Cambridge JC 29 April 2017 – R 2 – Chair, Mr A Dooley
ID: JCA15822
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Cambridge JC - 29 April 2017
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMcCutcheon
Meet Committee Member 2:
ASmith
Race Date:
2017/04/29
Race Number:
R2
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.
For the reasons detailed above we find the charge against Mr Coleman proved.
Penalty:
We grant Mr Coleman’s request to seek a deferment to his suspension as per Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Mr Coleman had his license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 6 May and conclude after racing on 20 May 2017 (4 days).
That period of suspension encompasses meetings at
12 May – Te Awamutu
13 May – Rotorua
17 May – Ruakaka
20 May – Te Rapa.
Facts:
Following the running of race 2, Harness Racing Waikato Premier, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d).T he Informant, Mr Oatham, alleged that Mr Coleman permitted his mount THATSFORSURE to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of MARKY MARK which was checked near the 1000 metres going back onto FRANCIS DRAKE which was also checked.
Mr Coleman acknowledged that he understood the Rule and confirmed that he 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 Oatham told the Committee he would be calling 3 witnesses namely Stipendiary Steward, Mr Coles, and Mr Innes the rider of MARKY MARK and Ms Farr the rider of FRANCIS DRAKE.
The following are the salient points of the hearing.
Mr Coles demonstrated the incident by using the available video films. He paused the film at the 1100 metres and showed that Mr Coleman was racing 1 off the rail when between 1¼-1½ lengths clear of MARKY MARK. He identified that near the 1000 metres Mr Coleman allowed his mount to shift in when not much more than a length clear of MARKY MARK. He said in doing so MARKY MARK had no room and was checked. He said this in turn meant FRANCIS DRAKE was checked when becoming awkwardly placed on the heels of MARKY MARK. In conclusion he said MARKY MARK may have been over racing slightly and Mr Coleman may have eased the pace when in front which caused some trouble to the horses in behind.
Mr Coleman had no questions of Mr Coles’ interpretation of the alleged incident.
Ms Farr stated that her mount was racing ungenerously leading up to the incident and said the situation got a little bit worse when MARKY MARK “came back on me”. She added that her mount was in a bad spot and it was very fresh.
In response to a question from Mr Coleman, Ms Farr confirmed that FRANCIS DRAKE has a history of over racing.
Mr Innes stated that MARKY MARK has a few tricks and was firmly of the view that Mr Coleman had given him enough room. He stated that MARKY MARK had checked himself.
In response to questions from Mr Oatham, Mr Innes stated that Mr Coleman was 2 lengths clear of MARKY MARK when he had to steady his mount. Mr Innes reiterated that it was the racing manners of his mount that caused the check to happen.
In response to a question from Mr Coleman, Mr Innes advised that he did not call out to Mr Coleman because in his opinion there was no need to.
Mr Coleman stated that he took his time to come across and he noted that MARKY MARK moved up inside him when it was over racing. He emphasised that MARKY MARK and FRANCIS DRAKE have a history of racing ungenerously. He said that he did not ease the pace and when he looked back he thought he was 2 lengths clear of MARKY MARK. He said the reason he is being charged is due to the racing manners of MARKY MARK. He added that if Mr Innes had called out to him he would have given him room.
Mr Oatham in summing up said the films were very clear that Mr Coleman was 1½ lengths clear when he steadied his mount to some degree. He said although MARKY MARK was racing ungenerously it still had a clear run until Mr Coleman permitted his mount to shift in when at best 1¼ lengths clear. He said this impeded the line of MARKY MARK which placed that runner in difficultly who in turn went back onto FRANCIS DRAKE which made it worse. He said the racing manners of the 2 horses that were checked did play some part in the incident. However, he stated that is why the 2 length Rule is in place to avoid situations like this. In conclusion Mr Oatham said at the point where Mr Coleman shifted in he was only a bare length clear.
Mr Coleman in summing up said that Mr Innes was 2 lengths behind him when racing in the trail. He said that when he shifted in MARKY MARK kicked up along the inside of his mount. He identified that he looked a couple of times before shifting in and stated that he showed due diligence before making the shift. In conclusion he said that the runners behind him were over racing and he reiterated that Mr Innes did not call out to him.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all the submissions presented. Having studied the video films we established that prior to MARKY MARK and FRANCIS DRAKE being checked it was obvious that THATSFORSURE was 2 lengths clear of MARKY MARK. At this point we observed that Mr Coleman looked to his inside. However, near the 1000 metres Mr Coleman who had been racing 1 horse width off the fence commenced to shift in closer towards the running rail. At this point MARKY MARK had improved up on the inside of THATSFORSURE to be only 1¼ lengths in arrears. As a consequence Mr Innes was observed to steady his mount which then skied its head and dropped back into the path of FRANCIS DRAKE who was also observed to be hampered when racing in tight quarters.
The Committee heard evidence from Mr Innes that the racing manners of his mount was the cause for what happened. Mr Innes said that when Mr Coleman shifted in he was 2 lengths clear. However, the Committee found that the film evidence did not support Mr Innes’ assertion. It was evident on the films that when Mr Coleman shifted in he was at best only 1¼ clear of Mr Innes.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham produced Mr Coleman’s record which showed 2 previous breach under this Rule in the last 12 months, the most recent being 1/1/2017 which incurred a 4 day suspension. He said Mr Coleman was not the required distance clear when he shifted which resulted in reasonably bad interference. He recognised the racing manners of the 2 affected horses may have contributed to the interference which he described as a little below mid–range. Mr Oatham submitted that a 5 to 6 day suspension be imposed.
Mr Coleman advised that he had engagements up to and including 6 May and sought a 7 day deferment to any proposed suspension. He admitted that he has no history of riding in the Central Districts on Industry days.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees recommends that the starting point for careless riding is a 5 day suspension. This is adjusted based on the mitigating and aggravating factors.
The mitigating factors were Mr Coleman’s good record and in our opinion the level of carelessness was in the low range. We base this on the fact that Mr Coleman movement was gradual when he shifted in 1 horse width near the 1000 metres. The interference was made to look worse than it essentially was due to the racing manners of both MARKY MARK and FRANCIS DRAKE. We observed that those 2 horses raced ungenerously when being restrained by their riders. It was relevant to identify that after being checked both horses were able to maintain their position in the running line after losing minimal ground.
The Committee also identified that at the 1100 metres FRANCIS DRAKE raced ungenerously when being restrained by Ms Farr.
The Committee applied a 1 day discount for the mitigating factors and we deemed there were no aggravating factors in this charge.
Mr Coleman has no history of riding in the Central Districts on Industry days, accordingly those dates were not included in the penalty.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee considered an appropriate suspension was 4 days.
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: d7b85b9cf231c43b0d9ccbe67c7bd456
informantnumber: A8687
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 30/04/2017
hearing_title: Cambridge JC 29 April 2017 - R 2 - Chair, Mr A Dooley
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 2, Harness Racing Waikato Premier, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d).T he Informant, Mr Oatham, alleged that Mr Coleman permitted his mount THATSFORSURE to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of MARKY MARK which was checked near the 1000 metres going back onto FRANCIS DRAKE which was also checked.
Mr Coleman acknowledged that he understood the Rule and confirmed that he 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 Oatham told the Committee he would be calling 3 witnesses namely Stipendiary Steward, Mr Coles, and Mr Innes the rider of MARKY MARK and Ms Farr the rider of FRANCIS DRAKE.
The following are the salient points of the hearing.
Mr Coles demonstrated the incident by using the available video films. He paused the film at the 1100 metres and showed that Mr Coleman was racing 1 off the rail when between 1¼-1½ lengths clear of MARKY MARK. He identified that near the 1000 metres Mr Coleman allowed his mount to shift in when not much more than a length clear of MARKY MARK. He said in doing so MARKY MARK had no room and was checked. He said this in turn meant FRANCIS DRAKE was checked when becoming awkwardly placed on the heels of MARKY MARK. In conclusion he said MARKY MARK may have been over racing slightly and Mr Coleman may have eased the pace when in front which caused some trouble to the horses in behind.
Mr Coleman had no questions of Mr Coles’ interpretation of the alleged incident.
Ms Farr stated that her mount was racing ungenerously leading up to the incident and said the situation got a little bit worse when MARKY MARK “came back on me”. She added that her mount was in a bad spot and it was very fresh.
In response to a question from Mr Coleman, Ms Farr confirmed that FRANCIS DRAKE has a history of over racing.
Mr Innes stated that MARKY MARK has a few tricks and was firmly of the view that Mr Coleman had given him enough room. He stated that MARKY MARK had checked himself.
In response to questions from Mr Oatham, Mr Innes stated that Mr Coleman was 2 lengths clear of MARKY MARK when he had to steady his mount. Mr Innes reiterated that it was the racing manners of his mount that caused the check to happen.
In response to a question from Mr Coleman, Mr Innes advised that he did not call out to Mr Coleman because in his opinion there was no need to.
Mr Coleman stated that he took his time to come across and he noted that MARKY MARK moved up inside him when it was over racing. He emphasised that MARKY MARK and FRANCIS DRAKE have a history of racing ungenerously. He said that he did not ease the pace and when he looked back he thought he was 2 lengths clear of MARKY MARK. He said the reason he is being charged is due to the racing manners of MARKY MARK. He added that if Mr Innes had called out to him he would have given him room.
Mr Oatham in summing up said the films were very clear that Mr Coleman was 1½ lengths clear when he steadied his mount to some degree. He said although MARKY MARK was racing ungenerously it still had a clear run until Mr Coleman permitted his mount to shift in when at best 1¼ lengths clear. He said this impeded the line of MARKY MARK which placed that runner in difficultly who in turn went back onto FRANCIS DRAKE which made it worse. He said the racing manners of the 2 horses that were checked did play some part in the incident. However, he stated that is why the 2 length Rule is in place to avoid situations like this. In conclusion Mr Oatham said at the point where Mr Coleman shifted in he was only a bare length clear.
Mr Coleman in summing up said that Mr Innes was 2 lengths behind him when racing in the trail. He said that when he shifted in MARKY MARK kicked up along the inside of his mount. He identified that he looked a couple of times before shifting in and stated that he showed due diligence before making the shift. In conclusion he said that the runners behind him were over racing and he reiterated that Mr Innes did not call out to him.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all the submissions presented. Having studied the video films we established that prior to MARKY MARK and FRANCIS DRAKE being checked it was obvious that THATSFORSURE was 2 lengths clear of MARKY MARK. At this point we observed that Mr Coleman looked to his inside. However, near the 1000 metres Mr Coleman who had been racing 1 horse width off the fence commenced to shift in closer towards the running rail. At this point MARKY MARK had improved up on the inside of THATSFORSURE to be only 1¼ lengths in arrears. As a consequence Mr Innes was observed to steady his mount which then skied its head and dropped back into the path of FRANCIS DRAKE who was also observed to be hampered when racing in tight quarters.
The Committee heard evidence from Mr Innes that the racing manners of his mount was the cause for what happened. Mr Innes said that when Mr Coleman shifted in he was 2 lengths clear. However, the Committee found that the film evidence did not support Mr Innes’ assertion. It was evident on the films that when Mr Coleman shifted in he was at best only 1¼ clear of Mr Innes.
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.
For the reasons detailed above we find the charge against Mr Coleman proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham produced Mr Coleman’s record which showed 2 previous breach under this Rule in the last 12 months, the most recent being 1/1/2017 which incurred a 4 day suspension. He said Mr Coleman was not the required distance clear when he shifted which resulted in reasonably bad interference. He recognised the racing manners of the 2 affected horses may have contributed to the interference which he described as a little below mid–range. Mr Oatham submitted that a 5 to 6 day suspension be imposed.
Mr Coleman advised that he had engagements up to and including 6 May and sought a 7 day deferment to any proposed suspension. He admitted that he has no history of riding in the Central Districts on Industry days.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees recommends that the starting point for careless riding is a 5 day suspension. This is adjusted based on the mitigating and aggravating factors.
The mitigating factors were Mr Coleman’s good record and in our opinion the level of carelessness was in the low range. We base this on the fact that Mr Coleman movement was gradual when he shifted in 1 horse width near the 1000 metres. The interference was made to look worse than it essentially was due to the racing manners of both MARKY MARK and FRANCIS DRAKE. We observed that those 2 horses raced ungenerously when being restrained by their riders. It was relevant to identify that after being checked both horses were able to maintain their position in the running line after losing minimal ground.
The Committee also identified that at the 1100 metres FRANCIS DRAKE raced ungenerously when being restrained by Ms Farr.
The Committee applied a 1 day discount for the mitigating factors and we deemed there were no aggravating factors in this charge.
Mr Coleman has no history of riding in the Central Districts on Industry days, accordingly those dates were not included in the penalty.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee considered an appropriate suspension was 4 days.
penalty:
We grant Mr Coleman’s request to seek a deferment to his suspension as per Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Mr Coleman had his license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 6 May and conclude after racing on 20 May 2017 (4 days).
That period of suspension encompasses meetings at
12 May – Te Awamutu
13 May – Rotorua
17 May – Ruakaka
20 May – Te Rapa.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr M Coleman - Class A Rider
Otherperson: Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward, Ms E Farr - Rider of FRANCIS DRAKE, Mr L Innes - Rider of MARKY MARK
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 97f5697653c7589d4db3b11cdc66b427
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: 55113f97c7d62f28daaa48e7770f4b36
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 29/04/2017
meet_title: Cambridge JC - 29 April 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: cambridge-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: NMcCutcheon
meet_pm2: ASmith
name: Cambridge JC