Auckland RC 27 January 2018 – R 5 (heard 10 February 2018 at Te Rapa) – Chair, Mr A Dooley

hearingid: a6ab2b957fe1d606bcbc5f6a95a9145d

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 27/01/2018

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Auckland RC 27 January 2018 - R 5 (heard 10 February 2018 at Te Rapa) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE RACEDAY DECISION

Informant: Mr J Oatham – Chief Stipendiary Steward

Respondent: Mr C Lammas – Rider of LIVIN’ ON A PRAYER

Information No: A10041

Meeting: Auckland Racing Club

Date: 27 January 2018 (heard 10 February 2018 at Te Rapa)

Race No: 5

Rule: 638(1)(d)

Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chair - Mr G Jones, Committee Member

Also Present: Mr N Harris (Apprentice Jockey Mentor) – support person for Mr Lammas

Mr B Jones – Stipendiary Steward

Charge: Careless Riding

Plea: Denied

Evidence

Following the running of race 5, the Westbury Classic (Group 2) 1400 metres, which was run at the Auckland Racing Club on Saturday 27 January 2017 an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Oatham, alleged that Mr C Lammas improved into a marginal run near the 150 metres and allowed his mount to shift in crowding SWEEPSTAKE in onto HENI which was checked.

This charge was unable to be heard on the day of the breach due to the unavailability of the race video films. As a consequence, the charge was heard prior to race 1 at the Waikato Racing Club meeting at Te Rapa on 10 February 2018.

Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.

Mr Lammas denied the breach and acknowledged that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.

On behalf of Mr Lammas, Mrs T Lammas wrote to the Judicial Control Authority seeking permission for Mr Lammas to be supported at the hearing by Mr N Harris.

At the commencement of the hearing the Committee approved a request from Mr Lammas for him to be supported during the hearing by Mr N Harris. Mr Oatham on behalf of the Informant had no objections.

The proposed procedure for the hearing was outlined to the parties and they had no questions or objections. The Committee clarified Mr Harris’ status at the hearing as a support person as opposed to a witness.

Mr Oatham in his opening comments confirmed that there were 2 horses affected by the alleged breach namely SWEEPSTAKE (C Johnson) and HENI (R Myers). He said that both riders were unable to attend the hearing. Mr Lammas’ accepted this fact and stated that he did not require Mr Johnson or Ms Myers to be present or give any evidence.

Mr Oatham said that both Mr Johnson and Ms Myers were interviewed by Stewards shortly after the alleged incident and he was in a position to relay their comments.

Submissions for Decision

Mr Jones demonstrated the breach by use of the 4 video angles and identified the horses concerned in the incident and their relative position. He identified HENI racing adjacent to the rails, SWEEPSTAKE was 1 out and LIVIN’ ON A PRAYER to its outside. At that point LIVIN’ ON A PRAYER was angling for a gap between SWEEPSTAKE and SOMETHINGVAIN, with ODISHA racing directly behind LIVIN’ ON A PRAYER. He said that Mr Lammas moved forward between SOMETHINGVAIN and SWEEPSTAKE and he allowed his mount to shift in when been riding forward with the whip. He said this forced Mr Johnson inwards and as result Ms Myers had to check her mount. Using the back straight film, he said it was clear that Ms Myers was on Mr Johnson’s hind quarters and Mr Lammas was only half a length clear.

Mr Jones using the side on film demonstrated that at no stage did Mr Lammas stop riding his mount forward and at the same time he drew his whip.

Mr Jones using the rear on film said that there was always a run available for Ms Myers to improve into. He said that this film clearly showed Mr Lammas’ mount shifting in from a point inside of ODISHA. He added that Mr Lammas continued to shift in.

As previously agreed Mr Oatham briefly outlined comments made by both Ms Myers and Mr Johnson. He said Ms Myers told Stewards that a marginal run presented, she moved into it and things got tight. Mr Oatham said that Mr Johnson didn’t think that he had rolled inwards and once he viewed the video films he readily conceded there was a run available for Ms Myers.

Mr Lammas reiterated that he did not contest the evidence of either Ms Myers or Mr Johnson.

Under cross examination, Mr Lammas asked Mr Jones whether he thought that Mr Johnson’s horse had laid in earlier in the home straight. Mr Jones responded that he did not believe that Mr Johnson’s horse had laid in.

Mr Harris referred to the films and asked Mr Jones whether there was interference as a result of SWEEPSTAKE shifting its head outwards. Mr Jones in response said that he believed Mr Johnson was trying to keep his mount straight as he was getting pressure from his outside.

Mr Lammas using the available films said that a run opened up for him and “I’m not denying interference” occurred. He said that he turned his mount's head outwards and gave the horse a slap on the shoulder to deter LIVIN’ ON A PRAYER from running in. He added that his mount was a mare racing in blinkers. He said at this point Mr Johnson’s mount was already running away from his mount and “I can’t dictate a horse that is already running away”. In concluding his evidence Mr Lammas said that he tried to deter his horse from running in and believed he had done everything possible to correct his horse and keep it straight.

In support of Mr Lammas, Mr Harris told the Committee that Mr Lammas was entitled to take the run. He said he followed Mr Johnson’s mount in and had he not hit LIVIN ON A PRAYER the result could have been worse. Mr Harris said he believed that Mr Lammas did the right thing and Mr Johnson’s horse shifted in on its own accord and Mr Lammas has simply followed it in. Mr Harris concluded by saying that he is not denying interference occurred and at Apprentice school he encourages the riders to put the stick away when a horse is shifting ground.

In summing up Mr Oatham said the Stewards clearly have a different view of the incident than Mr Lammas and Mr Harris. He said that it was clear on the video films that as Ms Myers attempted to improve there was a gap available for her. On the other he said the gap that Mr Lammas attempted was possibly more marginal and it is incumbent on riders not to cause interference when shifting ground. He said the back on film showed clearly that Mr Lammas continued to ride forward with vigour and it is abundantly clear that Mr Johnson’s mount was forced onto HENI. He submitted that Ms Myers was improving into the race and HENI may have finished in a better place but for the horse having lost her rightful running line. In conclusion Mr Oatham said that Mr Lammas allowed his mount to shift in 1 and ½ horse widths when not sufficiently clear. He said that Mr Lammas was riding his mount forward and he continued to shift in and as a consequence 2 horses were checked. He noted that HENI was checked sharply.

In summing up Mr Lammas submitted that he had gone for a gap and the interference happened in a split second. He said that he gave his mount 1 tap with the whip to deter it from running in further and that he did everything possible to straighten his mount. He said that he does not deny that his horse laid in, but he denied that his actions were careless.

Mr Harris in support said that Mr Lammas summed up the situation well. He said that he did not believe that Mr Lammas allowed his mount to shift in, he was of the view that LIVIN’ ON A PRAYER rolled inwards and Mr Lammas did straighten his mount up. He added that Mr Lammas erred in hitting his mount on the shoulder and the back on film showed that the incident could have been worse. He concluded by saying that Mr Lammas was stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Reasons for Decision

The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented and studied the video films of the incident. It was evident of the video films that after taking the gap between SOMETHINGVAIN and SWEEPSTAKE, LIVIN’ ON A PRAYER shifted in approximately 1 ½ horse widths when no more than ½ a length clear near the 150 metres. This caused SWEEPSTAKE to be dictated inwards into the rightful running line of HENI which necessitated Ms Myers to take a firm hold of her mount when being checked sharply. We observed that Mr Lammas continued to ride his mount forward with the whip when it was shifting ground.

We do not believe that SWEEPSTAKE shifted in on its own accord as suggested by Mr Lammas. Nor do we accept that Mr Lammas did everything possible to correct his mount when shifting ground. On that basis the Committee finds that Mr Lammas failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing the interference.

Decision

For the reasons detailed above we find the charge against Mr Lammas proved.

Submissions for Penalty

Mr Oatham produced Mr Lammas’ record which showed 3 previous breaches under this Rule in the last 12 months.

27 January 2018 – 13 days mid-range (mid to high $1 million race)

2 September 2017 – 10 days high range (pre national days)

18 March 2017 – 18 days mid-range (pre national days)

Mr Oatham described Mr Lammas’ record as a neutral factor although he said there was some concern that his prior breaches were in important races.

Mr Oatham submitted that the carelessness was mid-range and an 8 day starting point should be considered. He said the aggravating factors were the breach occurred in a Group 2 race with stake money of $100,000 and an uplift in penalty should be applied. Mr Oatham said that a suspension of 10 national days should be imposed.

Mr Lammas submitted that he was aware that Mr Bowman incurred an 8 meeting suspension for a similar offence. He added that this occasion was the first time he has defended a charge.

Mr Harris submitted that Mr Lammas was currently going through a “rough patch” at present.

Reasons for Penalty

The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented.

The Committee after reviewing the video films deemed the level of carelessness displayed by Mr Lammas to be mid-range and adopted the recommended starting point of 8 days.

The Committee also had regard for Rule 920 (2), which provides that:

On finding a breach proved the Judicial Committee may impose any penalty provided by these Rules. In imposing a penalty provided in these Rules the Judicial Committee may have regard to such matters as it considers appropriate including:

(a) the status of the Race;

(b) the stake payable in respect of the Race;

(c) any consequential effects upon any person or horse as a result of the breach of the Rule;

and/or

(d) the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing.

The aggravating factors were the breach occurred in a Group 2 race with stake payable of $100,000 and as a consequence of Mr Lammas’ actions SWEEPSTAKE and HENI were interfered with to varying degrees. These combined factors warrant an uplift in penalty of 2 days.

The Committee deemed Mr Lammas’ record to be average and a neutral factor. However, we are concerned that Mr Lammas has breached this Rule on 3 previous occasions in the last 12 months with each breach having occurred in a major race.

There were no mitigating factors.

In determining an appropriate penalty, the Committee was particularly mindful that Mr Lammas was already serving a 13 days suspension. This current suspension encompasses 3 Premier racedays and we were mindful of the impact that this will have on Mr Lammas.

The Committee explained to Mr Lammas the difference between his penalty and Mr Bowman’s.

After taking into account all the above factors the Committee considered that an appropriate suspension would be 10 national riding days.

Penalty

Mr Lammas is currently suspended from the close of racing on 3 February up to and including racing on 23rd February 2018 as a result of a careless riding breach on 27 January 2018.

Accordingly, the Committee suspend Mr Lammas’ license to ride in races for the period to commencing after racing on the 23rd February 2018 and concluding after racing on 11 March 2018.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 638(1)(d)

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: