Press Release
19th February 2020
On the 13 February 2020 the Independent Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal lodged by Mr Jason Hart, a licensed jockey, against the decision of the Stewards at Wolverhampton on 3 February 2020 to find Mr Hart guilty of careless riding when riding SHE’S EASYONTHEEYE (IRE) in The Ladbrokes Where the Nation Plays Handicap Stakes (Class 6). Following this finding the Stewards suspended Mr Hart for 6 days. The Stewards found that
“Mr Hart had allowed his mount to edge left-handed towards the rail when insufficiently clear of a free-running MICROSCOPIC (IRE) causing that runner to be crowded for some distance and carried onto both LA CHICA LOBO which after being tightened up for several strides was then checked and also FEEL GOOD FACTOR which had to be severely checked against the rail and lost considerable ground as a result”.
The appeal was lodged on behalf of Mr Hart on the 5 February 2020 on the grounds that the decisions of the local Stewards were incorrect.
Mr Hart was represented by Mr Rory Mac Neice and the BHA was represented by Mr Lyn Williams. Neither party objected to the members of the Panel.
The appeal was a re-hearing. The Panel considered all the available film (a total of 6 cameras), all the evidence including the transcript of the Steward’s enquiry on the day, and the “live” evidence of Mr Clifford Lee, the rider of MICROSCOPIC (IRE ) and Mr Hart at the appeal hearing, and the arguments put before the Panel.
The race was a 5-furlong sprint for 3-year olds, and there was a field of 10 runners. The incident occurred towards the end of the back straight at Wolverhampton approaching the left-handed home bend.
The runners of relevance to the appeal were:-
SHE’S EASYONTHEEYE (IRE) ridden by Jason Hart (drawn 7) (8th)
MICROSCOPIC (IRE) ridden by Clifford Lee (drawn 3) (5th)
LA CHICA LOBO ridden by Cam Hardie (drawn 2) (7th)
FEEL GOOD FACTOR ridden by Luke Morris (drawn 1) (6th)
In essence the case for the BHA, who supported the findings of the Stewards, was that from soon after the start, Mr Hart edged his horse across towards the rails until, towards the end of the back straight, Mr Hart’s mount was 4 horses wide with immediately inside him MICROSCOPIC (IRE), inside him LA CHICA LOBO and inside LA CHICA LOBO and the nearest the rails, FEEL GOOD FACTOR. There is no suggestion that Mr Hart edged his mount across too early or that he interfered with any other horse as he did so. It is also accepted that at about this time Mr Hart glanced across to his inside, and whilst this was unobjectionable and indeed sensible, the BHA noted that Mr Hart told the Stewards on the day that as a result of this glance he only thought that there were two horses inside him, rather than three. The BHA say that Mr Hart had in fact edged too far across and crowded MICROSCOPIC (IRE) on his immediate inside, and consequently LA CHICA LOBO and FEEL GOOD FACTOR inside MICROSCOPIC (IRE). It was said that as a result of this pressure from the outside by Mr Hart on SHE’S EASYONTHEEYE (IRE), MICROSCOPIC (IRE) was crowded for some distance, LA CHICA LOBO has to be tightened up for several strides and then checked and FEEL GOOD FACTOR, who was against the rail, had to be severely checked and lost considerable ground as a result. The BHA case was that, as Mr Hart got closer to the left-hand bend he continued to edge closer to the rail, instead of going wider and giving sufficient room to the three horses inside him to safely negotiate the bend, and as a result two horses had to pull back.
In summary, it was Mr Hart’s case that the interference (and there was no dispute that some interference had occurred) was caused by a number of factors which happened very quickly in a 5-furlong sprint race involving a left-handed bend. Mr Hart said that his riding had not been careless and he was not responsible for the interference which occurred. He agreed he had edged across from his draw in stall 7 to be the fourth horse off the rails. He agreed he had glanced across to check his position and, whilst he thought there were only two horses inside him at that time, he said he was content to be outside Mr Lee and there was a clear gap between his horse and Mr Lee on MICROSCOPIC (IRE). Mr Hart said (and indeed Mr Lee agreed) that MICROSCOPIC (IRE) was “very gassy” despite wearing a visor for the first time to help her concentrate. Mr Hart said that he was bumped on his inside by MICROSCOPIC (IRE) who was running free and was moving her head around. Mr Lee, who said he felt he was squeezed up and had nowhere to go, agreed that his filly, who was strong, was not particularly helping him and that he was having “to sit against her”. Mr Hart said that he gave Mr Lee sufficient room at all times but the latter’s horse began running free and became unbalanced. Mr Hart denied that he had continued to edge closer to the rail thereafter and denied that he had at any stage been guilty of careless riding.
As mentioned above, interference had clearly occurred particularly involving the two horses nearest the rail, namely FEEL GOOD FACTOR and outside him LA CHICA LOBO. There was no dispute that these horses had suffered interference, the more difficult question was “who caused it”?
The Disciplinary Panel had the advantage (which the Stewards on the day did not) of being able to view on a number of occasions, both at full speed and half speed, the incident from 6 different camera angles.It is right to say that the Disciplinary Panel, notwithstanding this assistance, did not find it easy to conclude how the interference came about.
As mentioned above, no criticism was made asto the manner in which Mr Hart edged across from his initial draw in stall 7 to be four horses wide outside MICROSCOPIC (IRE), LA CHICA LOBO and on the inside, FEEL GOOD FACTOR.It was said on behalf of the BHA that in fact he came too far over and squeezed up the three horses inside him.However, on closer inspection of the various camera angles it appeared to the Panel that the first contact between any of the four horses was when Mr Hardie’s horse LA CHICA LOBO (two off the rails) pushed against the quarters of Mr Lee’s horse MICROSCOPIC (IRE) (three off the rails).At this stage, there was clear daylight between Mr Hart’s horse and Mr Lee’s mount and, accordingly, it seemed difficult to conclude that the cause was Mr Hart moving too far towards the rails.Mr Lee’s horse, MICROSCOPIC (IRE) appears to become “gassy” and unbalanced and Mr Lee was doing his very best to keep her in a straight line.At one stage there is minor contact between Mr Lee’s horse and that of Mr Hart, but it appeared to the Panel that, using the harrow marks on the all weather as a guide, that Mr Hart had not moved in nearer to the rail at this stage.If he had, it was only minimal, and did not cause the interference.
A rider is guilty of careless riding if he fails to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference or causes interference by inattention or misjudgement. On close examination of all the evidence, particularly the films of the incident, the Panel were not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the interference had been caused by Mr Hart’s inattention or misjudgement. In particular, when the first contact between horses on the inside occurred there was, and always had been, a clear gap between Mr Hart’s horse and Mr Lee’s horse on his immediate inside.
The Panel were grateful to both Mr Lee and Mr Hart, who they considered tried their best to give an honest and accurate description of an incident which happened very quickly in a sprint race over 5 furlongs approaching a bend on relatively young horses. For the avoidance of doubt, there was no criticism of Mr Lee’s riding who dealt with a difficult situation with skill.
In the circumstances the Panel were not satisfied that the charge of careless riding against Mr Hart was proved on the balance of probabilities, and they allowed the appealed and quashed the penalty. The deposit is returned.
Wednesday, 19 February 2020
