Pakuranga HC 26 August 2017 – R 6 – Chair, Mr T Utikere
ID: JCA17419
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Pakuranga HC - 26 August 2017
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2017/08/26
Race Number:
R6
Decision:
As the charge was admitted, the Committee deemed the charge proved.
Penalty:
Mr Phelan is suspended from the close of racing on 26 August until the close of racing on 17 September. This incorporates the Te Aroha (3rd), Auckland (9th) and Rotorua (17th) meetings.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 6 (HARRISON LANE HURDLE), Information A10003 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) and stated that: "Near the 3000 metres S Phelan (MONARCH CHIMES) allowed his mount to shift in when not sufficiently clear of TOP CHOICE which was checked, going back onto HESALLJAZZ which was hampered."
Rule 638(1)(d) states: "A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be...careless".
Mr Phelan confirmed that he understood the rule and that he admitted the breach.
Using the available head-on, side-on and rear Hill Tower films, Mr Coles identified MONARCH CHIMES after jumping the fence near the 3000 metres. Positioned closest to the running rail was TOP CHOICE, with HESALLJAZZ racing behind that runner. Mr Phelan allowed his mount to shift inwards causing crowding and a check to TOP CHOICE, which Mr Coles alleged had made contact with the running rail, and had dropped back onto HESALLJAZZ which had been hampered as a result. Mr Coles indicated that MONARCH CHIMES had been no more than half a length clear when moving closer to the rail.
Mr Phelan advised the Committee that he had jumped the first two fences and planned to come across and trail THATZ DAVID, who was racing in third position, but in doing so he explained that MONARCH CHIMES had "overdone it" so Mr Phelan had pulled his horse off, but that it had continued to lay in sharply. He said this was the horse's third run in a hurdle race and had been green. Mr Phelan agreed that he had caused interference to two runners but that TOP CHOICE was wearing blinkers for the first time in a hurdle race. Mr Phelan also said that TOP CHOICE had a three kilogram claim rider who had ridden one winner in his career to date and that such a rider would not usually be riding in a Prestige Jumping race.
Submissions for Penalty:
In presenting Mr Phelans's record, Mr Oatham confirmed that he had a clear record under this rule for the preceding 12 month period and that he had also admitted the breach at the earliest opportunity. In aggravation Mr Oatham submitted that Mr Phelan was only half a length clear when his mount shifted ground, and that significant interference was caused to both TOP CHOICE and HESALLJAZZ. He also submitted that the level of carelessness sat well beyond the mid-range and was closer to the high-range. Mr Oatham also invited the Committee to consider the status of the race, specifically that it was a Prestige Jumping race.
Mr Phelan stated that as a jumps jockey he had limited riding opportunities, and that today's race was a lead up for the Great Northern on 9 September where it was his intention to ride MONARCH CHIMES, and also UPPER CUT which he had won the Grand National aboard. He also indicated that there were only five upcoming meetings remaining in the jumping season, and informed the committee that he would usually have a Highweight ride mid-week; but that there was only one meeting he would ride at within the next two week period. He also asked for the severity of the incident to be taken into consideration and sought a one day suspension alongside the imposition of a fine.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Phelan confirmed his position that he agreed that the carelessness sat at the mid-range and admitted that he had made an error when crossing when not the required distance clear. He also advised that there were no upcoming commitments within the next seven days so any suspension could commence immediately.
Mr Oatham advised the Committee that the position of the RIU was to generally oppose the imposition of a fine alongside a suspension, except where a rider had benefited from their actions, where in that case the addition of a fine, rather than a fine as a substitute was considered appropriate. He submitted that the RIU were not unsympathetic to the plight of jumps riders as they had limited riding opportunities, and that it was unfortunate for Mr Phelan that major races had fallen so closely together. While he had some sympathy, he also reminded the Committee that Mr Phelan had put himself into this position because of his careless riding.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Judicial Committee considered all of the submissions placed before it and had the opportunity to review the available films. It is clear from the films that soon after clearing the fence near the 3000 metres, Mr Phelan angled his mount towards the running rail abruptly and shifted in four horse widths. The side-on film clearly established that he was only half a length clear when doing so, causing a relatively severe check to TOP CHOICE, which had lost two lengths as a result. As a consequence, TOP CHOICE came back on to, and hampered, HESALLJAZZ. The Committee is not persuaded by Mr Phelan's contention that the rider of TOP CHOICE, being a three kilogram claimer who had limited experience, has some significance to this breach. Regardless of his ability or claim, Mr Seivwright was entitled to be where he was, and the obligation was on Mr Phelan to be the required distance clear when shifting ground. In the context of this breach, the Committee also notes that Mr Phelan concurs with the RIU that the level of carelessness was "definitely mid-range". Upon review of this incident, we place the level of carelessness to be just above the mid-range.
We believe a period of suspension is appropriate, and have adopted a starting point of a three day period of suspension. This starting point is in recognition of the limited opportunities for jumps riders and is a reduction from the conventional starting point of five days as identified in the Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees. In mitigation we have considered Mr Phelan's admission of the breach, albeit it inevitable given the compelling video evidence, and his clear record under the rule. For these collective factors we afford Mr Phelan a reduction of one day.
In aggravation we have considered that the carelessness sits above the mid-range; that there were two horses affected to differing degrees and also the status of the race and associated stakes that were payable as per Rule 920(2). We also note that Mr Oatham and the Racebook indicated that it was a 'Prestige Jumping Race', whereas the NZTR Monthly Calendar classifies it as a 'Feature Jumping Race'. Either way, it is still a race of elevated status. When considering all aggravating factors we apply an uplift of two days.
The end result would be a four day period of suspension. However, when taking into account upcoming race meetings, we note that Mr Phelan will be suspended for the Premier 2 Meeting at Ellerslie on 9 September. Therefore we consider a total suspension of three days as appropriate.
We have also considered Mr Phelan's submission for a one day suspension alongside a fine. Our expectation is that Judicial Committees no longer substitute a fine for the last day of a suspension where that day will be a Premier or Iconic day. On this occasion the Premier day will fall on the second day of Mr Phelan's suspension period. In any event, when considering the context of this specific breach, the imposition of his submitted penalty would be completely inappropriate.
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: e1389e78a2182958266944f0ac5ad0be
informantnumber: A10003
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 27/08/2017
hearing_title: Pakuranga HC 26 August 2017 - R 6 - Chair, Mr T Utikere
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 6 (HARRISON LANE HURDLE), Information A10003 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) and stated that: "Near the 3000 metres S Phelan (MONARCH CHIMES) allowed his mount to shift in when not sufficiently clear of TOP CHOICE which was checked, going back onto HESALLJAZZ which was hampered."
Rule 638(1)(d) states: "A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be...careless".
Mr Phelan confirmed that he understood the rule and that he admitted the breach.
Using the available head-on, side-on and rear Hill Tower films, Mr Coles identified MONARCH CHIMES after jumping the fence near the 3000 metres. Positioned closest to the running rail was TOP CHOICE, with HESALLJAZZ racing behind that runner. Mr Phelan allowed his mount to shift inwards causing crowding and a check to TOP CHOICE, which Mr Coles alleged had made contact with the running rail, and had dropped back onto HESALLJAZZ which had been hampered as a result. Mr Coles indicated that MONARCH CHIMES had been no more than half a length clear when moving closer to the rail.
Mr Phelan advised the Committee that he had jumped the first two fences and planned to come across and trail THATZ DAVID, who was racing in third position, but in doing so he explained that MONARCH CHIMES had "overdone it" so Mr Phelan had pulled his horse off, but that it had continued to lay in sharply. He said this was the horse's third run in a hurdle race and had been green. Mr Phelan agreed that he had caused interference to two runners but that TOP CHOICE was wearing blinkers for the first time in a hurdle race. Mr Phelan also said that TOP CHOICE had a three kilogram claim rider who had ridden one winner in his career to date and that such a rider would not usually be riding in a Prestige Jumping race.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
As the charge was admitted, the Committee deemed the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
In presenting Mr Phelans's record, Mr Oatham confirmed that he had a clear record under this rule for the preceding 12 month period and that he had also admitted the breach at the earliest opportunity. In aggravation Mr Oatham submitted that Mr Phelan was only half a length clear when his mount shifted ground, and that significant interference was caused to both TOP CHOICE and HESALLJAZZ. He also submitted that the level of carelessness sat well beyond the mid-range and was closer to the high-range. Mr Oatham also invited the Committee to consider the status of the race, specifically that it was a Prestige Jumping race.
Mr Phelan stated that as a jumps jockey he had limited riding opportunities, and that today's race was a lead up for the Great Northern on 9 September where it was his intention to ride MONARCH CHIMES, and also UPPER CUT which he had won the Grand National aboard. He also indicated that there were only five upcoming meetings remaining in the jumping season, and informed the committee that he would usually have a Highweight ride mid-week; but that there was only one meeting he would ride at within the next two week period. He also asked for the severity of the incident to be taken into consideration and sought a one day suspension alongside the imposition of a fine.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Phelan confirmed his position that he agreed that the carelessness sat at the mid-range and admitted that he had made an error when crossing when not the required distance clear. He also advised that there were no upcoming commitments within the next seven days so any suspension could commence immediately.
Mr Oatham advised the Committee that the position of the RIU was to generally oppose the imposition of a fine alongside a suspension, except where a rider had benefited from their actions, where in that case the addition of a fine, rather than a fine as a substitute was considered appropriate. He submitted that the RIU were not unsympathetic to the plight of jumps riders as they had limited riding opportunities, and that it was unfortunate for Mr Phelan that major races had fallen so closely together. While he had some sympathy, he also reminded the Committee that Mr Phelan had put himself into this position because of his careless riding.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Judicial Committee considered all of the submissions placed before it and had the opportunity to review the available films. It is clear from the films that soon after clearing the fence near the 3000 metres, Mr Phelan angled his mount towards the running rail abruptly and shifted in four horse widths. The side-on film clearly established that he was only half a length clear when doing so, causing a relatively severe check to TOP CHOICE, which had lost two lengths as a result. As a consequence, TOP CHOICE came back on to, and hampered, HESALLJAZZ. The Committee is not persuaded by Mr Phelan's contention that the rider of TOP CHOICE, being a three kilogram claimer who had limited experience, has some significance to this breach. Regardless of his ability or claim, Mr Seivwright was entitled to be where he was, and the obligation was on Mr Phelan to be the required distance clear when shifting ground. In the context of this breach, the Committee also notes that Mr Phelan concurs with the RIU that the level of carelessness was "definitely mid-range". Upon review of this incident, we place the level of carelessness to be just above the mid-range.
We believe a period of suspension is appropriate, and have adopted a starting point of a three day period of suspension. This starting point is in recognition of the limited opportunities for jumps riders and is a reduction from the conventional starting point of five days as identified in the Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees. In mitigation we have considered Mr Phelan's admission of the breach, albeit it inevitable given the compelling video evidence, and his clear record under the rule. For these collective factors we afford Mr Phelan a reduction of one day.
In aggravation we have considered that the carelessness sits above the mid-range; that there were two horses affected to differing degrees and also the status of the race and associated stakes that were payable as per Rule 920(2). We also note that Mr Oatham and the Racebook indicated that it was a 'Prestige Jumping Race', whereas the NZTR Monthly Calendar classifies it as a 'Feature Jumping Race'. Either way, it is still a race of elevated status. When considering all aggravating factors we apply an uplift of two days.
The end result would be a four day period of suspension. However, when taking into account upcoming race meetings, we note that Mr Phelan will be suspended for the Premier 2 Meeting at Ellerslie on 9 September. Therefore we consider a total suspension of three days as appropriate.
We have also considered Mr Phelan's submission for a one day suspension alongside a fine. Our expectation is that Judicial Committees no longer substitute a fine for the last day of a suspension where that day will be a Premier or Iconic day. On this occasion the Premier day will fall on the second day of Mr Phelan's suspension period. In any event, when considering the context of this specific breach, the imposition of his submitted penalty would be completely inappropriate.
penalty:
Mr Phelan is suspended from the close of racing on 26 August until the close of racing on 17 September. This incorporates the Te Aroha (3rd), Auckland (9th) and Rotorua (17th) meetings.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr S Phelan - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: c899804c5d0a385adfdabf2a082898b4
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: ef501bb5a06b121d96fea8aab1a6b021
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/08/2017
meet_title: Pakuranga HC - 26 August 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: pakuranga-hc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Pakuranga HC