Egmont RC 1 July 2011 – R 1
ID: JCA18083
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Egmont RC - 1 July 2011
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
ISmith
Race Date:
2011/07/01
Race Number:
R 1
Decision:
As Mr Riddell admitted the breach the charge was found to be proved.
Penalty:
Taking in to account all of these factors a monetary penalty of $200.00 was imposed.
Charge:
Following Race 1 an information was lodged with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 610(4) in that J Riddell presented himself to ride with a modified body protector.
Facts:
Mr Neal told the committee that over the past few weeks the stewards had been active in looking at riders who were not complying with the body protector rules.
He explained that he had spoken to riders at the Foxton race meeting on Queen’s Birthday Monday warning them that the Stewards would be checking for ‘absolute compliance’ of safety vests.
In addition a notice was recently placed on the NZTR website. This is as follows:
Safety Vest and Helmets
All participants are reminded that safety apparel must be of the approved type and standards. Stipendiary Stewards will be proactively carrying out inspections in the coming months. Charges will be issued in the first instance so ensure your safety apparel meets the requirements.
A check of all riders’ vests was done today and Mr Riddell’s vest, which was of an approved Race Safe type, was found to have had the bottom back row of pads removed. Mr Riddell freely admitted that he was responsible for removing the pads and sewing the flap up. He told the committee that he did so for comfort reasons as the vest tended to ride up jockeys’ backs. In response to a question from the committee Mr Riddell confirmed that he had been at Foxton when the riders were spoken to about compliance of safety vests.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Neal emphasised to the committee the Stewards’ opinion that Mr Riddell’s modification to his vest was of a minor nature and that his situation was not unique. He said it did not compromise safety, there was no intention to deceive and the Stewards viewed it simply an issue of non-compliance. Mr Riddell had no previous breaches of the rule.
In relation to other breaches Mr Neal informed the committee of 3 separate charges last year where riders were all fined $500 for modification of safety vests. He said that in all of those situations strategic panels had been removed from the shoulder and torso area and the incidents were, in his opinion, more serious than Mr Riddell’s charge as they had significantly compromised safety. Mr Neal’s submission was for a fine of $100.00.
Mr Riddell told the committee that he had already ordered a replacement vest and explained that he had ordered a smaller size as the one he modified may have ridden up and been uncomfortable due to it being too big.
Reasons for Penalty:
The committee took into account all of the submissions which were thoroughly presented by both parties. We also had the opportunity to inspect the vest and the modifications made to it.
We were informed of three previous offences under Rule 610(4) which all incurred fines of $500.00.
It was our opinion that mitigating factors in this instance were Mr Riddell’s full and frank admission of the breach, no previous breaches of the rule and, in particular, the degree of modification made to his vest. He removed the bottom back panels only which would indicate that it was for comfort reasons. The rest of the vest was found to be in excellent condition. Also in Mr Riddell’s favour was the fact that he had already ordered a replacement.
Aggravating features were the very recent warnings for compliance from the Stewards which Mr Riddell did not heed and the fact that by removing panels, for whatever reason, automatically made the vest non-compliant which could lead to a variety of safety issues.
In the absence of this rule being covered by the Penalty Guide the committee had to assess where this offence should lie. It was our opinion that the offending was at the lower end however the penalty should sit above those on the minor infringement list.
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: ec28b12eee7f38ec51f1e542f9b69a87
informantnumber: 5310
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 23/06/2011
hearing_title: Egmont RC 1 July 2011 - R 1
charge:
Following Race 1 an information was lodged with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 610(4) in that J Riddell presented himself to ride with a modified body protector.
facts:
Mr Neal told the committee that over the past few weeks the stewards had been active in looking at riders who were not complying with the body protector rules.
He explained that he had spoken to riders at the Foxton race meeting on Queen’s Birthday Monday warning them that the Stewards would be checking for ‘absolute compliance’ of safety vests.
In addition a notice was recently placed on the NZTR website. This is as follows:
Safety Vest and Helmets
All participants are reminded that safety apparel must be of the approved type and standards. Stipendiary Stewards will be proactively carrying out inspections in the coming months. Charges will be issued in the first instance so ensure your safety apparel meets the requirements.
A check of all riders’ vests was done today and Mr Riddell’s vest, which was of an approved Race Safe type, was found to have had the bottom back row of pads removed. Mr Riddell freely admitted that he was responsible for removing the pads and sewing the flap up. He told the committee that he did so for comfort reasons as the vest tended to ride up jockeys’ backs. In response to a question from the committee Mr Riddell confirmed that he had been at Foxton when the riders were spoken to about compliance of safety vests.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
As Mr Riddell admitted the breach the charge was found to be proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Neal emphasised to the committee the Stewards’ opinion that Mr Riddell’s modification to his vest was of a minor nature and that his situation was not unique. He said it did not compromise safety, there was no intention to deceive and the Stewards viewed it simply an issue of non-compliance. Mr Riddell had no previous breaches of the rule.
In relation to other breaches Mr Neal informed the committee of 3 separate charges last year where riders were all fined $500 for modification of safety vests. He said that in all of those situations strategic panels had been removed from the shoulder and torso area and the incidents were, in his opinion, more serious than Mr Riddell’s charge as they had significantly compromised safety. Mr Neal’s submission was for a fine of $100.00.
Mr Riddell told the committee that he had already ordered a replacement vest and explained that he had ordered a smaller size as the one he modified may have ridden up and been uncomfortable due to it being too big.
reasonsforpenalty:
The committee took into account all of the submissions which were thoroughly presented by both parties. We also had the opportunity to inspect the vest and the modifications made to it.
We were informed of three previous offences under Rule 610(4) which all incurred fines of $500.00.
It was our opinion that mitigating factors in this instance were Mr Riddell’s full and frank admission of the breach, no previous breaches of the rule and, in particular, the degree of modification made to his vest. He removed the bottom back panels only which would indicate that it was for comfort reasons. The rest of the vest was found to be in excellent condition. Also in Mr Riddell’s favour was the fact that he had already ordered a replacement.
Aggravating features were the very recent warnings for compliance from the Stewards which Mr Riddell did not heed and the fact that by removing panels, for whatever reason, automatically made the vest non-compliant which could lead to a variety of safety issues.
In the absence of this rule being covered by the Penalty Guide the committee had to assess where this offence should lie. It was our opinion that the offending was at the lower end however the penalty should sit above those on the minor infringement list.
penalty:
Taking in to account all of these factors a monetary penalty of $200.00 was imposed.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 610(4)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr J Riddell - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mr R Neal - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 233138524ee3f9e95de53caad11cab64
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 940fabc1a8c8ca1ae338249af25eb8b0
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/07/2011
meet_title: Egmont RC - 1 July 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: egmont-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: ISmith
meet_pm2: none
name: Egmont RC