Hawke’s Bay RI 1 January 2019 – R 5 – Chair, Mr T Utikere
ID: JCA15346
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Hawkes Bay RI - 1 January 2019
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
TCastles
Race Date:
2019/01/01
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
The Committee found the charge upheld.
Penalty:
Ms Grylls is suspended from the conclusion of racing on Saturday 5 January until the conclusion of racing on Saturday 2 February 2019.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5 (RUSSELL ROADS CITY OF HASTINGS CUP/FASTTRACK 5K), Information A12265 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 636(1)(b) by Licensed Rider, Bridget Grylls, specifically that “B Grylls the rider of FLAMINGO failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to finish in the best possible placing”.
Rule 636(1)(b) states:
“A person:
...
(b) being the rider of a horse in a Race, must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the Race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the Race or to obtain the best possible finishing place.”
Ms Grylls confirmed that she understood the Rule, and that she denied the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Goodwin submitted that the contention of the Stewards was that there was a gap for Ms Grylls to improve into upon entering the home straight. He identified that the Stewards would seek to prove that Ms Grylls had been hesitant for four to five strides and that put simply, there was a gap, but Ms Grylls had failed to take it.
The available head-on, side-on and rear view films were played during the hearing.
Mr Balcombe identified FLAMINGO racing down the back straight, positioned mid-field, racing closer to the rail. He stated that there was evidence from the films that FLAMINGO had been crossed by LUCYINRIO (L Satherley) shortly after the start. It was during this period of the race that Mr Balcombe described FLAMINGO to not be racing in a tractable manner; requiring Ms Grylls to take a hold. Her horse reacted to that, and was observed to go back through the field. Mr Balcombe believed LUCYINRIO to be clear of FLAMINGO when it crossed.
In response to a question from Mr Goodwin, Mr Balcombe agreed that FLAMINGO was racing in a tractable manner as the field turned for home. Ms Grylls had then peeled off the fence at the 200 metres, and that a gap between YEARN (A Jones) and HUGO THE BOSS (M Singh) had presented for four to five strides, Ms Grylls did not push into the gap, before the gap began to close slightly thereafter. Mr Balcombe believed that if she had taken the gap when presented, she would have finished in a higher position.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Balcombe believed Ms Grylls was racing approximately one length behind when the gap presented and that Ms Grylls did not “go fully into the gap”.
In response to a question from Ms Grylls about the size of the gap, compared to a gap taken by Ms Satherley closer to the rail, Mr Balcombe believed that the gap that Ms Grylls did not take, was of sufficient size for her to have taken.
Mr Goodwin stated that the comments made by Ms Grylls to the co-trainer (Ms Haworth) as part of the initial Stewards’ inquiry were that she didn’t believe she had enough room and that whilst there was a run, she lacked the confidence to take it. In response to this, Ms Grylls agreed that FLAMINGO was ‘touchy in the mouth”.
Ms Grylls stated that the gap that had been taken by Ms Satherley to her inside was much larger than the apparent gap that Stewards had alleged she had not taken. She used the films to identify that she had been on the back of Mr Singh’s heels, and that she did not believe there had been a presentable gap as the Stewards had alleged. She confirmed that she had not taken a hold of her mount at the time, and that she believed she had continued to push FLAMINGO out. She explained that she was trying her hardest to ride winners since she returned to New Zealand at the end of July. While she wasn’t aggressive with FLAMINGO, she believed that she required more room around her on this occasion.
In summary, Mr Goodwin confirmed that the Stewards had no issues with Ms Grylls’ ride down the back straight. At the time when the gap was presented, the horse was racing in a tractable manner and there was nothing untoward. Ms Grylls had left the rail and there was a reasonable gap to improve into. While it appeared that she had lost confidence in FLAMINGO, Stewards contended that they would have expected her to take the gap. Instead, Mr Goodwin submitted that she had ridden with minimal vigour in the initial stages of the home straight.
Ms Grylls had no further comments to make.
Reasons for Decision:
It is clear from the Committee’s review of all the films that FLAMINGO was not racing in a tractable manner shortly after dispatch. As the field approached the final bend, this was no longer the case. Ms Grylls ended up crossing the line in fifth position with less than two lengths covering the first five horses.
Rule 636(1)(b) requires us to consider if the measures that Ms Grylls is alleged to have not taken were ‘reasonable’ and ‘permissible’. Ms Grylls’ defence to the charge lies in her belief that the gap was not sufficient, therefore was not presented. We reject that view as we are satisfied that a gap was presented to Ms Grylls approaching the 200 metres, and that the gap was available to her for at least eight strides.
The point at which Ms Grylls was on Mr Singh’s heels, in our assessment, has no bearing on when the gap was presented for her to take. In our view, taking the gap was ‘permissible’ as it was clearly available and directly in front of FLAMINGO. There was no impediment to Ms Grylls’ ability to gain access to the gap; and there was no discernable aggression or urging on the part of Ms Grylls to move into that space.
We then must consider if taking the gap would have been ‘reasonable’ in the context of this charge. Nothing has been submitted to convince us otherwise. We are satisfied that the respondent’s actions prohibited her horse from taking a run that was clearly there. We believe FLAMINGO, in that circumstance, would have finished closer than fifth, but exactly how close will never be known.
Submissions for Penalty:
In presenting Ms Grylls’ record, Mr Goodwin identified no previous breaches of this rule. With reference to the JCA Penalty Guidelines starting point of a six weeks period of suspension, Mr Goodwin submitted for a first breach this was harsh as it was a very busy time of the year for riders. He submitted a one month period of suspension as appropriate.
Ms Grylls submitted that she had a good record and had been riding for approximately six years. She also believed a one months suspension was too harsh, but sought a deferment of any term of suspension so she could fulfil engagements on Saturday 5 January.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee considered the submissions of both parties. Breaches of this Rule do not occur very often, with the most recent breach in July 2017. The JCA Penalty Guidelines identify a starting point of a six weeks period of suspension.
When we consider the specific circumstances of this breach, we must acknowledge that Ms Grylls’ inaction has cost the connections and punters of FLAMINGO the benefits of a higher placing. As such, we do not see any adequate reason to depart from the JCA’s suggested starting point, and adopt it accordingly. We are unable to identify any aggravating features that warrant an uplift.
In mitigation we apply Ms Grylls’ very good record and the consideration that although the gap was presented, in her own mind, she had reservations about the horse’s racing manners after taking a hold in the back straight earlier in the race. This does not, however, absolve her of the obligations that she is expected to discharge. We consider a four weeks period of suspension as appropriate.
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: 878a66d9325e97e17ec33b285cf7e111
informantnumber: A12265
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Failed to take Reasonable and Permissible Measures
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 01/01/2019
hearing_title: Hawke's Bay RI 1 January 2019 - R 5 - Chair, Mr T Utikere
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 5 (RUSSELL ROADS CITY OF HASTINGS CUP/FASTTRACK 5K), Information A12265 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 636(1)(b) by Licensed Rider, Bridget Grylls, specifically that “B Grylls the rider of FLAMINGO failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to finish in the best possible placing”.
Rule 636(1)(b) states:
“A person:
...
(b) being the rider of a horse in a Race, must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the Race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the Race or to obtain the best possible finishing place.”
Ms Grylls confirmed that she understood the Rule, and that she denied the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Goodwin submitted that the contention of the Stewards was that there was a gap for Ms Grylls to improve into upon entering the home straight. He identified that the Stewards would seek to prove that Ms Grylls had been hesitant for four to five strides and that put simply, there was a gap, but Ms Grylls had failed to take it.
The available head-on, side-on and rear view films were played during the hearing.
Mr Balcombe identified FLAMINGO racing down the back straight, positioned mid-field, racing closer to the rail. He stated that there was evidence from the films that FLAMINGO had been crossed by LUCYINRIO (L Satherley) shortly after the start. It was during this period of the race that Mr Balcombe described FLAMINGO to not be racing in a tractable manner; requiring Ms Grylls to take a hold. Her horse reacted to that, and was observed to go back through the field. Mr Balcombe believed LUCYINRIO to be clear of FLAMINGO when it crossed.
In response to a question from Mr Goodwin, Mr Balcombe agreed that FLAMINGO was racing in a tractable manner as the field turned for home. Ms Grylls had then peeled off the fence at the 200 metres, and that a gap between YEARN (A Jones) and HUGO THE BOSS (M Singh) had presented for four to five strides, Ms Grylls did not push into the gap, before the gap began to close slightly thereafter. Mr Balcombe believed that if she had taken the gap when presented, she would have finished in a higher position.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Balcombe believed Ms Grylls was racing approximately one length behind when the gap presented and that Ms Grylls did not “go fully into the gap”.
In response to a question from Ms Grylls about the size of the gap, compared to a gap taken by Ms Satherley closer to the rail, Mr Balcombe believed that the gap that Ms Grylls did not take, was of sufficient size for her to have taken.
Mr Goodwin stated that the comments made by Ms Grylls to the co-trainer (Ms Haworth) as part of the initial Stewards’ inquiry were that she didn’t believe she had enough room and that whilst there was a run, she lacked the confidence to take it. In response to this, Ms Grylls agreed that FLAMINGO was ‘touchy in the mouth”.
Ms Grylls stated that the gap that had been taken by Ms Satherley to her inside was much larger than the apparent gap that Stewards had alleged she had not taken. She used the films to identify that she had been on the back of Mr Singh’s heels, and that she did not believe there had been a presentable gap as the Stewards had alleged. She confirmed that she had not taken a hold of her mount at the time, and that she believed she had continued to push FLAMINGO out. She explained that she was trying her hardest to ride winners since she returned to New Zealand at the end of July. While she wasn’t aggressive with FLAMINGO, she believed that she required more room around her on this occasion.
In summary, Mr Goodwin confirmed that the Stewards had no issues with Ms Grylls’ ride down the back straight. At the time when the gap was presented, the horse was racing in a tractable manner and there was nothing untoward. Ms Grylls had left the rail and there was a reasonable gap to improve into. While it appeared that she had lost confidence in FLAMINGO, Stewards contended that they would have expected her to take the gap. Instead, Mr Goodwin submitted that she had ridden with minimal vigour in the initial stages of the home straight.
Ms Grylls had no further comments to make.
reasonsfordecision:
It is clear from the Committee’s review of all the films that FLAMINGO was not racing in a tractable manner shortly after dispatch. As the field approached the final bend, this was no longer the case. Ms Grylls ended up crossing the line in fifth position with less than two lengths covering the first five horses.
Rule 636(1)(b) requires us to consider if the measures that Ms Grylls is alleged to have not taken were ‘reasonable’ and ‘permissible’. Ms Grylls’ defence to the charge lies in her belief that the gap was not sufficient, therefore was not presented. We reject that view as we are satisfied that a gap was presented to Ms Grylls approaching the 200 metres, and that the gap was available to her for at least eight strides.
The point at which Ms Grylls was on Mr Singh’s heels, in our assessment, has no bearing on when the gap was presented for her to take. In our view, taking the gap was ‘permissible’ as it was clearly available and directly in front of FLAMINGO. There was no impediment to Ms Grylls’ ability to gain access to the gap; and there was no discernable aggression or urging on the part of Ms Grylls to move into that space.
We then must consider if taking the gap would have been ‘reasonable’ in the context of this charge. Nothing has been submitted to convince us otherwise. We are satisfied that the respondent’s actions prohibited her horse from taking a run that was clearly there. We believe FLAMINGO, in that circumstance, would have finished closer than fifth, but exactly how close will never be known.
Decision:
The Committee found the charge upheld.
sumissionsforpenalty:
In presenting Ms Grylls’ record, Mr Goodwin identified no previous breaches of this rule. With reference to the JCA Penalty Guidelines starting point of a six weeks period of suspension, Mr Goodwin submitted for a first breach this was harsh as it was a very busy time of the year for riders. He submitted a one month period of suspension as appropriate.
Ms Grylls submitted that she had a good record and had been riding for approximately six years. She also believed a one months suspension was too harsh, but sought a deferment of any term of suspension so she could fulfil engagements on Saturday 5 January.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee considered the submissions of both parties. Breaches of this Rule do not occur very often, with the most recent breach in July 2017. The JCA Penalty Guidelines identify a starting point of a six weeks period of suspension.
When we consider the specific circumstances of this breach, we must acknowledge that Ms Grylls’ inaction has cost the connections and punters of FLAMINGO the benefits of a higher placing. As such, we do not see any adequate reason to depart from the JCA’s suggested starting point, and adopt it accordingly. We are unable to identify any aggravating features that warrant an uplift.
In mitigation we apply Ms Grylls’ very good record and the consideration that although the gap was presented, in her own mind, she had reservations about the horse’s racing manners after taking a hold in the back straight earlier in the race. This does not, however, absolve her of the obligations that she is expected to discharge. We consider a four weeks period of suspension as appropriate.
penalty:
Ms Grylls is suspended from the conclusion of racing on Saturday 5 January until the conclusion of racing on Saturday 2 February 2019.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 636(1)(b)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Sitpendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms B Grylls - Class A Jockey
Otherperson: Mr D Balcombe - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 9240f876e4048ae6764bdf8bf549c2c1
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: fa1876d8d29f5cb7789c2986b8d796e1
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/01/2019
meet_title: Hawkes Bay RI - 1 January 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: hawkes-bay-ri
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: TCastles
meet_pm2: none
name: Hawkes Bay RI