Stratford RC 31 December 2017 – R 2 – Chair, Mr T Utikere
ID: JCA12901
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Stratford RC - 31 December 2017
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
TBird
Race Date:
2017/12/31
Race Number:
R2
Decision:
We find the charge against Ms Fawcett proved.
Penalty:
Ms Fawcett is suspended from the conclusion of racing on Thursday 11 January until the conclusion of racing on Friday 19 January 2018.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 2 (ELECTROMECH MAIDEN 1480m) Information A8803 was filed with the Judicial Committee.
It alleged a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) and stated: That Apprentice Jockey J Fawcett allowed her mount GOLDCHI to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of LADY KARTEL, which was checked and went back onto ACCLAIM near the 800m.”
Rule 638(1)(d) states:
“A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be: … (d) careless.”
Ms J Fawcett, assisted by Ms S Collett and Mr W Marshment, indicated to the Committee that she understood Rule 638(1)(d), and that she did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Using the available head-on and side-on films, Mr Balcombe identified all relevant runners. As the field was in the back straight near the 800m, Mr Tanaka (LADY KARTEL) was closest to the rail, with Ms Jones (ACCLAIM) located to the outside of his hindquarters and Ms Fawcett (GOLDCHI) to his outside. The Stewards alleged that Ms Fawcett had shifted into Mr Tanaka’s rightful line when not the required distance clear. As a result he had to steady his mount abruptly and shifted outwards requiring Ms Jones to check. They alleged that Ms Fawcett was approximately 1¼ length clear when she moved into the line of Mr Tanaka.
Mr Goodwin called Ms Jones as a witness. She confirmed that she rode ACCLAIM and was checked towards the end of the back straight as a result of Mr Tanaka ‘popping off’ when Ms Fawcett had come across. The consequence to her was some shortness of room. She surmised that Ms Fawcett was very unlucky as Mr Tanaka was not entitled to ‘pop off’ and that he should have let his mount roll on. She described Mr Tanaka as being one length clear, and that she was very close to clipping his heels.
Under cross-examination by Ms Collett, Ms Jones confirmed that prior to the interference her horse was racing keenly and that Mr Tanaka had taken a firm hold of his horse, seeking to move to the one-off position quite quickly.
Mr Goodwin then called Mr Tanaka as a witness. He confirmed that he rode LADY KARTEL and towards the end of the back straight he was travelling quite keenly. His mount has been over-racing and he had tried to let Ms Fawcett come across. He confirmed that she had taken a look and then had crossed. He placed her as being 1¼ length clear. Mr Tanaka said he had then been close to heels and had to take evasive action in the form of taking a hold and ducking out.
Under cross-examination from Ms Collett, Mr Tanaka confirmed that from the 1480m to the 1000m he had been a reluctant leader. He also confirmed that he had looked to see that other horses around him were close, but as Ms Fawcett has crossed when not clear he had no other option, other than to take the action he had taken.
For the Respondent, Ms Collett accepted that Ms Fawcett was not the required two lengths clear. However, she used the available films to indicate that Mr Tanaka had drawn in and held his spot and had never intended to lead, but was instead looking to get some cover. She believed he had never intended to be on the fence, and his action of looking around was an indication that he wanted to move off the fence. She believed that Ms Fawcett had used her initiative and that it was the unattractive racing nature of Mr Tanaka’s horse that was the problem.
Mr Marshment believed Ms Fawcett was ‘perfectly clear’ and that Mr Tanaka’s horse had simply overacted.
In summary, Mr Goodwin advised that it was clear that the runners were racing hard down the back straight. He also believed Mr Tanaka’s horse had been racing in a reasonably tractable manner and that nothing was out of the ordinary. Ms Fawcett had been looking to get a run closer to the rail and her mistake had been in misjudging the situation in not being the required distance clear. He also submitted that Mr Tanaka was entitled to be where he was at that time.
Ms Fawcett concluded by stating that she had simply taken her time to allow Mr Tanaka to go forward. Instead he had taken a hold, and that she used her initiative as there was no speed in the race.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee has had the opportunity to review the films and consider the evidence placed before it. Some concern has been expressed by the Respondent about the actions taken by Mr Tanaka at the time. While Mr Tanaka may have taken a different course of action if he chose to, that is largely irrelevant for the purposes of this charge. That is because, Mr Tanaka was entitled to be where he was. He was also entitled to his rightful line of running.
The Respondent accepts that she was not the required distance clear when she moved into that rightful line. We observe that the movement as a result of Ms Fawcett’s actions are hers alone; she had not been forced into that action by another runner to her outside. She describes it as ‘initiative’ whereas it is in fact carelessness. She moved into the rightful line of another runner by her own actions when only 1¼ lengths clear.
Submissions for Penalty:
In making Penalty submissions, Mr Goodwin submitted the level of carelessness sat at the low-end. He identified two breaches of this rule within the previous 12 months: Avondale (10 November - 4 National Days) and Auckland (29 December - 7 National Days). He described her record as a good one for someone who received a lot of rides.
Ms Fawcett advised that she had learnt a lot from today’s incident and she was keen to not repeat her mistake again. She also advised that she had a tally of 29 wins.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee considered all of the submissions placed before it. Ms Fawcett was not the required distance clear when deciding to move in to take the line of Mr Tanaka. While the consequential effect of her actions had been a check to Mr Tanaka and to Ms Jones, she had looked to her inside prior to moving, and we place the level of carelessness within the low range, and adopt the starting point of a six day period of suspension.
We identify no aggravating factors, and assess her record as neutral as this is her third breach within two months. She has indicated that she has a willingness to learn from her actions, and while this is commendable, two suspensions within a few days of each other may mean that a further breach of this rule in quick succession could be viewed as an aggravating factor; for which Ms Fawcett has indicated to us that she understands.
We consider a six day period of suspension as appropriate and note that she will be under an existing period of suspension from the conclusion of racing on Tuesday 2 January until the conclusion of racing on Thursday 11 January.
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: 663f8b9a0d9424d073ea5dcd07845353
informantnumber: A8803
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 31/12/2017
hearing_title: Stratford RC 31 December 2017 - R 2 - Chair, Mr T Utikere
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 2 (ELECTROMECH MAIDEN 1480m) Information A8803 was filed with the Judicial Committee.
It alleged a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) and stated: That Apprentice Jockey J Fawcett allowed her mount GOLDCHI to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of LADY KARTEL, which was checked and went back onto ACCLAIM near the 800m.”
Rule 638(1)(d) states:
“A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be: … (d) careless.”
Ms J Fawcett, assisted by Ms S Collett and Mr W Marshment, indicated to the Committee that she understood Rule 638(1)(d), and that she did not admit the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Using the available head-on and side-on films, Mr Balcombe identified all relevant runners. As the field was in the back straight near the 800m, Mr Tanaka (LADY KARTEL) was closest to the rail, with Ms Jones (ACCLAIM) located to the outside of his hindquarters and Ms Fawcett (GOLDCHI) to his outside. The Stewards alleged that Ms Fawcett had shifted into Mr Tanaka’s rightful line when not the required distance clear. As a result he had to steady his mount abruptly and shifted outwards requiring Ms Jones to check. They alleged that Ms Fawcett was approximately 1¼ length clear when she moved into the line of Mr Tanaka.
Mr Goodwin called Ms Jones as a witness. She confirmed that she rode ACCLAIM and was checked towards the end of the back straight as a result of Mr Tanaka ‘popping off’ when Ms Fawcett had come across. The consequence to her was some shortness of room. She surmised that Ms Fawcett was very unlucky as Mr Tanaka was not entitled to ‘pop off’ and that he should have let his mount roll on. She described Mr Tanaka as being one length clear, and that she was very close to clipping his heels.
Under cross-examination by Ms Collett, Ms Jones confirmed that prior to the interference her horse was racing keenly and that Mr Tanaka had taken a firm hold of his horse, seeking to move to the one-off position quite quickly.
Mr Goodwin then called Mr Tanaka as a witness. He confirmed that he rode LADY KARTEL and towards the end of the back straight he was travelling quite keenly. His mount has been over-racing and he had tried to let Ms Fawcett come across. He confirmed that she had taken a look and then had crossed. He placed her as being 1¼ length clear. Mr Tanaka said he had then been close to heels and had to take evasive action in the form of taking a hold and ducking out.
Under cross-examination from Ms Collett, Mr Tanaka confirmed that from the 1480m to the 1000m he had been a reluctant leader. He also confirmed that he had looked to see that other horses around him were close, but as Ms Fawcett has crossed when not clear he had no other option, other than to take the action he had taken.
For the Respondent, Ms Collett accepted that Ms Fawcett was not the required two lengths clear. However, she used the available films to indicate that Mr Tanaka had drawn in and held his spot and had never intended to lead, but was instead looking to get some cover. She believed he had never intended to be on the fence, and his action of looking around was an indication that he wanted to move off the fence. She believed that Ms Fawcett had used her initiative and that it was the unattractive racing nature of Mr Tanaka’s horse that was the problem.
Mr Marshment believed Ms Fawcett was ‘perfectly clear’ and that Mr Tanaka’s horse had simply overacted.
In summary, Mr Goodwin advised that it was clear that the runners were racing hard down the back straight. He also believed Mr Tanaka’s horse had been racing in a reasonably tractable manner and that nothing was out of the ordinary. Ms Fawcett had been looking to get a run closer to the rail and her mistake had been in misjudging the situation in not being the required distance clear. He also submitted that Mr Tanaka was entitled to be where he was at that time.
Ms Fawcett concluded by stating that she had simply taken her time to allow Mr Tanaka to go forward. Instead he had taken a hold, and that she used her initiative as there was no speed in the race.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee has had the opportunity to review the films and consider the evidence placed before it. Some concern has been expressed by the Respondent about the actions taken by Mr Tanaka at the time. While Mr Tanaka may have taken a different course of action if he chose to, that is largely irrelevant for the purposes of this charge. That is because, Mr Tanaka was entitled to be where he was. He was also entitled to his rightful line of running.
The Respondent accepts that she was not the required distance clear when she moved into that rightful line. We observe that the movement as a result of Ms Fawcett’s actions are hers alone; she had not been forced into that action by another runner to her outside. She describes it as ‘initiative’ whereas it is in fact carelessness. She moved into the rightful line of another runner by her own actions when only 1¼ lengths clear.
Decision:
We find the charge against Ms Fawcett proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
In making Penalty submissions, Mr Goodwin submitted the level of carelessness sat at the low-end. He identified two breaches of this rule within the previous 12 months: Avondale (10 November - 4 National Days) and Auckland (29 December - 7 National Days). He described her record as a good one for someone who received a lot of rides.
Ms Fawcett advised that she had learnt a lot from today’s incident and she was keen to not repeat her mistake again. She also advised that she had a tally of 29 wins.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee considered all of the submissions placed before it. Ms Fawcett was not the required distance clear when deciding to move in to take the line of Mr Tanaka. While the consequential effect of her actions had been a check to Mr Tanaka and to Ms Jones, she had looked to her inside prior to moving, and we place the level of carelessness within the low range, and adopt the starting point of a six day period of suspension.
We identify no aggravating factors, and assess her record as neutral as this is her third breach within two months. She has indicated that she has a willingness to learn from her actions, and while this is commendable, two suspensions within a few days of each other may mean that a further breach of this rule in quick succession could be viewed as an aggravating factor; for which Ms Fawcett has indicated to us that she understands.
We consider a six day period of suspension as appropriate and note that she will be under an existing period of suspension from the conclusion of racing on Tuesday 2 January until the conclusion of racing on Thursday 11 January.
penalty:
Ms Fawcett is suspended from the conclusion of racing on Thursday 11 January until the conclusion of racing on Friday 19 January 2018.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Sitpendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms J Fawcett - Apprentice Rider
Otherperson: Ms S Collett - Licensed Rider assisting Ms Fawcett, Mr W Marshment - Licensed Trainer assisting Ms Fawcett, Mr D Balcombe - Stipendiary Steward, Ms Jones - Rider of ACCLAIM, Mr Tanaka - Rider of LADY KARTEL
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 5a66bcaca99641e7d6c55ca672ae1dfd
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 323bc0baa62c6c7bdb786deb7d65a2fe
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 31/12/2017
meet_title: Stratford RC - 31 December 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: stratford-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: TBird
meet_pm2: none
name: Stratford RC