Levin RC – 14 April 2005 – Race 3

Following the running of race 3, Mr Goodwin charged Mr Stam with careless riding on Misunderstood, arising from an incident in the back straight that resulted in Dutch Treat [V Johnston] being severely checked. Mr Stam did not admit the charge and was represented at the hearing by his employer, Mrs Weller.

Ms Johnson gave evidence to the effect that she was travelling behind and inside Mr Stam. He was ? to 1 length ahead when his horse drifted in taking her line. Her horse clipped the heels of his and this resulted in her losing 2-3 lengths. She was not aware of any pressure on Mr Stam's mount that might have caused this interference. Mr Calder, rider of King Kei, said he came around the outside of both Dutch Treat and Misunderstood. His horse did not shift in and did not put pressure on either of the other horses.

Mr Barnsley, Stipendiary Steward, also gave evidence. He showed video footage of the incident from two perspectives. In his opinion Mr Stam was responsible fore the interference suffered by Dutch Treat. He thought that horse lost 21/2 lengths as a result.

Mr Stam then gave evidence. He agreed that Mr Calder had not contributed to the incident. He said the incident occurred because his horse was racing greenly and lugged in suddenly causing problems for Dutch Treat. He considered that this occurred over 2 strides and that he did not have time to prevent it.

The Committee found as a fact that Mr Stam's mount was travelling 3-4 horses' width off the rails in the back straight but then shifted in to end up in a position 1 horse width off the rails. In the course of doing so, Misunderstood created a situation that resulted in Dutch treat receiving a severe check and losing at least 2 lengths. That happened because Misunderstood was insufficiently clear of Dutch Treat when shifting in.

The Committee did not accept Mr Stam's claim that his horse lugged in suddenly in 2 strides. No such sudden movement was apparent from the video evidence. On the contrary, it was clear that the horse shifted in over a significant distance. The horse may have instigated the movement but Mr Stam either allowed it to continue moving in although not clear of Dutch Treat or failed to take any steps to prevent it doing so or both. The Committee therefore concluded that Mr Stam was guilty of careless riding as alleged.

PENALTY

Mr Goodwin considered that Mr Stam had a good riding record. He has only ever faced two previous careless riding charges- on 27 November 2004 and earlier, on 5 June 2004. However, Mr Goodwin considered that this instance was serious and warranted a term of suspension. Mr Stam and Mrs Weller made no submissions.

The Committee agreed that this was a serious case that warranted a term of suspension. It could easily have resulted in a serious accident and in any case Dutch Treat had its chances in the race severely affected. Mr Stam was given credit for his good race riding record but the Committee's decision was to suspend him from after close of racing on Sunday 17 April 2005 until after close of racing on Saturday 24 April 2005.