Canterbury R 21 June 2014 – R 9 (request for a ruling)
ID: JCA14917
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 21 June 2014
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
SChing
Race Date:
2014/06/21
Race Number:
R9
Decision:
The Committee ruled that Mr Johnson had an engagement to ride SHE’S PAYBACK in Race 9.
Facts:
Information No. A5715 by way of a Request for a Ruling was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr J M McLaughlin, relating to Race 9, Innovative Landscapes & Optimise Fertilisers Rating 65. Details of the ruling sought were as follows:
“There is a dispute in Race 9 to which horse C W Johnson is booked to ride. Both D Crozier [trainer of BELT UP] and C Spittles [trainer of SHE’S PAYBACK] believe they have an engagement for C W Johnson”.
Present at the hearing were Mr Johnson’s agent, Ms B Middlewood, and Licensed Trainers Class A, Mr D M Crozier and Ms C L Spittles.
Rule 330 provides as follows:
(2) Any dispute with reference to the engagement or engagements of a Rider to ride at a particular Race Meeting or Race Meetings shall be determined by a Judicial Committee at the request of a Stipendiary Steward or any of the parties to the dispute.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr McLaughlin told the Committee that Mr Johnson had been booked for both BELT UP and SHE’S PAYBACK in Race 9 and the dispute between the respective trainers could not be resolved.
Mr Crozier said that he had phoned Ms Middlewood on Monday, 16 June, about Mr Johnson riding his two horses, BELT UP and RED MAGIC (Race 8). He said that she told him that there could be doubt over RED MAGIC if COAT OF ARMS was to run in the same race but that Mr Johnson did not have a ride in the Rating 65 2000 metres (Race 9) so that “should be good”.
Mr Crozier said that he saw Ms Middlewood again at the trials at Rangiora the following day and she told him that Mr Johnson was unable to ride RED MAGIC but that it would be “as good as gold” for him to ride BELT UP. He took that as confirmation of the ride. He said he went to notify Mr Johnson as the rider of BELT UP on Wednesday, only to be told that he had already been notified as the rider of SHE’S PAYBACK in the same race.
Ms Spittles told the Committee that the last time SHE’S PAYBACK raced at Riccarton (on 30 May) she told Ms Middlewood that the horse would be racing in the Rating 65 2000 metres at this meeting. She said that she next saw Ms Middlewood at the trials on Tuesday, 17 June, and Ms Middlewood asked if the horse was definitely running. Ms Spittles advised her that it was. Ms Spittles than texted Ms Middlewood at 1.50pm on Wednesday, 18 June, and said that she had declared Mr Johnson as the rider of SHE’S PAYBACK. Ms Middlewood said that was all right, she said.
Ms Spittles said that, upon discovering the dispute, she asked Ms Middlewood if she wanted her to find another rider for SHE’S PAYBACK. Ms Middlewood told her that Mr Johnson did not want to ride BELT UP. She did not attempt to engage another rider for SHE’S PAYBACK, she said, it being pointless if Mr Johnson was not going to ride BELT UP in any event.
Ms Middlewood said that Mr Crozier had phoned her on Monday, 16 June, when she was doing boxes. She told him that she did not have her book or any information with her as to what rides she may have taken for Mr Johnson. She said that she does not confirm rides until after she has seen the nominations and, often, until Mr Johnson has seen them. She said that she did attend the trials the following day and was approached by Mr Crozier about RED MAGIC. She told Mr Crozier that she was “pretty sure” that Mr Johnson would be riding COAT OF ARMS. She completely forgot about BELT UP, she said. There was no discussion at the trials about BELT UP, she said. She was very busy, she said, when Mr Crozier spoke to her.
On Wednesday, 25 June, she had a phone call from Mr Crozier informing her that Mr Johnson had been declared for another runner in BELT UP’s race. After confirming with Ms Spittles, she called Mr Crozier back and advised that Mr Johnson could not ride his horse. Mr Crozier replied that he would dispute that. Ms Middlewood confirmed to the hearing that Mr Johnson did not wish to ride Mr Crozier’s horse in preference to one he had ridden in its last five starts. Ms Middlewood said that she did not believe that she had confirmed the ride on BELT UP.
Ms Middlewood was asked by the Committee about her relationship with Mr Johnson. She explained that she was his partner but not a licensed agent. However, she arranges Mr Johnson’s rides for him as he does not wish to do it.
Mr McLaughlin said that he took Mr Johnson off both horses as he was showing as the rider for SHE’S PAYBACK and then as the rider for BELT UP. He telephoned the Bureau to take him off both horse as there was a dispute that he was trying to “work through”. Nominations closed on Tuesday, acceptances came out on Wednesday and rider declarations were due on Thursday. He had been unable to get the parties to reach any agreement. He added that he firmly believed that Mr Johnson did not wish to ride one of the horses.
Mr McLaughlin, when asked by the Committee, explained that it was accepted that Ms Middlewood does arrange Mr Johnson’s rides for him. Ms Middlewood said that it was her practice to show Mr Johnson her book and let him choose, from the rides that have been offered, which of those he will ride. She then gets back to those trainers for whom he has declined a ride.
Reasons for Decision:
The key to determining this disputed riding engagement situation is, in the Committee’s view, to determine whether the discussions which took place between Ms Middlewood and Mr Crozier on Monday/Tuesday amounted to a riding engagement.
Mr Crozier telephoned Ms Middlewood on the Monday enquiring whether Mr Johnson would be available to ride BELT UP at today’s meeting. Ms Middlewood told him that she did not have her book with her but, according to Mr Crozier, indicated something to the effect that it “should be good”. We are satisfied that this did not amount to a riding engagement.
At a trials meeting the following day, Mr Crozier said, Ms Middlewood indicated to him that Mr Johnson would take the ride on BELT UP. On the next day, Mr Crozier attempted to notify the Bureau that Mr Johnson was riding the horse, only to be told that Mr Johnson had already been booked as the rider of SHE’S PAYBACK for Ms Spittles.
Ms Middlewood’s evidence was to the effect that no such engagement was made. She told us that it was her practice to confirm riding engagements after she sees the nominations and has had the opportunity to discuss possible rides with Mr Johnson. She usually does this confirming on Wednesday.
We believe that there has been a misunderstanding between Mr Crozier and Ms Middlewood. It seems that there was also some confusion over which race was being discussed and Mr Crozier and Ms Middlewood may have been at cross-purposes. Ms Middlewood believed that the discussion at the Rangiora trials meeting was in relation to the ride on RED MAGIC in the Open 1600 metres and did not recall the ride on BELT UP being discussed.
We accept that Mr Crozier believed that he had engaged Mr Johnson to ride BELT UP. In this regard, there was a conflict between the evidence of Mr Crozier and Ms Middlewood.
We are not satisfied that there was an engagement for Mr Johnson to ride BELT UP. Ms Middlewood’s belief that this was the case is supported by the fact that she subsequently advised Ms Spittles that Mr Johnson would ride SHE’S PAYBACK and that Ms Spittles thereupon advised Mr Johnson as the rider of SHE’S PAYBACK to the Bureau. There is also some significance in the fact that Mr Johnson has ridden that horse in its last five starts.
We accept that there can be no outcome to a request such as this that will be satisfactory to both parties. All that this Committee can do is determine which engagement should take precedence.
In this case, we have found that there was no engagement for Mr Johnson to ride BELT UP.
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: 8bd92d68c1956c02ea6ce788b90cf46b
informantnumber: A5715
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 17/06/2014
hearing_title: Canterbury R 21 June 2014 - R 9 (request for a ruling)
charge:
facts:
Information No. A5715 by way of a Request for a Ruling was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr J M McLaughlin, relating to Race 9, Innovative Landscapes & Optimise Fertilisers Rating 65. Details of the ruling sought were as follows:
“There is a dispute in Race 9 to which horse C W Johnson is booked to ride. Both D Crozier [trainer of BELT UP] and C Spittles [trainer of SHE’S PAYBACK] believe they have an engagement for C W Johnson”.
Present at the hearing were Mr Johnson’s agent, Ms B Middlewood, and Licensed Trainers Class A, Mr D M Crozier and Ms C L Spittles.
Rule 330 provides as follows:
(2) Any dispute with reference to the engagement or engagements of a Rider to ride at a particular Race Meeting or Race Meetings shall be determined by a Judicial Committee at the request of a Stipendiary Steward or any of the parties to the dispute.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr McLaughlin told the Committee that Mr Johnson had been booked for both BELT UP and SHE’S PAYBACK in Race 9 and the dispute between the respective trainers could not be resolved.
Mr Crozier said that he had phoned Ms Middlewood on Monday, 16 June, about Mr Johnson riding his two horses, BELT UP and RED MAGIC (Race 8). He said that she told him that there could be doubt over RED MAGIC if COAT OF ARMS was to run in the same race but that Mr Johnson did not have a ride in the Rating 65 2000 metres (Race 9) so that “should be good”.
Mr Crozier said that he saw Ms Middlewood again at the trials at Rangiora the following day and she told him that Mr Johnson was unable to ride RED MAGIC but that it would be “as good as gold” for him to ride BELT UP. He took that as confirmation of the ride. He said he went to notify Mr Johnson as the rider of BELT UP on Wednesday, only to be told that he had already been notified as the rider of SHE’S PAYBACK in the same race.
Ms Spittles told the Committee that the last time SHE’S PAYBACK raced at Riccarton (on 30 May) she told Ms Middlewood that the horse would be racing in the Rating 65 2000 metres at this meeting. She said that she next saw Ms Middlewood at the trials on Tuesday, 17 June, and Ms Middlewood asked if the horse was definitely running. Ms Spittles advised her that it was. Ms Spittles than texted Ms Middlewood at 1.50pm on Wednesday, 18 June, and said that she had declared Mr Johnson as the rider of SHE’S PAYBACK. Ms Middlewood said that was all right, she said.
Ms Spittles said that, upon discovering the dispute, she asked Ms Middlewood if she wanted her to find another rider for SHE’S PAYBACK. Ms Middlewood told her that Mr Johnson did not want to ride BELT UP. She did not attempt to engage another rider for SHE’S PAYBACK, she said, it being pointless if Mr Johnson was not going to ride BELT UP in any event.
