Wellington RC 21 January 2012 – R 5
ID: JCA12595
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Wellington RC - 21 January 2012
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMcCutcheon
Race Date:
2012/01/21
Race Number:
R 5
Decision:
The committee accordingly found the charge of careless riding proved.
Penalty:
Ms Johnson advised, after speaking with her manager, she could start her suspension after racing on Monday 23rd and she had no intentions to ride at the Gore meeting on January 26th therefore we did not include this day in the suspension.
Ms Johnson is therefore suspended from the close of racing on Monday January 23rd up to and including racing on Thursday February 2nd 2012.
Charge:
Careless riding.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5 an Information was lodged by Mr J Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1) (d) in that over the final stages D Johnson permitted her mount UNDISCLOSED to shift out into the line of VILLIFYE which was interfered with.
Submissions for Decision:
The alleged incident had earlier been the subject of a protest however the committee requested the films be shown again in the context of the charge against Ms Johnson.
Mr George paused the head-on view of the race just prior to the incident which showed VILLIFYE had clear running room to the outside of Ms Johnson on UNDISCLOSED. Ms Johnson then allowed her mount to shift outwards with the side-on film showing she was not the required distance clear of VILLIFYE when she did so. From that point onwards and using the head-on film Mr George said Ms Johnson “threw caution to the wind” by continuing to ride her mount out strongly without correcting its line of running. Mr George said the interference received by VILLIFYE had a bearing, in the Stewards’ opinion, on the placings and cost that horse at least 3rd place in a Listed Race.
In her defence Ms Johnson said she did not believe she had ever come into the line of VILLIFYE. She put it to the committee that maybe it was Mr Colgan’s horse that had moved outwards and her horse had just been following it. She said she couldn’t see where she had pushed VILLIFYE outwards as the horses had never really touched. Mr Colgan, she said, had never stopped riding and there was clear room between them the whole way down the straight.
In summing up Mr Oatham said Ms Johnson was never clear of Mr Colgan when she took his rightful line of running forcing him wider on the track. He said considering the margin of a nose at the finish VILLIFYE had been denied a black-type placing and at no point did Ms Johnson stop riding to correct her mount.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee, having heard all the evidence and viewed all the films, was satisfied that Ms Johnson was never the required distance clear of Mr Colgan when she commenced her outward movement. Contact does not have to be made to constitute interference and when crossing in front of another horse a rider has to be two lengths clear. The side-on film clearly shows Ms Johnson was not this required distance. We did not accept that her horse followed VILLIFYE across as she was the one ahead in the race. At no stage did Ms Johnson try to correct her line of running and instead she kept riding vigorously with the whip while on an outward movement.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham said Ms Johnson had three previous careless riding charges in the last 12 months. These were in February, April and November of last year and each incurred five day suspensions. In regard to today’s incident Mr Oatham said it was in the mid to high range and the stewards believed that the interference did deny the other horse a better placing in a Listed Race with a stake of $45,000. He submitted an appropriate penalty was a suspension in the vicinity of 5 – 7 days.
Ms Johnson said in her opinion the incident was at the minor end of careless riding. She said she would have to consult her manager in regard to upcoming riding commitments.
Reasons for Penalty:
In coming to a decision on an appropriate penalty for this charge of careless riding we considered all of the submissions put forward. It is usual for Judicial Committees to adopt, as a starting point, a period of five days suspension and either move up or down from that point depending on mitigating and aggravating factors. In Ms Johnson’s case we did not consider there to be any valid reasons to go lower than the five days however there were aggravating factors that we took into account. In assessing the degree of carelessness Ms Johnson shifted a considerable distance off her initial line of running without any regard to Mr Colgan on her outside. She continued to use the whip and at no time did she show any attempt to straighten her line of running. In our opinion this places Ms Johnson’s actions towards the higher end of careless riding.
While the committee did not uphold the protest of 4th against 2nd there was only a nose between 4th and 3rd and we accept the possibility that the interference may have cost Mr Colgan’s mount 3rd placing. In addition the incident happened in a Listed Race and the Rules of Racing allow black-type races to be taken into account when setting penalties.
It is our opinion that a seven day suspension, under these circumstances, is an appropriate penalty.
