Auckland RC 17 December 2017 – R 1 – Chair, Mr A Dooley
ID: JCA12209
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 17 December 2017
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
GJones
Race Date:
2017/12/17
Race Number:
R1
Decision:
For the reasons detailed above we found the charge against Ms Collett proved.
Penalty:
The Committee grants Ms Collett’s request to seek a deferment to her suspension as per Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Ms Collett had her license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 22 December and conclude after racing on 30 December 2017 (7 national riding days).
Facts:
Following the running of race 1, Logan Campbell Retirement Village 1400, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(4). The Informant, Mr Oatham, alleged that Ms Collett slowed the pace to a degree which caused interference to NAILED IT and SKYWEKA approaching the 1100 metres.
Ms Collett confirmed that she denied the breach and requested for the Rule to be read aloud.
Rule 638(4) provides: A Rider shall not unreasonably slow, reduce or check the speed of his or her horse to a degree that interferes, either directly or indirectly, with any other horse in the race. [Amended 1 August 2017].
Submissions for Decision:
The following are the salient points of a lengthy hearing that was heard during several races due to the respondent and witnesses having to fulfil their riding engagements.
Mr Coles demonstrated the alleged incident by the available video footage. Shortly after the start he identified the horses involved namely CINEMATIC (A Collett), SKYWEKA (C Lammas) NAILED IT (M Cameron) and CAPRIKOSA (M Du Plessis).
Mr Coles said that Ms Collett rode her mount forward to a point where she shifted in when clear and crossed CAPRIKOSA. He said that approaching the 1150 metres Ms Collett got into the line of NAILED IT, eased the pace and caused a sharp check to that runner. He said Mr Cameron had to take a hold of his mount when placed in a difficult position and identified that SKYWEKA was also checked when Ms Collett eased the pace.
Under cross examination Ms Collett asked Mr Coles whether she gave her mount a good push to get to the front and whether her mount's ears were pricked. Mr Coles replied in the affirmative.
Mr Oatham called Mr Cameron as a witness. Mr Cameron explained to the Committee that NAILED IT was a little bit slow to begin due to having taken a step back as the gates opened. He said that Mr Du Plessis moved forward but did not cross his mount and the field was not going overly quick. He said that when Ms Collett got to the front she eased up quite quickly and he had nowhere to go. He stated that the pace eased rapidly as a result of Ms Collett steadying her mount.
In response to a questions from the Committee, Mr Cameron said that the alarming thing was the incident happened in 2 to 3 strides and it was not good at all. Mr Cameron said that Ms Collett’s actions were unreasonable.
In answer to questions from Ms Collett, Mr Cameron said that the worst part of the incident was that Ms Collett had pushed her mount to go to the front and then she stopped. He said that if CINEMATIC was reluctant to lead it was Ms Collett’s job to encourage the horse and use her whip.
Mr Oatham called Mr Lammas as a witness. Mr Lammas explained to the Committee that within 2 strides the pace of the race stopped that quickly he nearly ended up on top of the fence. He said the bad interference he received was due to the pace stopping suddenly in front of him.
In answer to questions from Ms Collett, Mr Lammas said that it was lucky the field was only small otherwise more horses would have got checked. He said the pace eased suddenly and he disagreed with Ms Collett's view that the pace had eased slowly.
In her evidence, Ms Collett said that Mr Cameron’s mount had missed the kick and she let her horse roll to the lead because it was fitter that the others in the race. She said her only query was the racing manners of her mount as it was a difficult horse to compose. She said that her outside rein was loose and her mount was hesitant to lead and she identified the horse had it ears pricked. She said that CINEMATIC’S head was “wobbling” when it was in front and the horse was hanging and out of her control. She said that the Owner of the horse had questioned her post race as to why she had gone slowly in the lead and Ms Collett advised him that the horse was lugging out.
Ms Collett asked for the film to be forwarded to the 400 metres where she stated that her mount had to be “yanked” around the corner.
Ms Collett called Mr Collett as a witness. He said that he had studied the field and worked out that there was no leader in the race. He said that they elected to go to the front given that his horse had “no weight”. He said that CINEMATIC had never raced in front before and the horse “pulled up”. He stated that the horse was wayward and it would compete when other horses went to it. He said it was the manners of the horse that was in question and not the ride of Ms Collett.