Ms Middlewood said that Mr Crozier had phoned her on Monday, 16 June, when she was doing boxes. She told him that she did not have her book or any information with her as to what rides she may have taken for Mr Johnson. She said that she does not confirm rides until after she has seen the nominations and, often, until Mr Johnson has seen them. She said that she did attend the trials the following day and was approached by Mr Crozier about RED MAGIC. She told Mr Crozier that she was “pretty sure” that Mr Johnson would be riding COAT OF ARMS. She completely forgot about BELT UP, she said. There was no discussion at the trials about BELT UP, she said. She was very busy, she said, when Mr Crozier spoke to her.
On Wednesday, 25 June, she had a phone call from Mr Crozier informing her that Mr Johnson had been declared for another runner in BELT UP’s race. After confirming with Ms Spittles, she called Mr Crozier back and advised that Mr Johnson could not ride his horse. Mr Crozier replied that he would dispute that. Ms Middlewood confirmed to the hearing that Mr Johnson did not wish to ride Mr Crozier’s horse in preference to one he had ridden in its last five starts. Ms Middlewood said that she did not believe that she had confirmed the ride on BELT UP.
Ms Middlewood was asked by the Committee about her relationship with Mr Johnson. She explained that she was his partner but not a licensed agent. However, she arranges Mr Johnson’s rides for him as he does not wish to do it.
Mr McLaughlin said that he took Mr Johnson off both horses as he was showing as the rider for SHE’S PAYBACK and then as the rider for BELT UP. He telephoned the Bureau to take him off both horse as there was a dispute that he was trying to “work through”. Nominations closed on Tuesday, acceptances came out on Wednesday and rider declarations were due on Thursday. He had been unable to get the parties to reach any agreement. He added that he firmly believed that Mr Johnson did not wish to ride one of the horses.
Mr McLaughlin, when asked by the Committee, explained that it was accepted that Ms Middlewood does arrange Mr Johnson’s rides for him. Ms Middlewood said that it was her practice to show Mr Johnson her book and let him choose, from the rides that have been offered, which of those he will ride. She then gets back to those trainers for whom he has declined a ride.
reasonsfordecision:
The key to determining this disputed riding engagement situation is, in the Committee’s view, to determine whether the discussions which took place between Ms Middlewood and Mr Crozier on Monday/Tuesday amounted to a riding engagement.
Mr Crozier telephoned Ms Middlewood on the Monday enquiring whether Mr Johnson would be available to ride BELT UP at today’s meeting. Ms Middlewood told him that she did not have her book with her but, according to Mr Crozier, indicated something to the effect that it “should be good”. We are satisfied that this did not amount to a riding engagement.
At a trials meeting the following day, Mr Crozier said, Ms Middlewood indicated to him that Mr Johnson would take the ride on BELT UP. On the next day, Mr Crozier attempted to notify the Bureau that Mr Johnson was riding the horse, only to be told that Mr Johnson had already been booked as the rider of SHE’S PAYBACK for Ms Spittles.
Ms Middlewood’s evidence was to the effect that no such engagement was made. She told us that it was her practice to confirm riding engagements after she sees the nominations and has had the opportunity to discuss possible rides with Mr Johnson. She usually does this confirming on Wednesday.
We believe that there has been a misunderstanding between Mr Crozier and Ms Middlewood. It seems that there was also some confusion over which race was being discussed and Mr Crozier and Ms Middlewood may have been at cross-purposes. Ms Middlewood believed that the discussion at the Rangiora trials meeting was in relation to the ride on RED MAGIC in the Open 1600 metres and did not recall the ride on BELT UP being discussed.
We accept that Mr Crozier believed that he had engaged Mr Johnson to ride BELT UP. In this regard, there was a conflict between the evidence of Mr Crozier and Ms Middlewood.
We are not satisfied that there was an engagement for Mr Johnson to ride BELT UP. Ms Middlewood’s belief that this was the case is supported by the fact that she subsequently advised Ms Spittles that Mr Johnson would ride SHE’S PAYBACK and that Ms Spittles thereupon advised Mr Johnson as the rider of SHE’S PAYBACK to the Bureau. There is also some significance in the fact that Mr Johnson has ridden that horse in its last five starts.
We accept that there can be no outcome to a request such as this that will be satisfactory to both parties. All that this Committee can do is determine which engagement should take precedence.
In this case, we have found that there was no engagement for Mr Johnson to ride BELT UP.
Decision:
The Committee ruled that Mr Johnson had an engagement to ride SHE’S PAYBACK in Race 9.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Request Ruling
Rules: 330(2)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: D M Crozier, Licensed Trainer (Class A), B Middlewood, C L Spittles, Licensed Trainer (ClassA)
Respondent:
StipendSteward: J M McLaughlin-Stipendiary Steward
raceid: 550e66f3f1c7cf5d2f15f00fd2623077
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: ed3752947c229fda1981b9b459e08673
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 21/06/2014
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 21 June 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: SChing
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury Racing