the Respondent is the learned pupil and takes everything on board. He was supportive of the submissions made as to the overreaction of the other horse.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

The incident is satisfactorily illustrated and confirmed by way of film. The Respondent was careless in allowing his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of VIVA GLAM. Having heard the submissions, the Adjudicative Committee accepted that the overreaction claimed on the part of VIVA GLAM took place and this was taken into account. After consideration of the evidence and the submissions made, the breach was deemed to be low level. The starting point of a 5 day suspension was adopted.

The Respondent had admitted the breach and having considered particularly Mr Harris’ evidence, a one day reduction is applied. The Adjudicative Committee deemed a 4 day suspension to be the appropriate penalty.

The request for a deferment is granted.

CONCLUSION

The Respondent’s Licence to ride is suspended for a period of 4 days, commencing from the end of racing on 15 February 2025 and concluding after racing on 22 February 2025.