Mr Oatham in summing up said that Ms Collett had ridden with vigour to lead and her mount responded to her riding. He said it was obvious on the films that Ms Collett takes a hold of her mount for a minimum 6 strides and as a result drops back onto Mr Cameron’s mount. He said that Ms Collett slowed the pace so quickly that Mr Du Plessis' mount had raced up alongside her. He said that he took a different view to Ms Collett regarding the racing manners of CINEMATIC in that she was aware of them and they were not beyond her control. He said that under the Rules Ms Collett has an obligation to ride her mount without putting other riders at danger. In conclusion Mr Oatham said that the video evidence is clear and fully supported by Mr Cameron and Mr Lammas’ submissions.
Ms Collett in summing up said that she was one of the top Jockeys in New Zealand and she had ridden many horses. She reiterated that the racing manners of her horse were out of her control and she had done her best. She said that CINEMATIC’S ears were pricked and the horse wanted to lay out. She concluded by saying that it is a fine line when riding out there.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all the submissions presented and reviewed all the video footage. We established that shortly after the start Ms Collett rode her mount forward and she looked to her inside when crossing clear of the other 4 horses in the race. We noted that CINEMATIC's ears were pricked when crossing to the lead. It was evident that once in front Ms Collett eased the pace by taking hold of her mount which noticeably reduced the speed in the race for several strides. As a result of Ms Collett’s actions Mr Cameron who was racing in the trail was forced to take evasive action when severely checked and he shifted off the running rail. Mr Lammas who was racing behind NAILED IT moved up into the vacated position and he was racing in tight quarters when checked to a lesser degree. The consequence of Ms Collett’s actions was that both riders and their mounts were interfered with to varying degrees.
In our opinion the video evidence did not support Ms Collett’s assertion that it was the racing manners of CINEMATIC that caused her to slow the pace.
A key requirement of Rule 638 (4) is that a riders actions shall not be unreasonable. In our deliberation we found that Ms Collett did slow the pace to a degree which caused interference to both NAILED IT and SKYWEKA. In assessing what is unreasonable we adopted the Webster Dictionary definition which says that unreasonable is either “not reasonable and what can be expected as clearly inappropriate or lacking justification in fact or under the circumstances. In our assessment Ms Collett’s actions were unreasonable.
The Committee observed the time of the race (1.26.29) that was displayed post-race. The official time highlighted that the race was run at a slow early tempo and we note that a fast last 600 metres was recorded in the race.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham said that this was a relatively new Rule which was introduced on 1 August 2017. He said this was the first breach under this Rule by any rider. He said that this charge bears some relation to the careless riding Rule. He said that under that Rule Ms Collett has had 5 previous breaches in the last 12 months. He said that Ms Collett’s record should be treated as neutral and no credit should be given for her clear record under this Rule. He described the breach as midrange and the interference as being significant. He said that it was fortunate that the incident occurred in a small field otherwise it could have been nasty. He said the JCA Penalty Guide starting point for a breach of this Rule is a 6 to 8 day suspension. He submitted that the Stewards would consider that a suspension in that range would be appropriate.
Ms Collett initially advised the Committee that any proposed suspension could start after racing on 20 December. Ms Collett was then granted an adjournment to discuss her upcoming engagements with her Agent. Upon her return Ms Collett requested that her suspension start after racing on 22 December at Ashburton.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees recommends that the starting point for this Rule is 6 to 8 national riding day suspension.
The Committee deemed the breach to be midrange given that Mr Cameron was required to take evasive action as a result of Ms Collett’s actions. The check that Mr Cameron received was relatively severe and it was clear that Mr Lammas was also checked to a lesser degree. We adopted 7 days as the starting point.
Ms Collett denied the breach therefore no credit was applied.
Ms Collett’s record under the careless riding Rule would normally be categorised as poor. However, the Committee has taken into account that Ms Collett is a very busy rider and this is her first breach of this Rule. We consider this Rule similar to careless riding and are mindful that the safety of horse and rider is paramount in these circumstances.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee considered an appropriate suspension was 7 days.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 400edc73eb8d364efdf43e7963565735
informantnumber: A10026
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Slowing the pace
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 18/12/2017
hearing_title: Auckland RC 17 December 2017 - R 1 - Chair, Mr A Dooley
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 1, Logan Campbell Retirement Village 1400, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(4). The Informant, Mr Oatham, alleged that Ms Collett slowed the pace to a degree which caused interference to NAILED IT and SKYWEKA approaching the 1100 metres.