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: 3c26699be254367da03387823aca5646
informantnumber: A3076
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 19/01/2012
hearing_title: Wellington RC 21 January 2012 - R 5
charge:
Careless riding.
facts:
Following the running of Race 5 an Information was lodged by Mr J Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1) (d) in that over the final stages D Johnson permitted her mount UNDISCLOSED to shift out into the line of VILLIFYE which was interfered with.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
The alleged incident had earlier been the subject of a protest however the committee requested the films be shown again in the context of the charge against Ms Johnson.
Mr George paused the head-on view of the race just prior to the incident which showed VILLIFYE had clear running room to the outside of Ms Johnson on UNDISCLOSED. Ms Johnson then allowed her mount to shift outwards with the side-on film showing she was not the required distance clear of VILLIFYE when she did so. From that point onwards and using the head-on film Mr George said Ms Johnson “threw caution to the wind” by continuing to ride her mount out strongly without correcting its line of running. Mr George said the interference received by VILLIFYE had a bearing, in the Stewards’ opinion, on the placings and cost that horse at least 3rd place in a Listed Race.
In her defence Ms Johnson said she did not believe she had ever come into the line of VILLIFYE. She put it to the committee that maybe it was Mr Colgan’s horse that had moved outwards and her horse had just been following it. She said she couldn’t see where she had pushed VILLIFYE outwards as the horses had never really touched. Mr Colgan, she said, had never stopped riding and there was clear room between them the whole way down the straight.
In summing up Mr Oatham said Ms Johnson was never clear of Mr Colgan when she took his rightful line of running forcing him wider on the track. He said considering the margin of a nose at the finish VILLIFYE had been denied a black-type placing and at no point did Ms Johnson stop riding to correct her mount.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee, having heard all the evidence and viewed all the films, was satisfied that Ms Johnson was never the required distance clear of Mr Colgan when she commenced her outward movement. Contact does not have to be made to constitute interference and when crossing in front of another horse a rider has to be two lengths clear. The side-on film clearly shows Ms Johnson was not this required distance. We did not accept that her horse followed VILLIFYE across as she was the one ahead in the race. At no stage did Ms Johnson try to correct her line of running and instead she kept riding vigorously with the whip while on an outward movement.
Decision:
The committee accordingly found the charge of careless riding proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham said Ms Johnson had three previous careless riding charges in the last 12 months. These were in February, April and November of last year and each incurred five day suspensions. In regard to today’s incident Mr Oatham said it was in the mid to high range and the stewards believed that the interference did deny the other horse a better placing in a Listed Race with a stake of $45,000. He submitted an appropriate penalty was a suspension in the vicinity of 5 – 7 days.
Ms Johnson said in her opinion the incident was at the minor end of careless riding. She said she would have to consult her manager in regard to upcoming riding commitments.
reasonsforpenalty:
In coming to a decision on an appropriate penalty for this charge of careless riding we considered all of the submissions put forward. It is usual for Judicial Committees to adopt, as a starting point, a period of five days suspension and either move up or down from that point depending on mitigating and aggravating factors. In Ms Johnson’s case we did not consider there to be any valid reasons to go lower than the five days however there were aggravating factors that we took into account. In assessing the degree of carelessness Ms Johnson shifted a considerable distance off her initial line of running without any regard to Mr Colgan on her outside. She continued to use the whip and at no time did she show any attempt to straighten her line of running. In our opinion this places Ms Johnson’s actions towards the higher end of careless riding.
While the committee did not uphold the protest of 4th against 2nd there was only a nose between 4th and 3rd and we accept the possibility that the interference may have cost Mr Colgan’s mount 3rd placing. In addition the incident happened in a Listed Race and the Rules of Racing allow black-type races to be taken into account when setting penalties.
It is our opinion that a seven day suspension, under these circumstances, is an appropriate penalty.
penalty:
Ms Johnson advised, after speaking with her manager, she could start her suspension after racing on Monday 23rd and she had no intentions to ride at the Gore meeting on January 26th therefore we did not include this day in the suspension.
Ms Johnson is therefore suspended from the close of racing on Monday January 23rd up to and including racing on Thursday February 2nd 2012.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms D Johnson - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mr C George - Chief Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 0c143ac147ca23eea2a54be5c10468fb
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: f5400a2dc773686e40c36f6c0cd20721
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 21/01/2012
meet_title: Wellington RC - 21 January 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wellington-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: NMcCutcheon
meet_pm2: none
name: Wellington RC