Avondale JC 4 November 2015 – R 5 – Chair, Mr A Godsalve
ID: JCA15602
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Avondale JC - 4 November 2015
Meet Chair:
AGodsalve
Race Date:
2015/11/04
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
Accordingly, after taking all of the above matters into consideration the charge against Mr Cameron was dismissed.
Facts:
Following the running of race 5, the NEXT MEETING SATURDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2100, an Information was laid by Mr Coles alleging that Mr Cameron, riding POLYNESIA permitted his mount to shift outwards crowding REPRISE ridden by Mrs Thornton, which was checked near the 500 metres.
This hearing began following the final race of the day.
Mr Cameron was present at the hearing and indicated that he understood the Rule and that he did not admit the breach.
Mr Coles indicated that he would be calling Mrs Thornton as a witness.
Rule 638(1)(d) provides that ' A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless'.
Submissions for Decision:
Using the available video films, Mr Oatham identified the horses POLYNESIA ridden by Mr Cameron, and REPRISE, ridden by Mrs Thornton. At about the 650 metre mark, POLYNESIA was either adjacent to or near the running rail. REPRISE was outside POLYNESIA in a position described by Mr Oatham as a 'loose' 2 wide position. It is clear from the films that POLYNESIA was travelling well at this stage (and it is worth noting that the horse went on to win the race). Mr Oatham indicates that Mr Cameron took a hold of POLYNESIA and eased it out from behind the horse in front of it, BATTLEFIELD which appeared to be starting to weaken. Mr Oatham then showed Mrs Thornton in some difficulty as POLYNESIA eased outwards her. He said that the movement from Mr Cameron was 'ok' initially, however as Mr Cameron continued to ease out, Mrs Thornton was forced to take a firm hold on her mount as it was checked. Mr Oatham alleged that Mr Cameron had shifted out into the line of running which had been Mrs Thornton's which had placed Mrs Thornton into restricted room. Mr Oatham pointed out that Mrs Thornton has REPRISE'S head turned inwards as pressure is being applied from Mr Cameron, and then eventually checks the horse which in turn causes her to lose about 2 lengths. Mr Oatham stated that in his opinion Mrs Thornton would have had to be in a 3 wide position to allow Mr Cameron to shift off the fence and pursue a run; and he added that that was not the case.
Mr Cameron asked Mr Oatham to show on the films where he had put pressure on Mrs Thornton, adding that he had not moved out abruptly. Mr Oatham stated that Mr Cameron had put pressure on Mrs Thornton as soon as he had come off the back of the horse in front of him.
Mrs T Thornton was called by Mr Coles. She told the hearing that at about the 600 metre mark Mr Cameron, on her inside, had come off the fence to present his horse into a gap. She said she had been in a 2 wide position, and that her horse was a big horse, adding that there was a 'bit of a gap' between her horse and POLYNESIA. She stated that there was contact between the horses when POLYNESIA moved forward inside her and that she was under pressure from that horse after that. In answer to a question from the Committee Mrs Thornton said that Mr Cameron had angled out to get a run around the horse in front of him (BATTLEFIELD, ridden by Ms Spratt) and that she was trying to maintain her position while angling her horse's head inwards. She added that the incident had not helped her chances as in her opinion POLYNESIA had taken the run which had been presented to it causing her to have to get her horse balanced again.
Mr Cameron asked Mrs Thornton if she agreed that he had got off the fence prior to the incident when Mrs Thornton's horse was racing in a 'loose' position when he felt there was room for 2 horses. Mrs Thornton agreed that Mr Cameron's horse was travelling 'good', however did not agree that there was room for 2 horses in the room available. Mr Cameron added that he felt there was room for both of their horses if the horse outside Mrs Thornton had not been laying in onto her horse which put her in a tight position. Mrs Thornton agreed that she had been pressured by the horse outside her which had made the gap between her and Mr Cameron lessen, however she added that she still believed the run available was hers.
Mr Cameron, in his defence, stated that near the 500 metres Mrs Thornton had been a 'loose' 1 1/2 to 2 lengths off the rails, which gave him the option to come off the rails. He said he was aware the horse in front of him-BATTLEFIELD-was always going to stop. He said that Mrs Thornton was always some distance away from his horse, which allowed him to get into a one off position. He said if he hadn't been in that one off position he would have clipped BATTLEFIELD'S heels. He said he had the line of running which was a run he was entitled to. Mr Cameron stated that REPRISE was a big, green horse having its 2nd start. He said it was tight and competitive racing and the horse ahead of Mrs Thornton (SUM FAVOUR, ridden by D. Hain) was not going well, putting Mrs Thornton in an awkward spot as it shifted in slightly. He added that SUM FAVOUR was dictating Mrs Thornton to an extent, and she had nowhere to go. Mr Cameron said that he rode competitively as he felt he was ahead of Mrs Thornton and was entitled to the run. Mr Cameron stated that in his opinion Mrs Thornton 'checked' herself out of the gap near him as SUM FAVOUR had shifted in slightly onto her mount. In summary, Mr Cameron stated that he had been in a one off position for some time prior to any interference taking place, and that he was entitled to the run which had presented itself.
Mr Coles had no questions for Mr Cameron, and had nothing further to add.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee took careful notice of the submissions from all of the parties, and viewed the available video films as the respective parties outlined their positions during the race. The Committee further independently viewed the films prior to coming to a decision on this charge. It was clear that REPRISE had suffered from some interference causing it to lose ground. At that time there were several horses racing in tight quarters. The horse eventually ran on strongly to finish a close 2nd.
The Committee is faced with conflicting evidence from the jockeys involved. Mr Cameron stated that he had taken advantage of a run which was available to him when his horse was at the improving stage. He denied causing Mrs Thornton any problems when he did so, stating that in his opinion REPRISE had been dictated to by other horses around it and as it was a 'green' and inexperienced horse had reacted accordingly which resulted in it losing some ground.
Mrs Thornton has agreed that there was a 'bit of a gap' between her horse and Mr Cameron's when he angled it out to come around the horse in front of him. However she also stated that she believed her horse was entitled to the run which was available to her and that Mr Cameron had taken that run ahead of her, causing contact between the horses in doing so. Mrs Thornton acknowledged that she had come under some pressure from the horse on her outside which had reduced the distance between her horse and Mr Cameron's.
Faced with these somewhat contradicting versions of events, and lacking any other evidence having been presented, the Committee then looked to the available video films. Unfortunately, as this incident took place as the horses were in the process of rounding the home turn the available films did not include a head on or a rear view of the race. The films which were available were inconclusive as far as establishing if Mr Cameron's actions as his horse improved amounted to 'careless' riding.
The Rule calls for Judicial Committees to make a determination in their opinion, as to whether jockeys charged under this Rule have ridden carelessly.
This Committee is unable to make that decision on the evidence available to it.
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: b95eb7ff4af98048472f39649ab1ea8b
informantnumber: A7853
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 04/11/2015
hearing_title: Avondale JC 4 November 2015 - R 5 - Chair, Mr A Godsalve
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 5, the NEXT MEETING SATURDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2100, an Information was laid by Mr Coles alleging that Mr Cameron, riding POLYNESIA permitted his mount to shift outwards crowding REPRISE ridden by Mrs Thornton, which was checked near the 500 metres.
This hearing began following the final race of the day.
Mr Cameron was present at the hearing and indicated that he understood the Rule and that he did not admit the breach.
Mr Coles indicated that he would be calling Mrs Thornton as a witness.
Rule 638(1)(d) provides that ' A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless'.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Using the available video films, Mr Oatham identified the horses POLYNESIA ridden by Mr Cameron, and REPRISE, ridden by Mrs Thornton. At about the 650 metre mark, POLYNESIA was either adjacent to or near the running rail. REPRISE was outside POLYNESIA in a position described by Mr Oatham as a 'loose' 2 wide position. It is clear from the films that POLYNESIA was travelling well at this stage (and it is worth noting that the horse went on to win the race). Mr Oatham indicates that Mr Cameron took a hold of POLYNESIA and eased it out from behind the horse in front of it, BATTLEFIELD which appeared to be starting to weaken. Mr Oatham then showed Mrs Thornton in some difficulty as POLYNESIA eased outwards her. He said that the movement from Mr Cameron was 'ok' initially, however as Mr Cameron continued to ease out, Mrs Thornton was forced to take a firm hold on her mount as it was checked. Mr Oatham alleged that Mr Cameron had shifted out into the line of running which had been Mrs Thornton's which had placed Mrs Thornton into restricted room. Mr Oatham pointed out that Mrs Thornton has REPRISE'S head turned inwards as pressure is being applied from Mr Cameron, and then eventually checks the horse which in turn causes her to lose about 2 lengths. Mr Oatham stated that in his opinion Mrs Thornton would have had to be in a 3 wide position to allow Mr Cameron to shift off the fence and pursue a run; and he added that that was not the case.
Mr Cameron asked Mr Oatham to show on the films where he had put pressure on Mrs Thornton, adding that he had not moved out abruptly. Mr Oatham stated that Mr Cameron had put pressure on Mrs Thornton as soon as he had come off the back of the horse in front of him.
Mrs T Thornton was called by Mr Coles. She told the hearing that at about the 600 metre mark Mr Cameron, on her inside, had come off the fence to present his horse into a gap. She said she had been in a 2 wide position, and that her horse was a big horse, adding that there was a 'bit of a gap' between her horse and POLYNESIA. She stated that there was contact between the horses when POLYNESIA moved forward inside her and that she was under pressure from that horse after that. In answer to a question from the Committee Mrs Thornton said that Mr Cameron had angled out to get a run around the horse in front of him (BATTLEFIELD, ridden by Ms Spratt) and that she was trying to maintain her position while angling her horse's head inwards. She added that the incident had not helped her chances as in her opinion POLYNESIA had taken the run which had been presented to it causing her to have to get her horse balanced again.
Mr Cameron asked Mrs Thornton if she agreed that he had got off the fence prior to the incident when Mrs Thornton's horse was racing in a 'loose' position when he felt there was room for 2 horses. Mrs Thornton agreed that Mr Cameron's horse was travelling 'good', however did not agree that there was room for 2 horses in the room available. Mr Cameron added that he felt there was room for both of their horses if the horse outside Mrs Thornton had not been laying in onto her horse which put her in a tight position. Mrs Thornton agreed that she had been pressured by the horse outside her which had made the gap between her and Mr Cameron lessen, however she added that she still believed the run available was hers.
Mr Cameron, in his defence, stated that near the 500 metres Mrs Thornton had been a 'loose' 1 1/2 to 2 lengths off the rails, which gave him the option to come off the rails. He said he was aware the horse in front of him-BATTLEFIELD-was always going to stop. He said that Mrs Thornton was always some distance away from his horse, which allowed him to get into a one off position. He said if he hadn't been in that one off position he would have clipped BATTLEFIELD'S heels. He said he had the line of running which was a run he was entitled to. Mr Cameron stated that REPRISE was a big, green horse having its 2nd start. He said it was tight and competitive racing and the horse ahead of Mrs Thornton (SUM FAVOUR, ridden by D. Hain) was not going well, putting Mrs Thornton in an awkward spot as it shifted in slightly. He added that SUM FAVOUR was dictating Mrs Thornton to an extent, and she had nowhere to go. Mr Cameron said that he rode competitively as he felt he was ahead of Mrs Thornton and was entitled to the run. Mr Cameron stated that in his opinion Mrs Thornton 'checked' herself out of the gap near him as SUM FAVOUR had shifted in slightly onto her mount. In summary, Mr Cameron stated that he had been in a one off position for some time prior to any interference taking place, and that he was entitled to the run which had presented itself.
Mr Coles had no questions for Mr Cameron, and had nothing further to add.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee took careful notice of the submissions from all of the parties, and viewed the available video films as the respective parties outlined their positions during the race. The Committee further independently viewed the films prior to coming to a decision on this charge. It was clear that REPRISE had suffered from some interference causing it to lose ground. At that time there were several horses racing in tight quarters. The horse eventually ran on strongly to finish a close 2nd.
The Committee is faced with conflicting evidence from the jockeys involved. Mr Cameron stated that he had taken advantage of a run which was available to him when his horse was at the improving stage. He denied causing Mrs Thornton any problems when he did so, stating that in his opinion REPRISE had been dictated to by other horses around it and as it was a 'green' and inexperienced horse had reacted accordingly which resulted in it losing some ground.
Mrs Thornton has agreed that there was a 'bit of a gap' between her horse and Mr Cameron's when he angled it out to come around the horse in front of him. However she also stated that she believed her horse was entitled to the run which was available to her and that Mr Cameron had taken that run ahead of her, causing contact between the horses in doing so. Mrs Thornton acknowledged that she had come under some pressure from the horse on her outside which had reduced the distance between her horse and Mr Cameron's.
Faced with these somewhat contradicting versions of events, and lacking any other evidence having been presented, the Committee then looked to the available video films. Unfortunately, as this incident took place as the horses were in the process of rounding the home turn the available films did not include a head on or a rear view of the race. The films which were available were inconclusive as far as establishing if Mr Cameron's actions as his horse improved amounted to 'careless' riding.
The Rule calls for Judicial Committees to make a determination in their opinion, as to whether jockeys charged under this Rule have ridden carelessly.
This Committee is unable to make that decision on the evidence available to it.
Decision:
Accordingly, after taking all of the above matters into consideration the charge against Mr Cameron was dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr A Coles (Stipendiary Steward)
JockeysandTrainer: Mr M Cameron - Class A Rider
Otherperson: Mrs T D Thornton-Class A Rider, Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 664875cf2a7aa47755e9834478161ea6
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 41b8718537a36fd54bed01dff8d9bb61
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 04/11/2015
meet_title: Avondale JC - 4 November 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: avondale-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: AGodsalve
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Avondale JC