Ms Collett confirmed that she denied the breach and requested for the Rule to be read aloud.
Rule 638(4) provides: A Rider shall not unreasonably slow, reduce or check the speed of his or her horse to a degree that interferes, either directly or indirectly, with any other horse in the race. [Amended 1 August 2017].
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
The following are the salient points of a lengthy hearing that was heard during several races due to the respondent and witnesses having to fulfil their riding engagements.
Mr Coles demonstrated the alleged incident by the available video footage. Shortly after the start he identified the horses involved namely CINEMATIC (A Collett), SKYWEKA (C Lammas) NAILED IT (M Cameron) and CAPRIKOSA (M Du Plessis).
Mr Coles said that Ms Collett rode her mount forward to a point where she shifted in when clear and crossed CAPRIKOSA. He said that approaching the 1150 metres Ms Collett got into the line of NAILED IT, eased the pace and caused a sharp check to that runner. He said Mr Cameron had to take a hold of his mount when placed in a difficult position and identified that SKYWEKA was also checked when Ms Collett eased the pace.
Under cross examination Ms Collett asked Mr Coles whether she gave her mount a good push to get to the front and whether her mount's ears were pricked. Mr Coles replied in the affirmative.
Mr Oatham called Mr Cameron as a witness. Mr Cameron explained to the Committee that NAILED IT was a little bit slow to begin due to having taken a step back as the gates opened. He said that Mr Du Plessis moved forward but did not cross his mount and the field was not going overly quick. He said that when Ms Collett got to the front she eased up quite quickly and he had nowhere to go. He stated that the pace eased rapidly as a result of Ms Collett steadying her mount.
In response to a questions from the Committee, Mr Cameron said that the alarming thing was the incident happened in 2 to 3 strides and it was not good at all. Mr Cameron said that Ms Collett’s actions were unreasonable.
In answer to questions from Ms Collett, Mr Cameron said that the worst part of the incident was that Ms Collett had pushed her mount to go to the front and then she stopped. He said that if CINEMATIC was reluctant to lead it was Ms Collett’s job to encourage the horse and use her whip.
Mr Oatham called Mr Lammas as a witness. Mr Lammas explained to the Committee that within 2 strides the pace of the race stopped that quickly he nearly ended up on top of the fence. He said the bad interference he received was due to the pace stopping suddenly in front of him.
In answer to questions from Ms Collett, Mr Lammas said that it was lucky the field was only small otherwise more horses would have got checked. He said the pace eased suddenly and he disagreed with Ms Collett's view that the pace had eased slowly.
In her evidence, Ms Collett said that Mr Cameron’s mount had missed the kick and she let her horse roll to the lead because it was fitter that the others in the race. She said her only query was the racing manners of her mount as it was a difficult horse to compose. She said that her outside rein was loose and her mount was hesitant to lead and she identified the horse had it ears pricked. She said that CINEMATIC’S head was “wobbling” when it was in front and the horse was hanging and out of her control. She said that the Owner of the horse had questioned her post race as to why she had gone slowly in the lead and Ms Collett advised him that the horse was lugging out.
Ms Collett asked for the film to be forwarded to the 400 metres where she stated that her mount had to be “yanked” around the corner.
Ms Collett called Mr Collett as a witness. He said that he had studied the field and worked out that there was no leader in the race. He said that they elected to go to the front given that his horse had “no weight”. He said that CINEMATIC had never raced in front before and the horse “pulled up”. He stated that the horse was wayward and it would compete when other horses went to it. He said it was the manners of the horse that was in question and not the ride of Ms Collett.
Mr Oatham in summing up said that Ms Collett had ridden with vigour to lead and her mount responded to her riding. He said it was obvious on the films that Ms Collett takes a hold of her mount for a minimum 6 strides and as a result drops back onto Mr Cameron’s mount. He said that Ms Collett slowed the pace so quickly that Mr Du Plessis' mount had raced up alongside her. He said that he took a different view to Ms Collett regarding the racing manners of CINEMATIC in that she was aware of them and they were not beyond her control. He said that under the Rules Ms Collett has an obligation to ride her mount without putting other riders at danger. In conclusion Mr Oatham said that the video evidence is clear and fully supported by Mr Cameron and Mr Lammas’ submissions.
