Auckland RC 10 January 2015 – R 1
ID: JCA14670
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 10 January 2015
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
GJones
Race Date:
2015/01/10
Race Number:
R1
Decision:
The Committee note that “interference” is defined as: a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.
Because Ms Collett was not the required distance clear of Ms Spratt when moving in, we find the charge proved.
Penalty:
We note Ms Collett’s deferred suspension is due to conclude after racing on 17 January 2015.
Accordingly, Ms Collett had her license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 17 January and conclude after racing on 24 January 2015 (4 North Island days).
The penalty did not include any South Island meetings as Ms Collett confirmed that she did not intend riding at any upcoming South Island meetings.
Facts:
Following the running of race 1, Fireworks @ Karaka Million 3YO, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Oatham alleged that Ms Collett permitted her mount MCQUEEN to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of LADY JAY which was checked.
Ms Collett acknowledged that she understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and confirmed she denied the breach.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Williamson demonstrated the incident using the available video films but he advised the Committee that the rear footage was not available. He said as the field approached the 200 metre mark MCQUEEN was racing in a 5 wide position. He identified LADY JAY, WAY IN and SAINT EMILION were racing to the inside of MCQUEEN. He emphasised that there was sufficient room for all horses until MCQUEEN commenced to lay in under pressure. Initially the movement was very slight but Ms Collett continued to ride forward further tightening LADY JAY causing Ms Spratt to take hold of her mount and lose momentum.
Mr Williamson said that MCQUEEN has shifted from a 5 wide position to a position of 1 ½ horse widths off the fence at the finish. He said that Ms Collett dropped her whip and for a moment lost control of her rein but she had an obligation to relieve the pressure to runners on her inside. In particular LADY JAY which lost her rightful running line.
Mr Williamson using side on video footage demonstrated that at the home turn LADY JAY was in a forward position and about to get on terms with horses on its inside. He said LADY JAY was in a competitive position and Stewards contend that LADY JAY may have finished in 3rd place, noting the margin between 3rd and 4th was 1 ¼ lengths.
Ms Collett did not wish to cross examine Mr Williamson but clarified with him that the charge only related to interference suffered to LADY JAY as opposed to any other runners that may have been affected.
Ms Spratt was called as a witness by Mr Oatham. She advised the Committee that the horse racing on her outside (MCQUEEN) caused her horse to run in. She said that LADY JAY “gawked“ away from MCQUEEN. She added that LADY JAY was crowded for several strides and lost momentum.
Under cross examination by Ms Collett, Ms Spratt agreed that her mount ran away from MCQUEEN. She conceded that at the time of being checked LADY JAY was struggling to hold 3rd position.
Ms Collett told the Committee that MCQUEEN was a big green horse and it was the first time it had raced at Ellerslie. She said MCQUEEN accelerated very fast and when she dropped her whip and rein for a stride and a half MCQUEEN continued to run in all the way up the straight.
Ms Collett acknowledged that her mount shifted in but she believed she was a length and a ½ clear of LADY JAY. She added that she did everything she could to straighten MCQUEEN and reiterated that MCQUEEN was a difficult ride.
In summing up Mr Oatham submitted it was clear from the video footage from the top of the straight MCQUEEN had tried to lay in behind LADY JAY. He said Ms Collett should have stopped riding her mount forward when she her dropped her rein. He added she should have concentrated on relieving the pressure to LADY JAY which was affected for approximately 4 strides.
Mr Oatham submitted the Stewards accept LADY JAY did try to shift away from MCQUEEN but Ms Collett has continued to ride forward when there was barely 1 length between her mount and LADY JAY.
In summing up Ms Collett submitted that horses simply don’t just react straight away and it takes a while for a rider to regain control of the reins. She asked the Committee to note if she had not lost her whip and rein MCQUEEN may not have lay in.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times at slow speed we established that at the 200 metre mark MCQUEEN was racing in a 6 wide position. The films show that MCQUEEN made a gradual shift in over the final 150 metres. Prior to the 100 metres when Ms Collett dropped her whip and dropped her rein for about 2 strides she was a neck in front of LADY JAY. Ms Collett then continued to ride her mount forward when she had shifted in between 2 ½ and 3 horse widths. It was significant that when LADY JAY received interference from MCQUEEN Ms Collett was only ¾ of a length clear of that runner.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham produced Ms Collett’s record which showed 1 previous breach under this Rule in the last 12 months. He said that Ms Collett was riding under a deferment arising from a suspension incurred at Thames on 3 January 2015. But notwithstanding that the Stewards submit her record is very good.
Mr Oatham said the level of carelessness was at the low end and Stewards accept that MCQUEEN was not an easy horse to ride but Ms Collett should have made more effort to relieve the pressure. He submitted the breach could be dealt with by way of a 4 day suspension.
Ms Collett submitted that she rode all over the North Island and made no further comment as to penalty. Ms Collett confirmed she was to commence her suspension from Thames after racing today and conclude after racing on 17 January.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension for this careless riding charge. The mitigating factors were Ms Collett’s overall very good record in relation to this Rule and the level of carelessness was at the low end. The Committee accepts that MCQUEEN was a difficult ride compounded by the loss of her whip and rein for a few strides. However, Ms Collett did have an obligation to take corrective action to avoid the inward shift. In our opinion Miss Collett failed to exercise the degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent jockey would exercise in the circumstances.
The Committee did have regard for the fact that any proposed penalty could include an iconic meeting at Wellington.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a 4 day suspension.
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: 6f1a4a6b420c48ba5eab81c704ca7e36
informantnumber: A6874
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 29/12/2014
hearing_title: Auckland RC 10 January 2015 - R 1
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 1, Fireworks @ Karaka Million 3YO, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Oatham alleged that Ms Collett permitted her mount MCQUEEN to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of LADY JAY which was checked.
Ms Collett acknowledged that she understood the nature of the charge, the Rule and confirmed she denied the breach.
Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Williamson demonstrated the incident using the available video films but he advised the Committee that the rear footage was not available. He said as the field approached the 200 metre mark MCQUEEN was racing in a 5 wide position. He identified LADY JAY, WAY IN and SAINT EMILION were racing to the inside of MCQUEEN. He emphasised that there was sufficient room for all horses until MCQUEEN commenced to lay in under pressure. Initially the movement was very slight but Ms Collett continued to ride forward further tightening LADY JAY causing Ms Spratt to take hold of her mount and lose momentum.
Mr Williamson said that MCQUEEN has shifted from a 5 wide position to a position of 1 ½ horse widths off the fence at the finish. He said that Ms Collett dropped her whip and for a moment lost control of her rein but she had an obligation to relieve the pressure to runners on her inside. In particular LADY JAY which lost her rightful running line.
Mr Williamson using side on video footage demonstrated that at the home turn LADY JAY was in a forward position and about to get on terms with horses on its inside. He said LADY JAY was in a competitive position and Stewards contend that LADY JAY may have finished in 3rd place, noting the margin between 3rd and 4th was 1 ¼ lengths.
Ms Collett did not wish to cross examine Mr Williamson but clarified with him that the charge only related to interference suffered to LADY JAY as opposed to any other runners that may have been affected.
Ms Spratt was called as a witness by Mr Oatham. She advised the Committee that the horse racing on her outside (MCQUEEN) caused her horse to run in. She said that LADY JAY “gawked“ away from MCQUEEN. She added that LADY JAY was crowded for several strides and lost momentum.
Under cross examination by Ms Collett, Ms Spratt agreed that her mount ran away from MCQUEEN. She conceded that at the time of being checked LADY JAY was struggling to hold 3rd position.
Ms Collett told the Committee that MCQUEEN was a big green horse and it was the first time it had raced at Ellerslie. She said MCQUEEN accelerated very fast and when she dropped her whip and rein for a stride and a half MCQUEEN continued to run in all the way up the straight.
Ms Collett acknowledged that her mount shifted in but she believed she was a length and a ½ clear of LADY JAY. She added that she did everything she could to straighten MCQUEEN and reiterated that MCQUEEN was a difficult ride.
In summing up Mr Oatham submitted it was clear from the video footage from the top of the straight MCQUEEN had tried to lay in behind LADY JAY. He said Ms Collett should have stopped riding her mount forward when she her dropped her rein. He added she should have concentrated on relieving the pressure to LADY JAY which was affected for approximately 4 strides.
Mr Oatham submitted the Stewards accept LADY JAY did try to shift away from MCQUEEN but Ms Collett has continued to ride forward when there was barely 1 length between her mount and LADY JAY.
In summing up Ms Collett submitted that horses simply don’t just react straight away and it takes a while for a rider to regain control of the reins. She asked the Committee to note if she had not lost her whip and rein MCQUEEN may not have lay in.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times at slow speed we established that at the 200 metre mark MCQUEEN was racing in a 6 wide position. The films show that MCQUEEN made a gradual shift in over the final 150 metres. Prior to the 100 metres when Ms Collett dropped her whip and dropped her rein for about 2 strides she was a neck in front of LADY JAY. Ms Collett then continued to ride her mount forward when she had shifted in between 2 ½ and 3 horse widths. It was significant that when LADY JAY received interference from MCQUEEN Ms Collett was only ¾ of a length clear of that runner.
Decision:
The Committee note that “interference” is defined as: a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.
Because Ms Collett was not the required distance clear of Ms Spratt when moving in, we find the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham produced Ms Collett’s record which showed 1 previous breach under this Rule in the last 12 months. He said that Ms Collett was riding under a deferment arising from a suspension incurred at Thames on 3 January 2015. But notwithstanding that the Stewards submit her record is very good.
Mr Oatham said the level of carelessness was at the low end and Stewards accept that MCQUEEN was not an easy horse to ride but Ms Collett should have made more effort to relieve the pressure. He submitted the breach could be dealt with by way of a 4 day suspension.
Ms Collett submitted that she rode all over the North Island and made no further comment as to penalty. Ms Collett confirmed she was to commence her suspension from Thames after racing today and conclude after racing on 17 January.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. We have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension for this careless riding charge. The mitigating factors were Ms Collett’s overall very good record in relation to this Rule and the level of carelessness was at the low end. The Committee accepts that MCQUEEN was a difficult ride compounded by the loss of her whip and rein for a few strides. However, Ms Collett did have an obligation to take corrective action to avoid the inward shift. In our opinion Miss Collett failed to exercise the degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent jockey would exercise in the circumstances.
The Committee did have regard for the fact that any proposed penalty could include an iconic meeting at Wellington.
After taking into account all the above factors we consider an appropriate penalty is a 4 day suspension.
penalty:
We note Ms Collett’s deferred suspension is due to conclude after racing on 17 January 2015.
Accordingly, Ms Collett had her license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 17 January and conclude after racing on 24 January 2015 (4 North Island days).
The penalty did not include any South Island meetings as Ms Collett confirmed that she did not intend riding at any upcoming South Island meetings.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms S Collett - Rider of MCQUEEN
Otherperson: Ms S Spratt - Rider of LADY JAY, Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 2b828b579fa5bc2b9f48579c98d3279c
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: a9dd3273063a0c480ad0b75f55ed0b55
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 10/01/2015
meet_title: Auckland RC - 10 January 2015
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