Mike Dillon: Ruling makes little sense

Hayden Tinsley. Photo / Hawke's Bay Today.

Sorry, but the Judicial Control Authority ruling on Hayden Tinsley's appeal this week is wrong.

In principle and fact it makes no sense.

Tinsley was suspended for eight racedays and fined $1000 when found guilty on Magic Briar of causing severe interference to Twilight Savings, Miss Maximuss and the favourite We Can Say It Now in the closing stages of the $300,000 1000 Guineas at Riccarton three weeks ago.

Magic Briar was relegated from second to fifth.

Tinsley's mid-week appeal came down to this - he either caused the interference or he didn't.

Geoff Hall, who chaired the JCA panel, said that while the panel had upheld the careless riding charge, it "could not attribute the principal responsibility for the interference to the defendant [Tinsley]".

That, surely, is a dollar each way.

The interference suffered by the three fillies was severe.

Chief steward Cameron George has said for some time any jockey found guilty of careless riding resulting in interference in group one races is for the high jump.

No sympathy.

In the view of this column the original raceday JCA panel got it wrong - Twilight Savings herself created almost all of the mayhem when she produced a volatile reaction despite having sufficient room to improve forward at the time of the incident.

Whether you agree with that or with George and then ultimately the raceday JCA panel, neither sit alongside the JCA appeal ruling.

It found Tinsley guilty of careless riding, but that the "principal responsibility for the interference could not be attributed to him".

Did we miss something?

Repeat - he either caused the interference or he didn't.

The ruling was Twilight Savings had her line dictated to her by Magic Briar, but that the volatile movement by Twilight Savings that afterwards caused the interference was hers alone.

So, Tinsley and Magic Briar moved in probably half a body width, one body width at the most, which is very little compared to what happens in most home straight action.

But no interference was caused by that movement, is what the JCA appeal panel found because the movement was in advance of any interference.

Surely, for careless riding to be proved interference has to be a factor.

Watch the head-ons of every race at Ellerslie today and you'll see horses move around all the time and jockeys behind taking alternative options.

It's only ever thought of as careless riding if the horse movement causes serious problems.

In this case the JCA appeal panel couldn't find Tinsley accountable for that.

This ruling reduced the suspended days to six and waived the $1000 fine. So, if Tinsley didn't cause the interference, what's the six days suspension for?

This is a weak decision. Confusing at best.

The JCA needs better credibility.

Also, steps need to be put in place to educate licenceholders on how to best present their case in the inquiry room.

In my experience the weight at the moment sits heavily with the chairman of stewards.

When George is on deck he is a very forceful advocate to a level few licenceholders can come close to.

More important the chairman of stewards, in summation, is the last voice the JCA panel members hear before retirement to settle on a judgment.

That can provide an almost unfair advantage and don't forget millions of dollars rest on these decisions.

The 1000 Guineas decision must rest now.

But try and find any even half- decent race reader that agrees with it.

Two highly respected race readers, trainer John Wheeler and ex-jockey Bob Vance, had negligible effect despite robust argument on Tinsley's behalf at the appeal.