Ms Collett in summing up said that she was one of the top Jockeys in New Zealand and she had ridden many horses. She reiterated that the racing manners of her horse were out of her control and she had done her best. She said that CINEMATIC’S ears were pricked and the horse wanted to lay out. She concluded by saying that it is a fine line when riding out there.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all the submissions presented and reviewed all the video footage. We established that shortly after the start Ms Collett rode her mount forward and she looked to her inside when crossing clear of the other 4 horses in the race. We noted that CINEMATIC's ears were pricked when crossing to the lead. It was evident that once in front Ms Collett eased the pace by taking hold of her mount which noticeably reduced the speed in the race for several strides. As a result of Ms Collett’s actions Mr Cameron who was racing in the trail was forced to take evasive action when severely checked and he shifted off the running rail. Mr Lammas who was racing behind NAILED IT moved up into the vacated position and he was racing in tight quarters when checked to a lesser degree. The consequence of Ms Collett’s actions was that both riders and their mounts were interfered with to varying degrees.
In our opinion the video evidence did not support Ms Collett’s assertion that it was the racing manners of CINEMATIC that caused her to slow the pace.
A key requirement of Rule 638 (4) is that a riders actions shall not be unreasonable. In our deliberation we found that Ms Collett did slow the pace to a degree which caused interference to both NAILED IT and SKYWEKA. In assessing what is unreasonable we adopted the Webster Dictionary definition which says that unreasonable is either “not reasonable and what can be expected as clearly inappropriate or lacking justification in fact or under the circumstances. In our assessment Ms Collett’s actions were unreasonable.
The Committee observed the time of the race (1.26.29) that was displayed post-race. The official time highlighted that the race was run at a slow early tempo and we note that a fast last 600 metres was recorded in the race.
Decision:
For the reasons detailed above we found the charge against Ms Collett proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham said that this was a relatively new Rule which was introduced on 1 August 2017. He said this was the first breach under this Rule by any rider. He said that this charge bears some relation to the careless riding Rule. He said that under that Rule Ms Collett has had 5 previous breaches in the last 12 months. He said that Ms Collett’s record should be treated as neutral and no credit should be given for her clear record under this Rule. He described the breach as midrange and the interference as being significant. He said that it was fortunate that the incident occurred in a small field otherwise it could have been nasty. He said the JCA Penalty Guide starting point for a breach of this Rule is a 6 to 8 day suspension. He submitted that the Stewards would consider that a suspension in that range would be appropriate.
Ms Collett initially advised the Committee that any proposed suspension could start after racing on 20 December. Ms Collett was then granted an adjournment to discuss her upcoming engagements with her Agent. Upon her return Ms Collett requested that her suspension start after racing on 22 December at Ashburton.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees recommends that the starting point for this Rule is 6 to 8 national riding day suspension.
The Committee deemed the breach to be midrange given that Mr Cameron was required to take evasive action as a result of Ms Collett’s actions. The check that Mr Cameron received was relatively severe and it was clear that Mr Lammas was also checked to a lesser degree. We adopted 7 days as the starting point.
Ms Collett denied the breach therefore no credit was applied.
Ms Collett’s record under the careless riding Rule would normally be categorised as poor. However, the Committee has taken into account that Ms Collett is a very busy rider and this is her first breach of this Rule. We consider this Rule similar to careless riding and are mindful that the safety of horse and rider is paramount in these circumstances.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee considered an appropriate suspension was 7 days.
penalty:
The Committee grants Ms Collett’s request to seek a deferment to her suspension as per Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Ms Collett had her license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 22 December and conclude after racing on 30 December 2017 (7 national riding days).
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(4)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms A Collett - Class A Rider
Otherperson: Mr R Collett - Trainer of CINEMATIC, Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Cameron - Rider of NAILED IT, Mr C Lammas - Rider of SKYWEKA
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 882188b48488bf8d3dcb0166663f4301
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: addb66bbfb7d4c699c351270795897d4
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 17/12/2017
meet_title: Auckland RC - 17 December 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: GJones
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC