Appeal – DG Bradley 6Aug08

hearingid: 75d3c5dc5a32423e77510e1d195fa90d

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Appeal - DG Bradley 6Aug08

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

[1]     After Race 10 at the meeting of Oamaru Jockey Club at Oamaru Racecourse on Sunday, 27 July 2008, Mr D G Bradley, as the rider of RHYTHM KING in the Race, was charged with and found guilty by the Judicial Committee of careless riding in allowing his mount to shift outwards causing HILL TO HILL to check near the 1200 metres.

DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL

__________________________

[1]     After Race 10 at the meeting of Oamaru Jockey Club at Oamaru Racecourse on Sunday, 27 July 2008, Mr D G Bradley, as the rider of RHYTHM KING in the Race, was charged with and found guilty by the Judicial Committee of careless riding in allowing his mount to shift outwards causing HILL TO HILL to check near the 1200 metres.

[2]     Mr Bradley has appealed against the finding of the Judicial Committee. The grounds of his appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are “I believe I am not guilty of the charges”.

[3]     There was no transcript available of the hearing before the Judicial Committee and, therefore, the appeal proceeded by way of a hearing de novo. The raceday procedure whereby the Stipendiary Stewards presented their case first was followed.

[4]     Mr Ching began by having Mr M R Davidson, Stipendiary Steward, show head-on and side-on video replays of the incident out of which the charge of careless riding arose.

[5]     Mr Davidson pointed out Mr Bradley’s mount, Ms Williams’ mount HILL TO HILL outside it and NEVER PLEAD GUILTY (C I Anderson) outside that runner. He pointed out Mr Bradley’s mount, some 200 metres after the start, commence an outward movement forcing Miss Williams to check her mount out of the gap, he alleged.

[5]     Ms Williams stated that she initially thought that the movement had come from the outside horse, NEVER PLEAD GUILTY, but after having seen the videos she realised that it did come from the inside, she said. She said that it got “tighter and tighter” but the pressure was not relieved and she had to check out of her position. She said that, at the time, she was approximately ¾ length behind Mr Bradley.

[6]     Cross-examined by Mr Bradley, Ms Williams said that the pressure happened so quickly that she thought it was from Ms Anderson on her outside and she yelled at Ms Anderson to give her room. Contact with Ms Anderson’s mount was made, Ms Williams said. Further under cross-examination, Ms Williams said that she wished to ride her mount in behind the pace. Her mount did not begin to race fiercely until the pressure came.

[7]     Ms Anderson said that, 200 metres after the start, she was maintaining a straight line and heard calling from Ms Williams on her inner. ELLIMAE, ridden by apprentice jockey N P Minty and which had crossed over in front of the field was clear of her, she said. She was not aware of what had gone on on her inside.

[8]     Mr Bradley referred to the video replays. He stated that horses had jumped awkwardly from the gates and there was some movement. He maintained a true line on his mount from barrier 4.

[9]     Mr Bradley pointed out HILL TO HILL, ridden by Ms Williams, and submitted that it was pulling. He also referred to Ms Williams’ evidence that she wanted to ride her mount further back, not forward. HILL TO HILL moved out and made contact with Ms Anderson’s mount – its head was on the side but Ms Williams continued to pull it back. Her mount was fighting for its head and overracing – she had pulled back out of a gap, Mr Bradley said.

[10]   Mr Bradley submitted that the vital factor in the Race was ELLIMAE, ridden by N P Minty, which came across sharply from the outside. Mr Bradley admitted that his mount had “moved out a fraction”. He saw Mr Minty moving across the field very sharply and, instead of getting dragged in by Mr Minty, it was very easy to take a hold of his mount, take it outwards fractionally and let Mr Minty cross.

[11]   It was a quick movement to avoid interference. Ms Williams had received “a little squeeze” but was pulling out of the gap – she was not checked because she was pulling back.

[12]   Mr Ching was asked by the Chairman about the contribution of Mr Minty to the incident. He said that, in his view, Mr Minty had been clear of Ms Anderson when he crossed her mount but may not have been clear, as required by the Rules, by the time he got to Mr Bradley. Mr Ching said that it was Mr Bradley’s evasive action that was questionable as he had elected to move out and take Ms Williams’ line rather than be dictated in by Mr Minty.

[13]   In response to that, Mr Bradley stated that he had shifted a very minimal amount, barely one horse-width which Mr Ching acknowledged, before moving back in when Mr Minty was clear. His mount was on the bit and travelling keenly. Ms Williams was checking back, he submitted, and her horse was overracing.

[14]   In summary, Mr Bradley said that one rider could not be blamed for all of the movement that took place. If Mr Minty had not come across as he did, Mr Bradley said that he would have kept a straight line.

[15]   In the Tribunal’s view, the significant points are as follows:

15.1     Ms Williams was asked under cross-examination why she initially thought that the movement was from her outside. She answered that she received contact from both horses (RHTYHM KING and NEVER PLEAD GUILTY) at the same time.

15.2     Mr Bradley stated, and the video appeared to confirm, that Ms Williams’ mount was racing keenly and was eased back by her rather than checked back.

15.3     Mr Minty’s movement across the field was a sharp one and Mr Bradley’s evidence was that at the time Mr Minty’s mount crossed it was not its own and another length clear.

15.4     The Tribunal accepts Mr Bradley’s evidence that he was taking evasive action to avoid the heels of Mr Minty’s mount when it crossed. Mr Ching accepted that Mr Minty’s mount may not have been fully clear but he did not believe that Mr Bradley’s evasive action was the correct action. However, Mr Bradley’s actions were reasonable in the Tribunal’s view.

15.5     Mr Bradley’s mount was racing keenly and its movement was minimal, acknowledged by Mr Ching to be no more than one horse-width. The effects of that outward movement on Ms Williams’ mount must be looked at in the light of our finding that her mount and Mr Bradley’s were both racing keenly.

[16]   Weighing up all of these factors, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion (different from the Judicial Committee) that it is not satisfied that Mr Bradley fell short of the standard of a reasonable and prudent rider. We are not satisfied on a balance of probabilities, which must carry a reasonable degree of probability, having regard to the other factors we have mentioned and, in particular, the contribution to the incident of ELLIMAE, ridden by Mr Minty.

[17]   Accordingly, Mr Bradley’s appeal is upheld, the decision of the raceday Judicial Committee is set aside and the penalty imposed by the Judicial Committee is quashed.

[18]   It is ordered that Mr Bradley’s appeal deposit be refunded.

[19]   There will be no order as to costs.

R G McKenzie

CHAIRMAN

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: