Appeal S Collett v RIU – decision dated 20 January 2015

hearingid: dad270e88ce4f6fb3b9347572e8aa0ee

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 25/01/2015

hearing_title: Appeal S Collett v RIU - decision dated 20 January 2015

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE AN APPEAL COMMITTEE AT AUCKLAND

IN THE MATTER of an appeal against a Judicial Committee’s findings

Appellant

Samantha Collett of Tirau, Class A Jockey

Respondent

Racing Integrity Unit

Decision of Appeal Committee dated 20th January 2015

Introduction

Ms Samantha Collett, a Class A jockey was charged by the Racing Integrity Unit of careless riding pursuant to Rule 638(1) (d) of the Rules of Racing, following the running of Race 1 at the Auckland Racing Club’s meeting on 10th January 2015. Ms Collett denied the charge.

The Judicial Committee, after hearing the evidence found the charge proved, and imposed a suspension of 4 race riding days, to come into effect after racing on 24th January 2015.

Ms Collett now appeals against the decision of the Judicial Committee.

The appeal procedure is set in Rule 1005 and in particular, in accordance with Sub-rule (3), the appeal is by way of re-hearing based on the evidence adduced at the hearing. Ms Collett confirmed that she had been provided with a transcript of the evidence adduced in the race day hearing, and also confirmed that she did not challenge the content of the transcript.

Case for the Racing Integrity Unit

Mr J Oatham of the Racing Integrity Unit presented the case for the appellant which comprised the transcript of the race day hearing together with video coverage of the incident which gave rise to the charge.

Mr Oatham showed the video to the Appeal hearing. He pointed out the various horses that were involved, namely, “McQueen” (Ms Collett), “Lady Jay” (Ms Samantha Spratt), “Way In” (Ms Danielle Johnson) and “Saint Emilion” (Mr OP Bosson).

He pointed out that Ms Collett was racing 5 horse widths out behind “Lady Jay” with the other horses mentioned, all racing to the inside of Ms Spratt. He asked the Committee to note a number of points, namely that “McQueen” was showing a tendency to “lug in”, that as Ms Collett approached the 200 metres mark, that she was riding “forward”, that she dropped her whip and may also have dropped the whip rein. He said that “McQueen” continued on an inwards movement, taking the line of Ms Spratt when Ms Collett should have “stopped riding” and straightened her mount instead of putting Ms Spratt in a situation whereby she had to go around the heels of “McQueen” in order to obtain a racing line.

Ms Collett was not her own length and another length clear when she went past Ms Spratt, notwithstanding that she went past at a good pace. He said that interference occurred notwithstanding that it was at the low end of the scale. The corrective action that Ms Collett took, he said, was “too little, too late.” He said that in terms of the Rules of Racing that there was a clear obligation on Ms Collett to “stop riding” and that she did not make sufficient effort to avoid the interference occurring.

Mr Oatham said that Ms Collett’s actions placed Ms Spratt in a position whereby she had nowhere else to go, other than around the heels of Ms Collett’s mount. In response to a question from the Chair, Mr Oatham said that even though Ms Spratt’s mount did move inwards when Ms Collett came alongside, that she was left with insufficient room to progress on the line that she was on. As a result of Ms Collett moving inwards, “Way In” and Saint Emilion” were crowded, but confirmed that the principal focus was on the interference which he said was caused to “Lady Jay”.

The Appellant’s case

Ms Collett was assisted in the appeal hearing by her father Mr Jim Collett.

She said that approaching the 200 metres mark she was racing 5 wide with Ms Spratt on “Lady Jay” inside of her. As she drew up alongside of “Lady Jay”, she was ¾ of a length behind, and that as a consequence, “Lady Jay” moved inwards without any contact being made. Put simply, she said that “Lady Jay” ran away from “McQueen”. She alleged that as a consequence of “Lady Jay” moving inwards in the manner that she did, that such an action did not enable her to dictate the line of that horse. She was adamant that she did not “dictate” the line of Ms Spratt. She asked the Committee to note how Ms Spratt continued to ride “forward” with vigour, and that in the process Ms Spratt, took the line of “Way In”. She said that Ms Spratt was “riding forward” when she was alongside of Ms Spratt. However, Ms Collett said that she then got a least a length clear and did not affect Ms Spratt’s momentum as she went past. She said that Ms Spratt only lost her forward momentum when she elected to go around heels. Ms Collett went on to win the race comfortably, notwithstanding that her mount was a “green horse” having its 3rd start, and its 1st start at Ellerslie. She added that if she did cause interference that it had no influence on the outcome of the race, because she went past, rapidly gaining ground, and won comfortably.

She also said that if she had “stood up” and “stopped riding” that her horse would have rolled in in any event as such an action would not have given her any degree of control. Even though she dropped her whip, she was able to continue to ride forward with good control after “Lady Jay” had gone around her horse’s heels.

She submitted that she did not ride carelessly, that her appeal should be upheld.

The Respondent’s summary

Mr Oatham summarised by pointing out that at the 200 metres mark, that Ms Collett was some 5 horse width’s out, and that she continued in on that line, taking Ms Spratt’s racing line, which in his view, Ms Spratt was entitled to maintain. The gap between “McQueen” and “Lady Jay” closed rapidly and that no jockey could have continued on the line that Ms Spratt was on. It was necessary for her to go around the heels of “McQueen” and that considerable momentum was lost by “Lady Jay” in the process.

The Appellant’s summary

Ms Collett was firmly of the view that she did not cause interference to “Lady Jay”, pointing out that Ms Spratt was at all times “riding forward”, and that even if she did, she went past at such a rate that her actions did not affect Ms Spratt’s chances.

Appeal Decision

When dealing with an appeal, we as the appellate panel, need to be very careful about interfering with the decision of the Judicial Committee, and we should only do so, if we are satisfied that the Judicial Committee was palpably wrong in the conclusions that it reached. Put simply, it is not our role to “tinker” with an earlier decision, unless there are matters which the Judicial Committee overlooked or placed undue weight on.

Ms Collett has presented her appeal ably and was well assisted by Mr Jim Collett. The arguments that she put forward were well expressed. The question for us is, however, were her arguments sufficiently strong to convince us, as the appeal committee, to allow her appeal?

The main thrust of Ms Collett’s appeal was that the interference alleged to have been inflicted on “Lady Jay” was not sufficient to constitute careless riding. Ms Collett argued forcefully that the rider of “Lady Jay”, Ms Samantha Spratt did not have to “stop riding” She said that Ms Spratt elected to go around heels when she could have continued riding on the line that she was on.

Having studied the video coverage (head on and side on views) carefully, together with the transcript of the hearing before the Judicial Committee, we cannot reach the conclusion that Ms Collett would like us to. We are satisfied that Ms Spratt could not have maintained the line that she was on and that it was necessary for her to go around heels, to avoid contact with other horses. The fact of the matter, in our view is that Ms Collett was not her own length and another length clear when she went past Ms Spratt, albeit at a rapid rate.

Clearly, Ms Collett discharged her duties to the connections of “McQueen” and the betting public by continuing to ride forward. She won the race by a comfortable margin. Regrettably, in the process she caused crowding to another horse by going past when not her own length and another length clear, and also shifting in between some two and a half and three horse width’s.

Thus we see no reason to interfere with the Judicial Committee’s decision and Ms Collett’s appeal is dismissed accordingly. The penalty imposed by the Judicial Committee is confirmed.

Costs

Ms Collett has been unsuccessful. Costs must therefore follow the event. The extent of any costs award is at our discretion and we have considered the question in accordance with a Practice Note issued by the Judicial Control Authority.

The RIU requests that the sum of $150 be awarded to cover the cost of having the race day hearing transcribed. The payment of that sum is ordered accordingly.

In addition, Ms Collett is ordered to pay the sum of $350 by way of contribution to the costs of the JCA. In this instance, we have departed from the general rule that 100% of the JCA’s costs be ordered as such an award would be out of proportion in this case. Ms Collett’s appeal was not without substance, and furthermore it would be unfair to expect her to meet the travel costs of the panel.

KG Hales                            R Seabrook 

Appeal Chairman                Appeal Panelist

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Non-race day

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: