Auckland RC – 1 January 2005 – Race 10

hearingid: 95827fb64ada03d9df0eb18f90eb4be9

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2005

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Auckland RC - 1 January 2005 - Race 10

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

This information alleged a breach of Rule 871(1)(b) for reckless riding by jockey, M.J. Walker

This information alleged a breach of Rule 871(1)(b) for reckless riding by jockey, M.J. Walker in that approximately 300 metres from the finish in The Railway Handicap GEE I JANE (M Walker) intentionally angled out when insufficiently clear severely checking BOIS (A Peard) and also DEVOTED (M Du Plessis). The breach was not admitted.

Mr. Peard confirmed that he had moved from outside DOUBLE AR BEE (R Norvall) approaching the 300 metres and had suffered interference pushing him out on to Mr. Du Plessis. Mr. Walker came out sharply making contact with him as he was racing head to head with Mr. Du Plessis as the field straightened for the run home. He described it as firm contact and when asked by Mr. McCutcheon to assess the degree of interference on a scale from one to ten it was, he supposed, seven out of ten. There had been no fall but both he and Mr. Du Plessis had been holding their ground and the interference had been no help to his chances. Questioned by Mr Walker, who suggested he was only battling at the time, he agreed that he would not have been in the first five but was definitely holding his ground before the interference. He had no prior warning as it all happened quickly. He did not notice if Mr. Walker had been trying to straighten but he agreed with him that his horse could have been over reacting.

Mr. Du Plessis stated that as he came into the straight he was stopped dead from Mr. Walker's horse coming out. The contact itself came from Mr. Peard. Questioned by Mr. Walker he confirmed that he knew GEE I JANE from his own involvement with it and agreed that it could over react. The whole thing had happened quick, very quick and was all over in one stride. He agreed that it could be described as a ducking out or it had shied out. Re questioned by Mr. McCutcheon as to whether he based this view from his observation during the race he said "not really" it was based on his subsequent viewing of the video.

Stipendiary Steward A. Coles demonstrated the incident on video. After identifying the runners he pointed out the sharp outward movement by Mr. Walker as he turned the head out of GEE I JANE and then had intentionally ridden outwards as he sought room to improve being blocked for a run where he was originally. At no stage had he stopped riding and kept pushing forward without any attempt to stop until contact was made. That contact made with BOIS had turned it sideways. The incident was demonstrated on the head on, rear and side on videos. Questioned by Mr. Walker as to whether he could see on the video his attempt to pull the horse before contact was made or steer it clear Mr. Coles said it seemed to him that he had pulled its head initially to angle out and then he appeared to him to just keep riding it.

Mr. Walker asked Mr. N. Couchman, the trainer of GEE I JANE to comment on the incident and his knowledge of the horse. He said that it could be wayward at times. It had only a short career to date this being only its seventh start today. It was definitely immature with a lot still to learn and had tried to run off towards the rails when racing at Avondale in the Concorde. He believed the video confirmed it was looking to get out and in the clear and just ducked out despite attempts to correct by Mr. Walker. Looking at the video it was possible to see this with Mr. Walker applying right hand pressure to correct with his right elbow extended and he was sure there was no intent on Mr. Walker's part to cause the interference it was more an over reaction from GEE I JANE. Any blame should be on the horse itself rather than on Mr. Walker. It was all very similar to the way the horse had run at Avondale with the horse trying to get to the outside of the track. Questioned by Mr. McCutcheon he agreed that initially Mr. Walker had angled out and it was subsequent to this initial movement that the interference had occurred.

Mr. Walker stated that he had ridden GEE I JANE at Avondale where he had been one off the fence to be successful in the Concorde without causing any interference. Today he had been further off the fence and it had a tendency to lug out. Turning for home he agreed he had pulled its head to get outside DOUBLE AR BEE and get more room. He denied any reckless intent on his part and he denied he was riding it out or angling to push other runners out of the way. The horse had over reacted on him and while Mr. Coles had a different opinion it was not his style of riding and he believed his record confirmed this.

Summing up Mr. McCutcheon said that for a breach involving reckless riding the question of intent had to be proved to the Committee's satisfaction. There had to be more than just a lack of care. Reckless, in terms of the rule, meant something rash on the part of the person facing the charge. It was for the Committee to determine whether the evidence before it established this and it had to weigh up what had been said by Mr. Walker and by Mr Couchman in regard to the horse and its history. It was also open to the Committee to reduce the charge if it felt the test for a reckless riding charge had not been met. In that respect, he submitted, the interference in this matter had been very severe and the videos made this clear. Mr. McCutcheon said he believed there was no doubt that initially it was Mr. Walker's action in angling out that started the matter not anything on the part of the horse. The film also confirms that he has not taken corrective action until after the pile up had occurred by which time it was too late. The evidence involving his right arm actions did not help. At the angle he chose he had to be the cause of the interference which followed.

Mr. Walker in summing up insisted that he was not a rider who rode recklessly although he agreed he had made the initial movement out. It was never his intention for the resulting interference to occur and the action or over reaction of GEE I JANE had to be taken into account. He believed this had been well verified by the evidence of Mr. Couchman and of the other jockeys themselves.

The Committee took into consideration all these matters and it is satisfied that there is a higher standard of proof necessary for a charge of reckless riding such as this, which is a serious charge. The stewards have relied on the videos and their interpretation of them to suggest that there is sufficient evidence. Mr. Walker on the other hand has strenuously denied any intent on his part and placed his interpretation on the videos to support his view. In addition he has been able to have Mr. Couchman confirm the immaturity and wayward tendencies of GEE I JANE all of which being known, the Committee has been told, by Mr. Walker and to some extent by Mr. Du Plessis who has previously ridden the horse.

On balance the Committee after considering all of this was not satisfied that the required standard of proof had been met. On the other hand it believed there had been sufficient evidence of culpability to justify a lesser charge and therefore, before giving its decision, ordered amendment of the information to allege a breach of Rule 871 (1) (d) for careless riding instead of Rule 871 (1) (b) in accordance with its powers under Rule 1115 (4). Mr. Walker was then asked in accordance with Rule 1115 (6) (a) if he wished to admit the breach as amended on the information and he indicated that he did.

Mr. McCutcheon informed the Committee that Mr.Walker had been riding in Australia and he had no details of any breaches in that time but prior to that he had been suspended in New Zealand for three weeks on 8 March 2004, for four days on 6 March 2004 and for three days on 5 January 2005. Although he accepted the requirements may not have been met for a reckless riding charge it was a serious breach and at the very top end of the scale for careless riding. The interference had been substantial and it had involved two horses in a group 1 race with considerable stake money, which may have been denied to the connections of those affected. In those circumstances he believed a suspension of at least one month ought to be imposed.

Mr. Walker asked the Committee to take into consideration that he expected to be riding at eight meetings prior to the Wellington meeting and he requested a monetary penalty be considered in place of any suspension likely to involve Wellington.

The Committee after considering these matters agrees that this was severe interference to two runners and is a serious failure on Mr. Walker's part to discharge his responsibilities by angling his mount outwards to begin with and, despite what has been established regarding the waywardness of the horse, to where no run was available. His record is not a good one and apart from everything else the safety of two riders has been compromised. A substantial period of suspension is clearly justified. Having regard to the submissions by Mr. McCutcheon the Committee is satisfied that the period of suspension must also take into account that it was severe and that it occurred in a Group 1 race, namely the Railway Handicap. Earlier today the Committee found it necessary to suspend Jockey R. McLeod in the Auckland Cup for three weeks for severe interference but in this case it finds the interference was more severe and the penalty must reflect that. A monetary penalty would not be appropriate but allowance should be made for the admission by Mr. Walker following amendment of the information. Accordingly it orders suspension to commence from the conclusion of racing on 3 January 2005 until the conclusion of racing on 29 January 2005. In doing so the Committee has taken into account that this includes the forthcoming Wellington meeting.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d, 1115.4, 1115.6.a, 871.1.b

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: