Hawkes Bay RI 19 July 2018 – R 2 – Chair, Mr P Williams
ID: JCA13638
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Hawkes Bay RI - 19 July 2018
Meet Chair:
PWilliams
Meet Committee Member 1:
TCastles
Race Date:
2018/07/19
Race Number:
R2
Decision:
Penalty:
Ms Jones is suspended from the close of racing on Wednesday 25 July 2018 to the close of racing on Wednesday 8 August 2018.
Facts:
Following the running of race 2, the “Carrfields Livestock/Carrfields Primary Wool 1200”, Information A9232 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr D Balcombe under Rule 636(1)(d). The Information stated “(A Jones) failed to ride her mount “Goodnight Irene” out to the end of the race when a reasonable chance of finishing in a higher placing”.
Rule 636 (1) (d) states “A person…..being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must ride his horse out to the end of the Race if there is a reasonable chance of it running into a position for which there is prize money to be awarded or a dividend to be declared”.
Submissions for Decision:
At the beginning of the hearing Ms Jones confirmed she understood the Rule under which she was charged and also that she did not admit the breach. She also stated she would be calling two witnesses.
Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham, using the head-on side-on films from approximately the 150m mark, identified Ms Jones in a group of horses racing approximately 2 lengths behind the then leader - Mr Parkes on “Dratini”. To the inside of Ms Jones was “Call Me Jack” ridden by Mr Allan and to his inside was “Initiative” ridden by Mr Elliot. To Ms Jones' outer and slightly behind was Ms Collett riding “Dontgiveadam”. Mr Oatham said at the 100m point Ms Jones was riding with vigour and approaching the 50m was in fourth place. He said just prior to the 50m mark Mr Elliot was approximately three quarters of a length behind Ms Jones. At that point she drifted in slightly towards the rail but took immediate corrective action to straighten her mount. In doing so, and using the head-on film, he said she then had a clear run to the line but could be seen standing up in the saddle for almost the whole of the final 50m of the race and not riding with the same amount of vigour. Mr Oatham replayed the films several times to reiterate his point that with 50m to go and a clear run to the line Ms Jones had an obligation to continue to ride her mount forward but had relaxed her ride and ended up finishing in fifth position. He said it wasn’t necessary for her to use the whip in the final 50m but she certainly had to “ride forward”. He confirmed the margins were two lengths between first and second with three quarters of length back to third, a head back to fourth and a neck back to Ms Jones in fifth position.
Ms Jones was asked which of her witnesses she intended to call first. She said that after listening to the Stewards and having had the opportunity to view the films several times whilst listening to their evidence she no longer needed to call any witnesses as she felt she could clearly explain from her perspective what had happened. Whilst noting Ms Jones’ comments the offer of her having witnesses was again given to her by the Chair but she confirmed she didn’t need them.
Ms Jones' initial comment was that “she completely agreed” that having got to the 50m point “she had not finished riding her mount out”. She said as she shifted inwards she heard Mr Allan call out and had immediately straightened he mount. At that point she also believed that the horses to her outside ridden by Mr Lammas (“Surpriseus”) and Mr Parkes were moving inwards and in anticipation of what was going to happen she restrained her horse. She said had she not done so she would have been squeezed by them which in fact did happen just past the winning post. She said her actions in holding her horse together meant she was looking after the horses to her inside and she had also avoided any clipping heels of the horses moving inwards from her outside. Contrary to her opening remarks, she concluded by saying she believed she had relaxed her ride over the final 20m rather than the 50m stated by the Stewards.
Mr Balcombe, in summing up, emphasised the point made by Mr Oatham that, having drifted inwards and immediately straightened her mount, Ms Jones had enough clear room in the final 50m of the race to push forward and ride with vigour to the finish which she clearly had not done.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee has considered all the evidence from both parties and the replays of the final 100m of the race that were shown at length at both normal speed and in slow motion. The essence of Ms Jones’ case is that, having straightened her mount after it drifted in slightly near the 50m point, she thought Mr Lammas and Mr Parkes who were racing to her outside were going to shift in on her and place her in some difficulty. She openly conceded that because of that, and to ensure her own safety and the safety of those around her, she did relax her ride and felt that was justified because the tightening she had anticipated did in fact occur but not until after the winning post.
It is the Stewards' view that, after drifting in slightly near the 50m mark and then immediately straightening her mount she had a clear run to the line and an obligation to ride with vigour but failed to do so over those final 50m and was beaten a neck for fourth place.
Whilst it is understandable that Ms Jones had concerns she might have been tightened by the two runners to her outside the head-on film shows there was a large gap for her to move into and she had an obligation to take that gap and ride with vigour to the line which she did not do. The Committee does not believe there was any deliberate intent on Ms Jones' part to not ride out to the finish, however, we are satisfied she has failed to ride her mount over the final 50m of the race and therefore is in breach of Rule 636(1)(d).
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Balcombe said Ms Jones had a clear record in relation to this Rule. He said she had unintentionally misjudged where the winning post was. He said the JCA Penalty Guide states the starting point penalty for a breach of this Rule when beaten for fourth is a suspension of two weeks and it was the submission of the Stewards that such a suspension was an appropriate penalty in relation to this incident.
Ms Jones asked the Committee to note that she had had over 280 rides this season and had a clear record in relation to not only this Rule but also under the careless riding Rule. She reiterated she did what she did to ensure her own safety and that of her fellow riders around her and also added she felt her mount was coming to the end of its run and, by implication, might not have finished any closer than it did. Ms Jones asked that any suspension to be imposed be deferred until after the Matamata meeting on Wednesday 25 July 2018.
Reasons for Penalty:
We have noted that Ms Jones has a clear record in relation to this Rule and this is the only mitigating factor that can be considered. We place no emphasis on the fact she has not breached the careless riding Rule this season. Whilst it is understandable that she may have been thinking that, had she not relaxed her ride she might have ended up clipping heels and placing herself and maybe others in some difficulty, as an experienced rider she should have ridden with vigour all the way to the line especially when the gap available for her to move into in those final 50m was significant.
The starting point penalty for the breach is a suspension of two weeks. That Ms Jones failed to ride out for the best part of 50m is an aggravating factor. However, given her genuine concern for the safety of herself and others we have decided on this occasion not to increase that starting point penalty. We also note the Stewards did not specifically state where they believe Ms Jones would have finished had she ridden with vigour to the finish.
After considering all of the above the Committee has decided that, on this occasion, a period of suspension is an appropriate penalty. Ms Jones is suspended for 2 weeks. The Committee approves her request for a deferment of the commencement of the suspension in terms of Rule 1106(2).
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: 51cc57bfe53a3e3a9a443c5cfcd801c6
informantnumber: A9232
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Failure to ride out to finish
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 20/07/2018
hearing_title: Hawkes Bay RI 19 July 2018 - R 2 - Chair, Mr P Williams
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 2, the “Carrfields Livestock/Carrfields Primary Wool 1200”, Information A9232 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr D Balcombe under Rule 636(1)(d). The Information stated “(A Jones) failed to ride her mount “Goodnight Irene” out to the end of the race when a reasonable chance of finishing in a higher placing”.
Rule 636 (1) (d) states “A person…..being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must ride his horse out to the end of the Race if there is a reasonable chance of it running into a position for which there is prize money to be awarded or a dividend to be declared”.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
At the beginning of the hearing Ms Jones confirmed she understood the Rule under which she was charged and also that she did not admit the breach. She also stated she would be calling two witnesses.
Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham, using the head-on side-on films from approximately the 150m mark, identified Ms Jones in a group of horses racing approximately 2 lengths behind the then leader - Mr Parkes on “Dratini”. To the inside of Ms Jones was “Call Me Jack” ridden by Mr Allan and to his inside was “Initiative” ridden by Mr Elliot. To Ms Jones' outer and slightly behind was Ms Collett riding “Dontgiveadam”. Mr Oatham said at the 100m point Ms Jones was riding with vigour and approaching the 50m was in fourth place. He said just prior to the 50m mark Mr Elliot was approximately three quarters of a length behind Ms Jones. At that point she drifted in slightly towards the rail but took immediate corrective action to straighten her mount. In doing so, and using the head-on film, he said she then had a clear run to the line but could be seen standing up in the saddle for almost the whole of the final 50m of the race and not riding with the same amount of vigour. Mr Oatham replayed the films several times to reiterate his point that with 50m to go and a clear run to the line Ms Jones had an obligation to continue to ride her mount forward but had relaxed her ride and ended up finishing in fifth position. He said it wasn’t necessary for her to use the whip in the final 50m but she certainly had to “ride forward”. He confirmed the margins were two lengths between first and second with three quarters of length back to third, a head back to fourth and a neck back to Ms Jones in fifth position.
Ms Jones was asked which of her witnesses she intended to call first. She said that after listening to the Stewards and having had the opportunity to view the films several times whilst listening to their evidence she no longer needed to call any witnesses as she felt she could clearly explain from her perspective what had happened. Whilst noting Ms Jones’ comments the offer of her having witnesses was again given to her by the Chair but she confirmed she didn’t need them.
Ms Jones' initial comment was that “she completely agreed” that having got to the 50m point “she had not finished riding her mount out”. She said as she shifted inwards she heard Mr Allan call out and had immediately straightened he mount. At that point she also believed that the horses to her outside ridden by Mr Lammas (“Surpriseus”) and Mr Parkes were moving inwards and in anticipation of what was going to happen she restrained her horse. She said had she not done so she would have been squeezed by them which in fact did happen just past the winning post. She said her actions in holding her horse together meant she was looking after the horses to her inside and she had also avoided any clipping heels of the horses moving inwards from her outside. Contrary to her opening remarks, she concluded by saying she believed she had relaxed her ride over the final 20m rather than the 50m stated by the Stewards.
Mr Balcombe, in summing up, emphasised the point made by Mr Oatham that, having drifted inwards and immediately straightened her mount, Ms Jones had enough clear room in the final 50m of the race to push forward and ride with vigour to the finish which she clearly had not done.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee has considered all the evidence from both parties and the replays of the final 100m of the race that were shown at length at both normal speed and in slow motion. The essence of Ms Jones’ case is that, having straightened her mount after it drifted in slightly near the 50m point, she thought Mr Lammas and Mr Parkes who were racing to her outside were going to shift in on her and place her in some difficulty. She openly conceded that because of that, and to ensure her own safety and the safety of those around her, she did relax her ride and felt that was justified because the tightening she had anticipated did in fact occur but not until after the winning post.
It is the Stewards' view that, after drifting in slightly near the 50m mark and then immediately straightening her mount she had a clear run to the line and an obligation to ride with vigour but failed to do so over those final 50m and was beaten a neck for fourth place.
Whilst it is understandable that Ms Jones had concerns she might have been tightened by the two runners to her outside the head-on film shows there was a large gap for her to move into and she had an obligation to take that gap and ride with vigour to the line which she did not do. The Committee does not believe there was any deliberate intent on Ms Jones' part to not ride out to the finish, however, we are satisfied she has failed to ride her mount over the final 50m of the race and therefore is in breach of Rule 636(1)(d).
Decision:
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Balcombe said Ms Jones had a clear record in relation to this Rule. He said she had unintentionally misjudged where the winning post was. He said the JCA Penalty Guide states the starting point penalty for a breach of this Rule when beaten for fourth is a suspension of two weeks and it was the submission of the Stewards that such a suspension was an appropriate penalty in relation to this incident.
Ms Jones asked the Committee to note that she had had over 280 rides this season and had a clear record in relation to not only this Rule but also under the careless riding Rule. She reiterated she did what she did to ensure her own safety and that of her fellow riders around her and also added she felt her mount was coming to the end of its run and, by implication, might not have finished any closer than it did. Ms Jones asked that any suspension to be imposed be deferred until after the Matamata meeting on Wednesday 25 July 2018.
reasonsforpenalty:
We have noted that Ms Jones has a clear record in relation to this Rule and this is the only mitigating factor that can be considered. We place no emphasis on the fact she has not breached the careless riding Rule this season. Whilst it is understandable that she may have been thinking that, had she not relaxed her ride she might have ended up clipping heels and placing herself and maybe others in some difficulty, as an experienced rider she should have ridden with vigour all the way to the line especially when the gap available for her to move into in those final 50m was significant.
The starting point penalty for the breach is a suspension of two weeks. That Ms Jones failed to ride out for the best part of 50m is an aggravating factor. However, given her genuine concern for the safety of herself and others we have decided on this occasion not to increase that starting point penalty. We also note the Stewards did not specifically state where they believe Ms Jones would have finished had she ridden with vigour to the finish.
After considering all of the above the Committee has decided that, on this occasion, a period of suspension is an appropriate penalty. Ms Jones is suspended for 2 weeks. The Committee approves her request for a deferment of the commencement of the suspension in terms of Rule 1106(2).
penalty:
Ms Jones is suspended from the close of racing on Wednesday 25 July 2018 to the close of racing on Wednesday 8 August 2018.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 636(1)(d)
Informant: Mr D Balcombe - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms A Jones - Jockey
Otherperson: Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: ed91e3e9b4619de495275db3d310c3b1
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: 8f6540a9fca6f5e8cd42e431492fb388
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 19/07/2018
meet_title: Hawkes Bay RI - 19 July 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: hawkes-bay-ri
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: PWilliams
meet_pm1: TCastles
meet_pm2: none
name: Hawkes Bay RI