Appeal – OP Bosson
ID: JCA20341
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 7, Waste Management NZ Premier, held at the meeting of Hawkes Bay Racing Incorporated at Hastings on 2 September 2006, Mr O P Bosson admitted a breach of Rule 871 (1) (d), in that he rode carelessly on MOHICAN BRAVE
--
BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL
--HELD AT HAMILTON
--IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand
--Rules of Racing
--BETWEEN OP BOSSON
--of Matamata, Licensed Jockey
--Appellant
--AND NEW ZEALAND
--THOROUGHBRED RACING
--INCORPORATED
--Respondent
--Date of Hearing: 11 September 2006
--Venue: Board Room, Te Rapa Racecourse, Hamilton
--Tribunal: RG McKenzie (Chairman), RM Seabrook
--Present: GP Tankard (representing the Appellant)
--OP Bosson, the Appellant
--CJ George, Stipendiary Steward (representing
--the Respondent
--R Fisher, Observer
--M Stanbury, Registrar
----
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
----
Following the running of Race 7, Waste Management NZ Premier, held at the meeting of Hawkes Bay Racing Incorporated at Hastings on 2 September 2006, Mr O P Bosson admitted a breach of Rule 871 (1) (d), in that he rode carelessly on MOHICAN BRAVE. MOHICAN BRAVE was relegated from 2nd placing to 4th placing in the race at an earlier protest hearing. Mr Bosson's jockey's licence was suspended by the Judicial Committee from after 6 September up to and including 21 September 2006.
----Mr Bosson has appealed against the penalty imposed by the Judicial Committee on the following grounds:
--That taking into account my good riding record since my return to race riding, my guilty plea and comparing my penalty with other riders I find that my penalty was not consistent with others and was excessive in my opinion.
--Mr Bosson did not seek a stay of the suspension.
----At the hearing of the appeal, the Tribunal viewed side-on and head-on video replays of the relevant part of the race and heard submissions from Messrs Tankard and George in relation to the incident and in relation to penalty.
----------Mr Tankard's submissions in relation to penalty may be summarised as follows:
--1. The penalty imposed on Mr Bosson was a suspension for 2 weeks. For Mr
--Bosson, that amounted to 8 riding days. Mr Tankard referred to the meetings involved.
--2. Mr Tankard referred the Tribunal to the recent penalties for careless riding given to four other riders ? P J Turner, L K Cropp, P T Holmes and A J Calder. He submitted that the "norm" in those cases was 4-5 days suspension and that, in the light of those penalties, Mr Bosson's suspension for 8 riding days could not be justified.
--3. The Judicial Committee requested details of Mr Bosson's riding record and was informed by Mr George that Mr Bosson's last suspension had been in November 2004 but, since that date, he had spent 16 months "on the sideline". It was established that Mr Bosson had been back riding for 4 months. Mr Tankard submitted that the Judicial Committee had not been given details of Mr Bosson's record since he resumed race riding which, he submitted, was "quite remarkable" ? 215 rides for 41 wins at a strike rate of 5.2. During that time, Mr Bosson had not been suspended, fined or warned. Mr Tankard submitted that Mr Bosson should have received some credit for that record.
--4. Mr Tankard expressed concern at the comments contained in the decision of the Judicial Committee that it had taken into account, in determining penalty, that "this was a premier race day and the total stakes for the race amounted to $40,000" and that "the Committee did not put a great deal of weight on [Mr Bosson's] good riding record considering he has only been back riding for a short time." In particular, Mr Tankard submitted, he was concerned that the Judicial Committee had placed a great deal of emphasis on the status of the race. He submitted that the race had no status at all and should not have been taken into consideration. It was, Mr Tankard said, an open handicap of $40,000. On the same day, there were Rating 98 and Rating 92 races for exactly the same stake. He submitted that the status of the race would not be taken into account in the case of a Rating 92 race and that the Committee was wrong in taking the status of the race into account in assessing penalty. Regard to the status of the race should be reserved for races such as the Mudgway, the Stoney Bridge, the Kelt, the Derby and the Guineas.
--5. Under Rule 1122 (d), which refers to the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing, the most important factor is consistency of penalty and industry participants should be notified if there is going to be an "upping of the ante" on big days.
--6. Mr Tankard referred to the Stipendiary Stewards' report for the Mudgway Stakes, a $200,000 Group 1 race held at the same meeting on the same date. Jockey, J B Symes, admitted a charge of careless riding in that race and received an identical term of suspension as that given to Mr Bosson. Mr Tankard submitted that both decisions could not be right.
----7. Finally, Mr Tankard submitted that Mr Bosson had been "treated unfairly" by the raceday Judicial Committee and that the penalty should be set aside and fresh submissions on penalty made.
----Mr George then made submissions on penalty to the Tribunal. His submissions may be summarised as follows:
--------1. The interference to the other two horses on the day, FIGURINIT and JUST LOOKING, had a bearing on the placings for the race which were later altered and had a major effect on betting turnover, owners and trainers ? this was all the result of Mr Bosson's riding of MOHICAN BRAVE. The check to FIGURINIT was, Mr George submitted, "severe" as were the consequential effects.
--2. Mr George gave details of Mr Bosson's career record.
--3. He submitted that the suspension handed down by the Judicial Committee was appropriate given, firstly, Mr Bosson's "careless actions", and secondly, the consequential effects to the runners on his inside. The suspension was a "fair deterrent" given the circumstances of the incident.
--4. With regard to the charge of careless riding against J B Symes in the Mudgway Stakes, Mr George submitted that Mr Symes was careless and had checked WAHID but the consequential effects were not nearly as severe as those of Mr Bosson's actions. Furthermore, there was no protest and the ground lost by WAHID in the incident was not as severe as that lost by FIGURINIT. Mr George had asked for a suspension of one month for Mr Symes and he stated that he agreed with Mr Tankard that it was necessary to "raise the bar" for Group 1 races.
--5. As a result of the relegation of MOHICAN BRAVE, the owners of the horse had lost $6,000 being the difference between the 2nd and 4th stakes for the race. The trainer's percentage was also affected as were punters. All of these were the result of Mr Bosson's "careless actions". Mr Bosson had had ample time to correct his mount before causing interference to other runners.
--6. Mr George acknowledged that Mr Bosson was a very busy rider but was sufficiently experienced to have corrected his mount before causing interference. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Judicial Committee was appropriate given the consequential effects, the status of the race and the stake payable.
----The relevant part of Rule 1207(2) provides as follows:
--In the case of an appeal against penalty the Appeals Tribunal may:
--(a) confirm the penalty and dismiss the appeal; or
--(b) if the penalty (either in whole or in part) is one . . . which is inadequate or inappropriate or manifestly excessive, either:
----(i) quash the penalty and impose such other penalty permitted by these Rules (whether more or less severe) in substitution therefor as the Appeals Tribunals considers ought to have been imposed or deal with the appellant in any other way that such tribunal could have dealt with him or it on finding the information or charge proved.
----The starting point in considering this appeal is the submission made by Mr Tankard that the period of suspension imposed upon Mr Bosson encompassed what would be, for Mr Bosson, 8 riding days. That was not contested by Mr George. The Judicial Committee, in its written decision, stated that "the Committee also had regard to the riding opportunities for the timeframe". It is not apparent from the transcript of the raceday hearing that Mr Bosson was given the opportunity of addressing the Committee on the matter of his riding opportunities over the likely period of any suspension. In the absence of that and in the absence of any indication from the Judicial Committee as to the riding opportunities that they took into account, it is difficult for this Tribunal to draw a conclusion as to the number of riding days intended to be encompassed by the period of the suspension. In the circumstances, we accept Mr Tankard's submission that the period of suspension involved 8 riding days.
----In considering whether that penalty was "inappropriate or manifestly excessive" in terms of Rule 1207 (2), the Tribunal considered the video replays of the incident and the submissions of the parties.
----Mr George stressed the severity of the interference and the consequential effects of that interference. While those factors are clearly relevant to a consideration of penalty, this Tribunal must also look at the gravity of the breach ? that is to say, how grave were the particular set of acts and omissions proved against Mr Bosson? An assessment of the appropriate penalty should follow a careful consideration of the culpability of the conduct constituting the breach.
----Mr Tankard submitted, with reference to the video replays, that there were degrees of interference. He submitted that this was a case of Grade 1 interference on a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 was the lowest and 3 the highest, for the reason that there had initially been room for all three horses, but it was "fairly tight". He pointed out that MOHICAN BRAVE had never gone right into the line of FIGURINIT and Mr Bosson had taken half the gap because he had stopped, straightened and pulled out. He probably went "two strides too far" before taking corrective action. The gate was never completely shut on FIGURINIT. The distance of the inward movement by MOHICAN BRAVE was only half a horse's width, Mr Tankard submitted and this was not disputed by Mr George. It was careless riding at the lower end of the scale, Mr Tankard submitted, because of the minimum amount of inward movement Mr Bosson allowed his mount to make.
----The Tribunal is of the view that the careless riding, in this instance, was at the lower end of the scale but, against that, we have had regard to the consequences of the interference and the resultant relegation of MOHICAN BRAVE. The Judicial Committee, in its decision, states that it took into account the "degree of carelessness shown by Mr Bosson" but makes no specific finding as to the degree of such carelessness.
----Under Rule 1122 (2), the Judicial Committee took into account "that this was a premier race day and the total stakes for the race amounted to $40,000". In the view of this Tribunal, the Judicial Committee appears to have placed too much emphasis on this factor in arriving at its decision on penalty. Rule 1122 (2) makes no reference to a "premier race day" as such, so the fact that the meeting was a premier race day does not, of itself, warrant stiffer penalties being imposed for careless riding, notwithstanding the status of the meeting and the higher stakes payable for minor races at a premier meeting. The Tribunal notes Mr Tankard's submission that the stake payable for the race ($40,000) was the same as that payable for a Rating 98 and a Rating 92 race on the same programme ? neither being a race attracting any particular status.
----The Judicial Committee also stated that it gave Mr Bosson "credit for his frank admittance of the breach". It was not specified the exact extent of the discount but it is accepted that some credit was given. On the other hand, the Committee stated that it "did not put a great deal of weight on [Mr Bosson's] good riding record considering that he has only been back riding for a short time." Had the Judicial Committee had the details available to this Tribunal concerning Mr Bosson's riding record since his resumption, it is likely that more credit would have been given. Certainly, Mr Bosson is entitled to some credit for the clean riding record in the 200-plus rides since resuming race riding 4 months ago.
----Having regard to all of the above matters, this Tribunal is of the view that the term of the suspension imposed by the Judicial Committee was inappropriate or manifestly excessive. Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the Judicial Committee at the Hawkes Bay Racing Incorporated meeting held at Hastings on 2 September last is hereby quashed and, in substitution for it, this Tribunal imposes a suspension for a period commencing after the close of racing on Wednesday, 6 September 2006, up to and including Thursday 14 September 2006. This period is imposed on the basis that it is a 5 riding days' suspension.
----There will be no order as to costs.
----The Tribunal directs, pursuant to Rule 1211, that the filing fee of $250.00 paid by Mr Bosson be refunded to him.
----R G McKenzie
----CHAIRMAN
----------
Decision Date: 01/01/2001
Publish Date: 01/01/2001
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: 66d30f7be7d7bc6f19f08644701e42b0
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 01/01/2001
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Appeal - OP Bosson
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 7, Waste Management NZ Premier, held at the meeting of Hawkes Bay Racing Incorporated at Hastings on 2 September 2006, Mr O P Bosson admitted a breach of Rule 871 (1) (d), in that he rode carelessly on MOHICAN BRAVE
--
BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL
--HELD AT HAMILTON
--IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand
--Rules of Racing
--BETWEEN OP BOSSON
--of Matamata, Licensed Jockey
--Appellant
--AND NEW ZEALAND
--THOROUGHBRED RACING
--INCORPORATED
--Respondent
--Date of Hearing: 11 September 2006
--Venue: Board Room, Te Rapa Racecourse, Hamilton
--Tribunal: RG McKenzie (Chairman), RM Seabrook
--Present: GP Tankard (representing the Appellant)
--OP Bosson, the Appellant
--CJ George, Stipendiary Steward (representing
--the Respondent
--R Fisher, Observer
--M Stanbury, Registrar
----
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
----
Following the running of Race 7, Waste Management NZ Premier, held at the meeting of Hawkes Bay Racing Incorporated at Hastings on 2 September 2006, Mr O P Bosson admitted a breach of Rule 871 (1) (d), in that he rode carelessly on MOHICAN BRAVE. MOHICAN BRAVE was relegated from 2nd placing to 4th placing in the race at an earlier protest hearing. Mr Bosson's jockey's licence was suspended by the Judicial Committee from after 6 September up to and including 21 September 2006.
----Mr Bosson has appealed against the penalty imposed by the Judicial Committee on the following grounds:
--That taking into account my good riding record since my return to race riding, my guilty plea and comparing my penalty with other riders I find that my penalty was not consistent with others and was excessive in my opinion.
--Mr Bosson did not seek a stay of the suspension.
----At the hearing of the appeal, the Tribunal viewed side-on and head-on video replays of the relevant part of the race and heard submissions from Messrs Tankard and George in relation to the incident and in relation to penalty.
----------Mr Tankard's submissions in relation to penalty may be summarised as follows:
--1. The penalty imposed on Mr Bosson was a suspension for 2 weeks. For Mr
--Bosson, that amounted to 8 riding days. Mr Tankard referred to the meetings involved.
--2. Mr Tankard referred the Tribunal to the recent penalties for careless riding given to four other riders ? P J Turner, L K Cropp, P T Holmes and A J Calder. He submitted that the "norm" in those cases was 4-5 days suspension and that, in the light of those penalties, Mr Bosson's suspension for 8 riding days could not be justified.
--3. The Judicial Committee requested details of Mr Bosson's riding record and was informed by Mr George that Mr Bosson's last suspension had been in November 2004 but, since that date, he had spent 16 months "on the sideline". It was established that Mr Bosson had been back riding for 4 months. Mr Tankard submitted that the Judicial Committee had not been given details of Mr Bosson's record since he resumed race riding which, he submitted, was "quite remarkable" ? 215 rides for 41 wins at a strike rate of 5.2. During that time, Mr Bosson had not been suspended, fined or warned. Mr Tankard submitted that Mr Bosson should have received some credit for that record.
--4. Mr Tankard expressed concern at the comments contained in the decision of the Judicial Committee that it had taken into account, in determining penalty, that "this was a premier race day and the total stakes for the race amounted to $40,000" and that "the Committee did not put a great deal of weight on [Mr Bosson's] good riding record considering he has only been back riding for a short time." In particular, Mr Tankard submitted, he was concerned that the Judicial Committee had placed a great deal of emphasis on the status of the race. He submitted that the race had no status at all and should not have been taken into consideration. It was, Mr Tankard said, an open handicap of $40,000. On the same day, there were Rating 98 and Rating 92 races for exactly the same stake. He submitted that the status of the race would not be taken into account in the case of a Rating 92 race and that the Committee was wrong in taking the status of the race into account in assessing penalty. Regard to the status of the race should be reserved for races such as the Mudgway, the Stoney Bridge, the Kelt, the Derby and the Guineas.
--5. Under Rule 1122 (d), which refers to the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing, the most important factor is consistency of penalty and industry participants should be notified if there is going to be an "upping of the ante" on big days.
--6. Mr Tankard referred to the Stipendiary Stewards' report for the Mudgway Stakes, a $200,000 Group 1 race held at the same meeting on the same date. Jockey, J B Symes, admitted a charge of careless riding in that race and received an identical term of suspension as that given to Mr Bosson. Mr Tankard submitted that both decisions could not be right.
----7. Finally, Mr Tankard submitted that Mr Bosson had been "treated unfairly" by the raceday Judicial Committee and that the penalty should be set aside and fresh submissions on penalty made.
----Mr George then made submissions on penalty to the Tribunal. His submissions may be summarised as follows:
--------1. The interference to the other two horses on the day, FIGURINIT and JUST LOOKING, had a bearing on the placings for the race which were later altered and had a major effect on betting turnover, owners and trainers ? this was all the result of Mr Bosson's riding of MOHICAN BRAVE. The check to FIGURINIT was, Mr George submitted, "severe" as were the consequential effects.
--2. Mr George gave details of Mr Bosson's career record.
--3. He submitted that the suspension handed down by the Judicial Committee was appropriate given, firstly, Mr Bosson's "careless actions", and secondly, the consequential effects to the runners on his inside. The suspension was a "fair deterrent" given the circumstances of the incident.
--4. With regard to the charge of careless riding against J B Symes in the Mudgway Stakes, Mr George submitted that Mr Symes was careless and had checked WAHID but the consequential effects were not nearly as severe as those of Mr Bosson's actions. Furthermore, there was no protest and the ground lost by WAHID in the incident was not as severe as that lost by FIGURINIT. Mr George had asked for a suspension of one month for Mr Symes and he stated that he agreed with Mr Tankard that it was necessary to "raise the bar" for Group 1 races.
--5. As a result of the relegation of MOHICAN BRAVE, the owners of the horse had lost $6,000 being the difference between the 2nd and 4th stakes for the race. The trainer's percentage was also affected as were punters. All of these were the result of Mr Bosson's "careless actions". Mr Bosson had had ample time to correct his mount before causing interference to other runners.
--6. Mr George acknowledged that Mr Bosson was a very busy rider but was sufficiently experienced to have corrected his mount before causing interference. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Judicial Committee was appropriate given the consequential effects, the status of the race and the stake payable.
----The relevant part of Rule 1207(2) provides as follows:
--In the case of an appeal against penalty the Appeals Tribunal may:
--(a) confirm the penalty and dismiss the appeal; or
--(b) if the penalty (either in whole or in part) is one . . . which is inadequate or inappropriate or manifestly excessive, either:
----(i) quash the penalty and impose such other penalty permitted by these Rules (whether more or less severe) in substitution therefor as the Appeals Tribunals considers ought to have been imposed or deal with the appellant in any other way that such tribunal could have dealt with him or it on finding the information or charge proved.
----The starting point in considering this appeal is the submission made by Mr Tankard that the period of suspension imposed upon Mr Bosson encompassed what would be, for Mr Bosson, 8 riding days. That was not contested by Mr George. The Judicial Committee, in its written decision, stated that "the Committee also had regard to the riding opportunities for the timeframe". It is not apparent from the transcript of the raceday hearing that Mr Bosson was given the opportunity of addressing the Committee on the matter of his riding opportunities over the likely period of any suspension. In the absence of that and in the absence of any indication from the Judicial Committee as to the riding opportunities that they took into account, it is difficult for this Tribunal to draw a conclusion as to the number of riding days intended to be encompassed by the period of the suspension. In the circumstances, we accept Mr Tankard's submission that the period of suspension involved 8 riding days.
----In considering whether that penalty was "inappropriate or manifestly excessive" in terms of Rule 1207 (2), the Tribunal considered the video replays of the incident and the submissions of the parties.
----Mr George stressed the severity of the interference and the consequential effects of that interference. While those factors are clearly relevant to a consideration of penalty, this Tribunal must also look at the gravity of the breach ? that is to say, how grave were the particular set of acts and omissions proved against Mr Bosson? An assessment of the appropriate penalty should follow a careful consideration of the culpability of the conduct constituting the breach.
----Mr Tankard submitted, with reference to the video replays, that there were degrees of interference. He submitted that this was a case of Grade 1 interference on a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 was the lowest and 3 the highest, for the reason that there had initially been room for all three horses, but it was "fairly tight". He pointed out that MOHICAN BRAVE had never gone right into the line of FIGURINIT and Mr Bosson had taken half the gap because he had stopped, straightened and pulled out. He probably went "two strides too far" before taking corrective action. The gate was never completely shut on FIGURINIT. The distance of the inward movement by MOHICAN BRAVE was only half a horse's width, Mr Tankard submitted and this was not disputed by Mr George. It was careless riding at the lower end of the scale, Mr Tankard submitted, because of the minimum amount of inward movement Mr Bosson allowed his mount to make.
----The Tribunal is of the view that the careless riding, in this instance, was at the lower end of the scale but, against that, we have had regard to the consequences of the interference and the resultant relegation of MOHICAN BRAVE. The Judicial Committee, in its decision, states that it took into account the "degree of carelessness shown by Mr Bosson" but makes no specific finding as to the degree of such carelessness.
----Under Rule 1122 (2), the Judicial Committee took into account "that this was a premier race day and the total stakes for the race amounted to $40,000". In the view of this Tribunal, the Judicial Committee appears to have placed too much emphasis on this factor in arriving at its decision on penalty. Rule 1122 (2) makes no reference to a "premier race day" as such, so the fact that the meeting was a premier race day does not, of itself, warrant stiffer penalties being imposed for careless riding, notwithstanding the status of the meeting and the higher stakes payable for minor races at a premier meeting. The Tribunal notes Mr Tankard's submission that the stake payable for the race ($40,000) was the same as that payable for a Rating 98 and a Rating 92 race on the same programme ? neither being a race attracting any particular status.
----The Judicial Committee also stated that it gave Mr Bosson "credit for his frank admittance of the breach". It was not specified the exact extent of the discount but it is accepted that some credit was given. On the other hand, the Committee stated that it "did not put a great deal of weight on [Mr Bosson's] good riding record considering that he has only been back riding for a short time." Had the Judicial Committee had the details available to this Tribunal concerning Mr Bosson's riding record since his resumption, it is likely that more credit would have been given. Certainly, Mr Bosson is entitled to some credit for the clean riding record in the 200-plus rides since resuming race riding 4 months ago.
----Having regard to all of the above matters, this Tribunal is of the view that the term of the suspension imposed by the Judicial Committee was inappropriate or manifestly excessive. Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the Judicial Committee at the Hawkes Bay Racing Incorporated meeting held at Hastings on 2 September last is hereby quashed and, in substitution for it, this Tribunal imposes a suspension for a period commencing after the close of racing on Wednesday, 6 September 2006, up to and including Thursday 14 September 2006. This period is imposed on the basis that it is a 5 riding days' suspension.
----There will be no order as to costs.
----The Tribunal directs, pursuant to Rule 1211, that the filing fee of $250.00 paid by Mr Bosson be refunded to him.
----R G McKenzie
----CHAIRMAN
----------
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 871.1.d, 1122.d, 1207.2, 1122.2
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: