Taranaki TRI 29 October 2015 – R 4 – Chair, Mr P Williams
ID: JCA13333
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Taranaki RC - 29 October 2015
Meet Chair:
PWilliams
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMoffatt
Race Date:
2015/10/29
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
Penalty:
Mr Dell is suspended for 4 riding days from the close of racing on Wednesday 4 April 2015 to the close of racing on Tuesday 10 November 2015 – the 4 days being Rotorua (6 November), Te Rapa (7 November), Hastings (8 November) and Waipa (10 November).
Facts:
Following the running of race 4, the “Revital Fertilisers Supporting Life Education Trust Maiden” Information A6828 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N Goodwin under Rule 638(1)(d). The Information stated “Approaching the 200m “Miss Percynallity” (C Dell) shifted out when not sufficiently clear of “All In Vogue” which was checked”. Mr Dell signed the Information stating he admitted the breach and at the beginning of the hearing confirmed that was correct and also that he understood the rule under which he was charged.
Rule 638 (1) (d) states “A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be .....careless”.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Goodwin, using the head-on film of the race as the horses were entering the home straight, identified Mr Dell on “Miss Percynallity” racing in mid field approximately 6 horse widths off the rail. He said Mr Teeluck on “All In Vogue” was just behind Mr Dell and to Mr Dell’s inside and approximately 2 horse widths off the rail was Ms Hemi on “Hungry Eyes”.
Mr Goodwin said as the horses commenced their run to the finish Mr Dell allowed his mount, which was running tractably, to shift outwards when being ridden with vigour and under the whip directly into the line of Mr Teeluck who was attempting to improve his position on the outside of Mr Dell causing Mr Teeluck to take evasive action. Mr Goodwin said that whilst Ms Hemi did move out slightly she was not responsible for Mr Dell shifting out into the line of Mr Teeluck.
Mr Dell said there were several mitigating factors he wished to raise. He said the race was for maiden 3 year olds, his horse was having his second start (it was actually its third start) and it was wearing blinkers for the first time. He also said the horse ridden by Mr Teeluck was also inexperienced and having only its second start. Mr Dell also used the film of the first 400m of the race to show that his horse was not racing generously early on because of having blinkers on for the first time. Mr Dell also said it was clear from the film that Mr Hemi had moved outwards from a position closer to the rail towards him and in doing so had dictated his horse outwards which resulted in the check to Mr Teeluck. Mr Dell did concede that whilst he was aware of a horse to his outside when the incident happened he did not realise Mr Teeluck was immediately behind him nor did he hear any call from Mr Teeluck.
Mr Patterson said he believed as Ms Hemi moved outwards Mr Dell’s horse, which was wearing blinkers, shied away from it. He said Mr Dell by his own admission did not immediately correct the sudden outwards movement of his horse as he was not aware of Mr Teeluck being immediately behind him but did take the necessary corrective action soon afterwards.
Mr Goodwin reiterated his comment that whilst Mr Dell’s horse did shy away from Ms Hemi’s horse as she moved slightly outwards he was never dictated outwards by Ms Hemi and moved outwards into the line of Mr Teeluck of his accord and with some vigour.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Goodwin said Mr Dell had not breached this Rule in the previous 12 months but had only returned to riding in the last three months following an lengthy time away from racing recovering from injuries sustained at a trial meeting late last year. He said the stewards considered the severity of the interference to be below the mid range but he did not submit what he believed was an appropriate penalty.
Mr Dell said he felt the severity of the interference was very low and had no other submissions to make.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee has reviewed all the available films of the incident near the 200m and we have taken into account all the submissions made. The films clearly show that as Mr Dell commenced his run to the finish he shifted out into the line of Mr Teeluck who was checked. The Committee accepts that his initial movement outwards was as a result of his horse momentarily shying away from Ms Hemi’s horse who had moved outwards but does not agree with Mr Dell that Ms Hemi was dictating his line and forcing him outwards. The Committee also notes that as Mr Dell moved outwards he continued to ride with vigour using the whip. Further we note Mr Dell’s own admission that whilst he was aware of another rider to his outside (Mr Magorrian) he did not realise Mr Teeluck was behind him until it was too late. Whilst Mr Teeluck may have contributed to the incident by not calling out in time it is Mr Dell’s responsibility to ensure he rides in a manner so as not to cause interference to any other runner.
Mr Dell outlined several factors in relation to his horse’s inexperience including that it was racing in blinkers for the first time. Whilst the Committee has noted those comments, Mr Dell is a relatively experienced apprentice jockey and it is his responsibility to take all those matters into consideration and ride carefully throughout the race. In admitting that he did not realise Mr Teeluck was immediately behind him when the incident occurred Mr Dell did ride carelessly.
The JCA’s Penalty Guidelines state the starting point for a breach of the careless riding rule is 5 riding days. We have taken into account Mr Dell’s admittance of the breach and also that he has not breached this rule in the past 12 months, albeit having only returned to race riding in the last three months. We also believe the severity of the interference to be in the low-mid range.
The Committee believes the interference caused must be reflected in an appropriate penalty which we have decided is a period of suspension. From a starting point of 5 days we have given careful consideration as to an appropriate penalty and, having taken into account all of the factors above, we believe the period of suspension should be for four riding days.
Mr Dell’s request for a deferral of a suspension until after the Avondale meeting on 4 November 2015 is approved in terms of Rule 1106.
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: 638d5249e824712c0a8965886577a90d
informantnumber: A6828
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 31/10/2015
hearing_title: Taranaki TRI 29 October 2015 - R 4 - Chair, Mr P Williams
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 4, the “Revital Fertilisers Supporting Life Education Trust Maiden” Information A6828 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N Goodwin under Rule 638(1)(d). The Information stated “Approaching the 200m “Miss Percynallity” (C Dell) shifted out when not sufficiently clear of “All In Vogue” which was checked”. Mr Dell signed the Information stating he admitted the breach and at the beginning of the hearing confirmed that was correct and also that he understood the rule under which he was charged.
Rule 638 (1) (d) states “A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be .....careless”.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Goodwin, using the head-on film of the race as the horses were entering the home straight, identified Mr Dell on “Miss Percynallity” racing in mid field approximately 6 horse widths off the rail. He said Mr Teeluck on “All In Vogue” was just behind Mr Dell and to Mr Dell’s inside and approximately 2 horse widths off the rail was Ms Hemi on “Hungry Eyes”.
Mr Goodwin said as the horses commenced their run to the finish Mr Dell allowed his mount, which was running tractably, to shift outwards when being ridden with vigour and under the whip directly into the line of Mr Teeluck who was attempting to improve his position on the outside of Mr Dell causing Mr Teeluck to take evasive action. Mr Goodwin said that whilst Ms Hemi did move out slightly she was not responsible for Mr Dell shifting out into the line of Mr Teeluck.
Mr Dell said there were several mitigating factors he wished to raise. He said the race was for maiden 3 year olds, his horse was having his second start (it was actually its third start) and it was wearing blinkers for the first time. He also said the horse ridden by Mr Teeluck was also inexperienced and having only its second start. Mr Dell also used the film of the first 400m of the race to show that his horse was not racing generously early on because of having blinkers on for the first time. Mr Dell also said it was clear from the film that Mr Hemi had moved outwards from a position closer to the rail towards him and in doing so had dictated his horse outwards which resulted in the check to Mr Teeluck. Mr Dell did concede that whilst he was aware of a horse to his outside when the incident happened he did not realise Mr Teeluck was immediately behind him nor did he hear any call from Mr Teeluck.
Mr Patterson said he believed as Ms Hemi moved outwards Mr Dell’s horse, which was wearing blinkers, shied away from it. He said Mr Dell by his own admission did not immediately correct the sudden outwards movement of his horse as he was not aware of Mr Teeluck being immediately behind him but did take the necessary corrective action soon afterwards.
Mr Goodwin reiterated his comment that whilst Mr Dell’s horse did shy away from Ms Hemi’s horse as she moved slightly outwards he was never dictated outwards by Ms Hemi and moved outwards into the line of Mr Teeluck of his accord and with some vigour.
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Goodwin said Mr Dell had not breached this Rule in the previous 12 months but had only returned to riding in the last three months following an lengthy time away from racing recovering from injuries sustained at a trial meeting late last year. He said the stewards considered the severity of the interference to be below the mid range but he did not submit what he believed was an appropriate penalty.
Mr Dell said he felt the severity of the interference was very low and had no other submissions to make.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee has reviewed all the available films of the incident near the 200m and we have taken into account all the submissions made. The films clearly show that as Mr Dell commenced his run to the finish he shifted out into the line of Mr Teeluck who was checked. The Committee accepts that his initial movement outwards was as a result of his horse momentarily shying away from Ms Hemi’s horse who had moved outwards but does not agree with Mr Dell that Ms Hemi was dictating his line and forcing him outwards. The Committee also notes that as Mr Dell moved outwards he continued to ride with vigour using the whip. Further we note Mr Dell’s own admission that whilst he was aware of another rider to his outside (Mr Magorrian) he did not realise Mr Teeluck was behind him until it was too late. Whilst Mr Teeluck may have contributed to the incident by not calling out in time it is Mr Dell’s responsibility to ensure he rides in a manner so as not to cause interference to any other runner.
Mr Dell outlined several factors in relation to his horse’s inexperience including that it was racing in blinkers for the first time. Whilst the Committee has noted those comments, Mr Dell is a relatively experienced apprentice jockey and it is his responsibility to take all those matters into consideration and ride carefully throughout the race. In admitting that he did not realise Mr Teeluck was immediately behind him when the incident occurred Mr Dell did ride carelessly.
The JCA’s Penalty Guidelines state the starting point for a breach of the careless riding rule is 5 riding days. We have taken into account Mr Dell’s admittance of the breach and also that he has not breached this rule in the past 12 months, albeit having only returned to race riding in the last three months. We also believe the severity of the interference to be in the low-mid range.
The Committee believes the interference caused must be reflected in an appropriate penalty which we have decided is a period of suspension. From a starting point of 5 days we have given careful consideration as to an appropriate penalty and, having taken into account all of the factors above, we believe the period of suspension should be for four riding days.
Mr Dell’s request for a deferral of a suspension until after the Avondale meeting on 4 November 2015 is approved in terms of Rule 1106.
penalty:
Mr Dell is suspended for 4 riding days from the close of racing on Wednesday 4 April 2015 to the close of racing on Tuesday 10 November 2015 – the 4 days being Rotorua (6 November), Te Rapa (7 November), Hastings (8 November) and Waipa (10 November).
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr C Dell - Apprentice Jockey
Otherperson: Mr R Patterson - Licensed Trainer assisting Mr Dell, Mr B Jones - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 0ee69499806098e24dce62c332c793e5
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: fdd745dccf43a613fe99629c5e180b9a
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 29/10/2015
meet_title: Taranaki RC - 29 October 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: taranaki-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: PWilliams
meet_pm1: NMoffatt
meet_pm2: none
name: Taranaki RC