Canterbury JC – 21 February 2009 – Race 4

hearingid: c831d8df924090b5a575907be1f46cac

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 21/02/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 21 February 2009 - Race 4

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

After the running of Race 4 at the Canterbury Jockey Club’s meeting on Saturday 21^st February 2009 Ms K Williams was charged with careless riding pursuant to Rule 871 (1)(d) of the Rules of Racing.  The incident which gave rise to the charge arose shortly after the start around about the 1100 hundred metre mark.  The information alleged that Ms Williams allowed her mount to shift inwards causing crowding to ‘Ms Keeper”, “Bounty Blue”, “Vinodini” and “Anangel” which resulted in “Vinodini” and “Anangel” to check near the 1100 metres.

After the running of Race 4 at the Canterbury Jockey Club’s meeting on Saturday 21^st February 2009 Ms K Williams was charged with careless riding pursuant to Rule 871 (1)(d) of the Rules of Racing.  The incident which gave rise to the charge arose shortly after the start around about the 1100 hundred metre mark.  The information alleged that Ms Williams allowed her mount to shift inwards causing crowding to ‘Ms Keeper”, “Bounty Blue”, “Vinodini” and “Anangel” which resulted in “Vinodini” and “Anangel” to check near the 1100 metres.

Ms Williams denied the charge.

THE FACTS

Mr Mark Davidson, Assistant Stipendiary Steward, presented the evidence on behalf of the Stipendiary Stewards.  Using the head on camera he showed the hearing that Ms Williams was racing about seven wide and began an inwards movement.  In the process it was alleged that Ms Williams placed pressure on Mr Bothamley on his mount, “Ms Keeper”, which in turn, placed pressure on the other three runners inside of him. 

The pressure continued to such an extent that the two horses on Ms Newton’s inside, “Vinodini” and “Anangel”, were “checked right out”.

The side on camera view was shown and Mr Davidson pointed out from that, that Ms Williams was, at the very most, 1^1/4  lengths clear of Mr Bothamley’s mount instead of the required own length and another length clear at the time that the tightening occurred, which resulted in “Vinodini” and “Anangel” being checked out.

Ms Williams did not cross-examine Mr Davidson. 

Ms Williams called Mr Daniel Bothamley to give evidence in support of her defence.  She asked him if he had told Mr Ching earlier that she did not put pressure on him, as alleged.  Mr Bothamley said it was Ms Newton, on “Bounty Blue” that pushed out on to his hindquarters which caused his horse to shift inwards. 

Mr Ching challenged that evidence in cross examination by asking if Ms Williams was her own length and another length clear at the relevant time.  Mr Bothamley conceded that she was not. 

In summary Ms Williams maintained that she wanted to get to the front because her horse was “field shy”. 

She said she heard calling on three occasions, and on each occasion she eased out before eventually moving across to the fence.  She also maintained there was room for the inside runners and that Mr Misbah’s mount “Anangel”, in particular, had room and was not forced on to the rail.

In summary Mr Ching said that Ms Williams was not her own length and another length clear, and that the camera evidence confirmed that.

DECISION

Ms Williams commenced an inwards movement from about seven wide to five wide which she was able to do safely, and then from a five wide position to approximately three wide. 

In that process, we have to be satisfied that Ms Williams rode carelessly if we are to find the charge proved.  The evidence showed Ms Williams looking back on her inside on at least three occasions.  Ms Williams confirmed, in answer to questions from the Chairman, that she was getting calls from behind her.  She certainly did seem to ease off the horses behind her each time on her way across the rail, and that, we infer, was as a result of the calls that she was hearing.

The video evidence also showed that Ms Newton’s horse, “Bounty Blue” was racing erratically and in the process, even though it showed a lot of head movement, it did not seem to move outwards onto Mr Bothamley’s hindquarters as Mr Bothamley would have us believe.  We reject his evidence in this regard.  Furthermore, the evidence of Ms Williams not being her own length clear at the critical point was clear. 

We find that that aspect of the Stipendiary Stewards’ case proved.

The next question that we must answer is whether or not that part of Ms Williams’ riding caused the crowding to the horses mentioned in the information.  We are in no doubt that Ms Williams did cause the crowding by moving across in the manner that she did.  There was a significant check caused to “Vinodini” and “Anangel”.  The film shows quite clearly that “Anangel”, in particular, nearly lost its footing.

Thus, we can reach no other conclusion that Ms Williams rode carelessly and the charge is proved.

PENALTY

Following our decision in relation to the charge of careless riding against Ms Williams, Mr Ching submitted to the hearing that the degree of carelessness on Ms Williams’ part was mid-range.  We note that Ms Williams has had a very good riding record having last been charged with careless riding on 3 May 2008, when she received a four day suspension.  We accept that Ms Williams has had a lot of rides since that time and therefore we give credit for Ms Williams’ very good riding record.  However, a suspension is an appropriate penalty and we agree that the degree of carelessness was mid-range.  Nonetheless, we are bound to comment that it was a risky manoeuvre on Ms Williams’ part, as it was at that stage of the race when all horses are racing keenly, looking for a position.  At the end of the day we think Ms Williams probably made an error of judgment in terms of the distance that she was from Mr Bothamley’s mount.  It was fortunate that horses did not fall.

A suspension of four riding days is to be imposed, effective immediately, from the conclusion of racing today.  We note that Ms Williams has not requested a deferment of the period of suspension.  The period of suspension will encompass the period from today until the close of racing on Thursday 5 March 2009.

KG Hales

Chairman

RG McKenzie

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 3a7506edaaa1b525405033491d3da08c

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 4

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: b2eaf2714d0ef655a30c3899a4916f38

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 21/02/2009

meet_title: Canterbury JC - 21 February 2009

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: canterbury-jc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Canterbury JC