Levin RC 25 November 2011 – R 6
ID: JCA16516
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Levin RC - 25 November 2011
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMcCutcheon
Race Date:
2011/11/25
Race Number:
R 6
Decision:
The committee accordingly found the charge of careless riding proved.
Penalty:
Taking into account all of these factors, Mr Waddell was suspended from the close of racing on Wednesday November 30th up to and including racing on Wednesday December 7th – in effect 5 days.
(30 minutes later the Committee was told that Mr Waddell’s riding agent had contacted the Stewards to advise that Mr Waddell did in fact have commitments at Rotorua on Thursday, therefore the suspension was amended to start from the close of racing on Thursday December 1st up to and including racing on Thursday December 8th.)
Charge:
Following the running of Race 6, the Harcourt Real Estate Premier, an information was lodged by Mr J Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1) (d). The information alleged that J Waddell (COSTELLO) allowed his mount to shift in near the 1100m dictating MERINDA (R Myers) inward into the line of STELLA BELLA (K Myers) which was checked with OUR JACKPOT (J Collett) also being crowded.
Facts:
Mr Goodwin paused the head-on film at a point prior to the alleged incident, to identify all the runners involved. He showed how they were racing in tight quarters but free from any pressure or interference. Mr J Collett (OUR JACKPOT) was closest to the fence with STELLA BELLA (K Myers) to his outside and MERINDA (R Myers) outside of her. Mr Riddell (ICESKATES) was making an inward move in front of this group of horses.
Allowing the film to play, Mr Goodwin showed Mr Waddell coming across from wider out on the track when not clear of Ms R Myers, putting pressure on her mount and forcing her inwards onto Ms K Myers, who lost ground. Mr Collett’s mount OUR JACKPOT was crowded up on the fence. Mr Waddell questioned Mr Goodwin as to the movement of Mr Riddell’s mount. Mr Goodwin conceded there was some movement from him but said that it had no bearing on the interference as described.
Mr Oatham called Ms Kelly Myers as his first witness and asked her to explain what had happened. She said that she could see what was going to happen with the outside horses coming across and perhaps she could have pulled back earlier but she was entitled to be where she was. She was forced to check backwards when Ms R Myers crossed in front of her when only ¾ length clear. Mr Waddell asked her if the pace of the race had slackened, which may have contributed to Ms Rosie Myers being pushed into her line. Ms Kelly Myers said it was possible but she wasn’t sure. Mr Waddell then asked Ms Kelly Myers if, in hindsight, she should have pulled her mount back earlier. Ms Kelly Myers reiterated that she was entitled to be where she was, but maybe she should have.
Mr Oatham next called Ms Rosie Myers to explain her involvement in the incident. She told the committee that she was racing in tight quarters and her horse MERINDA may have been racing a bit erratically. Her movement inwards onto Ms Kelly Myers was the result of pressure coming from Mr Waddell on her outside. He was only a length in front of her and she had no option but to shift inwards. Mr Waddell asked Ms Rosie Myers if Mr Riddell had contributed to the tightening when he crossed prior to the interference. She said that he may have “added to the equation” however he was always the required distance clear and did not cause it. Ms Rosie Myers agreed with Mr Waddell that the pace of the race may have slackened when Mr Riddell came across.
Mr Waddell put his case to the committee. In essence he said that there were contributing factors to the interference. His horse was a colt racing in full-cup blinkers and he had been on one rein for much of the race. He showed the committee the head-on film of the final stages of the race to support his assertion that his horse tended to hang inwards. He said that he had done everything he could to keep it straight. Secondly, he said that the pace slackened with Mr Riddell moving back onto Ms Rosie Myers, giving her no room. He said that although Ms Kelly Myers was entitled to her position, she could have eased back earlier and all of these factors contributed to the incident. He did not believe that he could be held responsible.
Mr Oatham summed up by saying that Mr Riddell was always clear when he moved forward and his movement had no bearing on the interference. He said that Mr Waddell moved from a 4-wide position to a 2 wide position, putting pressure on Ms Rosie Myers. If she had been able to maintain her position, there would not have been a problem. He admitted that Mr Waddell may have turned his horse’s head out to straighten it but did not make a sufficient effort to do so.
Submissions for Decision:
See above.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee had careful regard to all of the submissions put before it by both the Stewards and Mr Waddell. Having considered the films at length, it was our view that Mr Waddell moved from a 4 wide position to a 3 wide position and it was this movement which resulted in the crowding to Ms Rosie Myers. She in turn shifted down onto Ms Kelly Myers, who ran out of racing room and was checked.
Ms Kelly Myers said that she lost ground when Ms Rosie Myers crossed in front of her when only ¾ length clear, and Ms Rosie Myers was quite clear in her evidence that the pressure came from Mr Waddell. Mr Waddell said the change in pace of the race contributed to the incident and whilst both witnesses said there may have been a slackening of the pace, neither of them attributed that directly to the interference. Mr Waddell claimed that his mount was hanging inwards both prior to, and at the time of the interference. Whilst this may have been the case, we did not believe that Mr Waddell took sufficient action to protect the runners and riders to his inside. He is an experienced rider and the films did not convince us that he was doing everything possible to keep his mount on a straight line. Finally we did not agree that Mr Riddell had any influence on the interference.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham said that Mr Waddell had been back riding from a spell since mid way through August 2011 and that he had received two 5 day suspensions since that time. He said that he was a busy and sought after rider. In the opinion of the Stewards, the incident today was in the mid-range of carelessness and submitted that an appropriate penalty was one of 5 -6 days suspension.
Mr Waddell said that it probably wasn’t the best record and not up to his normal standards where, prior to his spell away from riding, he hadn’t incurred a careless riding charge for a year. He believed that this breach was in the low range and could not be compared to his other recent charges because they had been in Group races. He believed that 4 days was more appropriate.
Mr Waddell was asked about his upcoming riding commitments and there was some confusion about these, however the committee was finally advised that his only commitment was for Counties races on Wednesday. The committee was aware that Mr Waddell had a plane to catch from Wellington and at this point, was concerned that he would not make it in time, so it was suggested to Mr Waddell (by the Chairman) that he leave immediately to catch his plane and we would ask the Stewards to notify him of the penalty by phone. Mr Waddell agreed to this.
Reasons for Penalty:
In coming to a decision on penalty, the committee considered all of the submissions. We adopted as a starting point, a suspension of 5 days. We took into account Mr Waddell’s record, which we considered was quite good (considering the number of rides that he has had since August 2011), however we did not believe it warranted a reduction in penalty. We also took into account the severity of the interference. Three horses were affected, with Ms Kelly Myers losing two lengths in the incident and OUR JACKPOT receiving buffeting up against the rail. With the horses already racing in tight quarters prior to the interference, safety had to be considered. In our opinion it was certainly not less than a mid-range offence. We also considered the racing manners of COSTELLO.
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: be70a0c04bfbc08370d07cbaf21fe97f
informantnumber: 3006
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 23/11/2011
hearing_title: Levin RC 25 November 2011 - R 6
charge:
Following the running of Race 6, the Harcourt Real Estate Premier, an information was lodged by Mr J Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1) (d). The information alleged that J Waddell (COSTELLO) allowed his mount to shift in near the 1100m dictating MERINDA (R Myers) inward into the line of STELLA BELLA (K Myers) which was checked with OUR JACKPOT (J Collett) also being crowded.
facts:
Mr Goodwin paused the head-on film at a point prior to the alleged incident, to identify all the runners involved. He showed how they were racing in tight quarters but free from any pressure or interference. Mr J Collett (OUR JACKPOT) was closest to the fence with STELLA BELLA (K Myers) to his outside and MERINDA (R Myers) outside of her. Mr Riddell (ICESKATES) was making an inward move in front of this group of horses.
Allowing the film to play, Mr Goodwin showed Mr Waddell coming across from wider out on the track when not clear of Ms R Myers, putting pressure on her mount and forcing her inwards onto Ms K Myers, who lost ground. Mr Collett’s mount OUR JACKPOT was crowded up on the fence. Mr Waddell questioned Mr Goodwin as to the movement of Mr Riddell’s mount. Mr Goodwin conceded there was some movement from him but said that it had no bearing on the interference as described.
Mr Oatham called Ms Kelly Myers as his first witness and asked her to explain what had happened. She said that she could see what was going to happen with the outside horses coming across and perhaps she could have pulled back earlier but she was entitled to be where she was. She was forced to check backwards when Ms R Myers crossed in front of her when only ¾ length clear. Mr Waddell asked her if the pace of the race had slackened, which may have contributed to Ms Rosie Myers being pushed into her line. Ms Kelly Myers said it was possible but she wasn’t sure. Mr Waddell then asked Ms Kelly Myers if, in hindsight, she should have pulled her mount back earlier. Ms Kelly Myers reiterated that she was entitled to be where she was, but maybe she should have.
Mr Oatham next called Ms Rosie Myers to explain her involvement in the incident. She told the committee that she was racing in tight quarters and her horse MERINDA may have been racing a bit erratically. Her movement inwards onto Ms Kelly Myers was the result of pressure coming from Mr Waddell on her outside. He was only a length in front of her and she had no option but to shift inwards. Mr Waddell asked Ms Rosie Myers if Mr Riddell had contributed to the tightening when he crossed prior to the interference. She said that he may have “added to the equation” however he was always the required distance clear and did not cause it. Ms Rosie Myers agreed with Mr Waddell that the pace of the race may have slackened when Mr Riddell came across.
Mr Waddell put his case to the committee. In essence he said that there were contributing factors to the interference. His horse was a colt racing in full-cup blinkers and he had been on one rein for much of the race. He showed the committee the head-on film of the final stages of the race to support his assertion that his horse tended to hang inwards. He said that he had done everything he could to keep it straight. Secondly, he said that the pace slackened with Mr Riddell moving back onto Ms Rosie Myers, giving her no room. He said that although Ms Kelly Myers was entitled to her position, she could have eased back earlier and all of these factors contributed to the incident. He did not believe that he could be held responsible.
Mr Oatham summed up by saying that Mr Riddell was always clear when he moved forward and his movement had no bearing on the interference. He said that Mr Waddell moved from a 4-wide position to a 2 wide position, putting pressure on Ms Rosie Myers. If she had been able to maintain her position, there would not have been a problem. He admitted that Mr Waddell may have turned his horse’s head out to straighten it but did not make a sufficient effort to do so.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
See above.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee had careful regard to all of the submissions put before it by both the Stewards and Mr Waddell. Having considered the films at length, it was our view that Mr Waddell moved from a 4 wide position to a 3 wide position and it was this movement which resulted in the crowding to Ms Rosie Myers. She in turn shifted down onto Ms Kelly Myers, who ran out of racing room and was checked.
Ms Kelly Myers said that she lost ground when Ms Rosie Myers crossed in front of her when only ¾ length clear, and Ms Rosie Myers was quite clear in her evidence that the pressure came from Mr Waddell. Mr Waddell said the change in pace of the race contributed to the incident and whilst both witnesses said there may have been a slackening of the pace, neither of them attributed that directly to the interference. Mr Waddell claimed that his mount was hanging inwards both prior to, and at the time of the interference. Whilst this may have been the case, we did not believe that Mr Waddell took sufficient action to protect the runners and riders to his inside. He is an experienced rider and the films did not convince us that he was doing everything possible to keep his mount on a straight line. Finally we did not agree that Mr Riddell had any influence on the interference.
Decision:
The committee accordingly found the charge of careless riding proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham said that Mr Waddell had been back riding from a spell since mid way through August 2011 and that he had received two 5 day suspensions since that time. He said that he was a busy and sought after rider. In the opinion of the Stewards, the incident today was in the mid-range of carelessness and submitted that an appropriate penalty was one of 5 -6 days suspension.
Mr Waddell said that it probably wasn’t the best record and not up to his normal standards where, prior to his spell away from riding, he hadn’t incurred a careless riding charge for a year. He believed that this breach was in the low range and could not be compared to his other recent charges because they had been in Group races. He believed that 4 days was more appropriate.
Mr Waddell was asked about his upcoming riding commitments and there was some confusion about these, however the committee was finally advised that his only commitment was for Counties races on Wednesday. The committee was aware that Mr Waddell had a plane to catch from Wellington and at this point, was concerned that he would not make it in time, so it was suggested to Mr Waddell (by the Chairman) that he leave immediately to catch his plane and we would ask the Stewards to notify him of the penalty by phone. Mr Waddell agreed to this.
reasonsforpenalty:
In coming to a decision on penalty, the committee considered all of the submissions. We adopted as a starting point, a suspension of 5 days. We took into account Mr Waddell’s record, which we considered was quite good (considering the number of rides that he has had since August 2011), however we did not believe it warranted a reduction in penalty. We also took into account the severity of the interference. Three horses were affected, with Ms Kelly Myers losing two lengths in the incident and OUR JACKPOT receiving buffeting up against the rail. With the horses already racing in tight quarters prior to the interference, safety had to be considered. In our opinion it was certainly not less than a mid-range offence. We also considered the racing manners of COSTELLO.
penalty:
Taking into account all of these factors, Mr Waddell was suspended from the close of racing on Wednesday November 30th up to and including racing on Wednesday December 7th – in effect 5 days.
(30 minutes later the Committee was told that Mr Waddell’s riding agent had contacted the Stewards to advise that Mr Waddell did in fact have commitments at Rotorua on Thursday, therefore the suspension was amended to start from the close of racing on Thursday December 1st up to and including racing on Thursday December 8th.)
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr J Waddell - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: bfb7edcbd51df44544d8d58992c4fd64
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 0982e118efd85300803ed7d5635a2bdd
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 25/11/2011
meet_title: Levin RC - 25 November 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: levin-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: NMcCutcheon
meet_pm2: none
name: Levin RC