Canterbury JC – 5 August 2009 – Race 2
ID: JCA22845
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Canterbury JC - 5 August 2009
Race Date:
2009/08/05
Race Number:
Race 2
Decision:
Following the running of Race 2, Yaldhurst Hotel Maiden, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr R Sanders, against Licensed Jockey, Mr D G Bradley, alleging a breach of Rule 871 (1) (d) – careless riding – in that “near the 100 metres [Mr Bradley] continued to allow his mount to shift out under hard riding causing FAMILY PRESENT (B R Lammas) to be checked to avoid the heels of BEAT IT [ridden by Mr Bradley]”.
--
Following the running of Race 2, Yaldhurst Hotel Maiden, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr R Sanders, against Licensed Jockey, Mr D G Bradley, alleging a breach of Rule 871 (1) (d) – careless riding – in that “near the 100 metres [Mr Bradley] continued to allow his mount to shift out under hard riding causing FAMILY PRESENT (B R Lammas) to be checked to avoid the heels of BEAT IT [ridden by Mr Bradley]”.
--Mr Bradley was present at the hearing of the information and did not admit the charge.
--Mr Sanders showed head-on and side-on video replays of the final 200-300 metres of the Race. He pointed out the two runners, BEAT IT and FAMILY PRESENT. He pointed out BEAT IT “commence to lay out and did for some distance”. Mr Bradley continued to ride vigorously with the whip and the horse then ducked out across the rightful running of FAMILY PRESENT ridden by Mr Lammas. At no stage, inside the 200 metres, did Mr Bradley attempt to correct his mount but rather continued to ride with vigour. He had one hand on the reins and was using the whip with the other while his mount continued to shift out over considerable ground. Although the amount of interference to FAMILY PRESENT was not at the high end there was no doubt that FAMILY PRESENT was impeded and had to be checked to avoid the heels of BEAT IT which was only “a bare length” clear while Mr Bradley continued to ride vigorously. The horse had shown Mr Bradley over the previous 100 metres that it had wayward tendencies. He was riding for the prize money without due regard for his fellow riders, Mr Sanders submitted.
--Mr B R Lammas gave evidence to the hearing. He said that, near the 100 metres when BEAT IT went across his line, that horse was “just under a length” in front and he had to take evasive action to avoid it. BEAT IT, prior to the incident, had shown a tendency to run out and was racing erratically, Mr Lammas said.
--
Mr Bradley said that BEAT IT was having its first start and was “very green and wayward”. Mr Bradley used the video replays to show that he moved BEAT IT into a gap. The horse was running out, he tried it and it continued to run out. He continued to ride it. The horse was hanging very hard and he had a tight rein on the inside. He submitted that the horse’s head could be seen to be turned inwards with the pressure of the rein. He was “totally unaware” of Mr Lammas on his hind quarters and that that horse had to be eased as he crossed. BEAT IT ran right out to the outside fence, Mr Bradley said, and he pointed this out on the video. It continued to run out even when he stopped riding it with the whip and it made no difference when he had both hands on the reins. He said that he had done everything that he could to arrest the outward movement of BEAT IT. He had tried to ride it forward using the whip but the horse still veered outwards, he said. He was a “victim of circumstances”.
Mr Sanders asked Mr Bradley why he had not put the whip away inside the final 200 metres and attempt to straighten the horse which it was his obligation to do. Mr Bradley said that, prior to the 100 metres, he had attempted to straighten the horse but had been unable to do so. After the 200 metres, Mr Bradley agreed, he had ridden the horse fully with the whip.
--Mr Sanders submitted to the Committee that, when he learned of his mount’s tendencies, Mr Bradley should have shown “more due care”. As a professional jockey, Mr Bradley was aware that if his horse was shifting ground, it was his obligation to stop riding and straighten it and not to cause interference to other runners. He had not done so and had admitted that he was unaware of the presence of Mr Lammas.
--Mr Bradley had nothing to add and the Committee adjourned to deliberate.
--Following the deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:
--“We have listened to the evidence of both parties in this case and we have carefully viewed the video replays of the final 400 metres of the Race. The Stewards alleged that Mr Bradley had continued to use his whip on BEAT IT while the horse was shifting ground outwards inside the final 200 metres as a consequence of which Mr B Lammas on FAMILY PRESENT had to check to avoid its heels. Mr Lammas told the Committee that BEAT IT was just under a length ahead when it crossed and he confirmed that he had to check to avoid its heels.
--Mr Bradley stated that the horse was very green and wayward. He said that he did not know this prior to riding it in the Race. He admitted that BEAT IT had run out and he said that he was unaware that Mr Lammas had had to ease. He did admit that some interference had taken place to Mr Lammas’ mount. He said he had done everything in his power to control the horse and he was a victim of circumstances. He further said that, prior to the 200 metres, he did not attempt to straighten and, inside the 200 metres, he rode it fully with his whip.
--In determining this matter, the Committee notes two important points:
1. Mr Bradley was, clearly, not his own length and another length clear when he crossed Mr Lammas and Mr Lammas said that Mr Bradley was less than a length clear which, in the Committee’s view, was very significant.
2. Mr Bradley could be seen to be using his whip continuously inside the final 200 metres rather than stop riding and attempt to straighten his mount as we believe he was required to do. Mr Bradley admitted that he rode fully with the whip inside the final 200 metres.
We find that Mr Bradley’s actions in continuing to use his whip rather than to stop riding and straighten his mount and in crossing Mr Lammas when, clearly, not his own length and another length clear were not the actions of a reasonable prudent rider and, therefore, we find that he rode carelessly and the charge is found proved”.
--Mr Sanders furnished details of Mr Bradley’s record. On 23.5.09 at Wellington Mr Bradley had been suspended for 5 days. On 28.3.09 at Manawatu, he was suspended for 4 days and was fined $1,500 (a Listed Race) and on 20.12.08 at Manawatu he was suspended for 2 weeks and fined $2,000 (a Group 3 Race). Mr Bradley rides all over the country. Today’s meeting was a feature meeting but Race 2 was only a maiden race for a stake of $8,000. The interference on this occasion was “mid to low range” but Mr Bradley had showed no regard for his fellow rider. Mr Sanders recommended a suspension of 4-6 days.
--Mr Bradley urged the Committee to take into account the waywardness of the horse. There was no element of intent – he was trying to control a horse veering out. He thought he was clear of all other runners and would not inconvenience or endanger fellow riders.
--Mr Bradley said that he has a lot of rides. He is intending to ride in the South Island in the near future. He had engagements on the final day of the meeting on Saturday, 8 August. He was not intending to ride at Taupo on 12 August. Mr Sanders accepted that Mr Bradley rode all over the country.
--Mr Sanders had recommended a suspension of 4-6 days. The Committee decided to adopt the lower end of that recommendation – that is to say, 4 days. In deciding this, the Committee had regard to Mr Bradley’s submission that the horse had raced somewhat greenly and that the interference, as the Committee found, was at the lower to middle end of the scale and was relatively minor in degree. While Mr Bradley had had three previous breaches of the careless riding Rule within the previous 12 months, his record was not that bad considering the number of rides that he has. The Committee had regard to the status of the Race and the stake payable referred to above.
--Mr Bradley was suspended for a period commencing after the close of racing on Saturday 8 August 2009 up to and including Sunday, 16 August 2009 – effectively, 4 days. In calculating the period of suspension, the Committee did not include the meeting at Taupo on 12 August as Mr Bradley had indicated that he did not intend to ride at that meeting.
--R G McKenzie
CHAIR
6953
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: e6f880ab68bb16f79d82399334fe9ae1
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 05/08/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 5 August 2009 - Race 2
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Following the running of Race 2, Yaldhurst Hotel Maiden, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr R Sanders, against Licensed Jockey, Mr D G Bradley, alleging a breach of Rule 871 (1) (d) – careless riding – in that “near the 100 metres [Mr Bradley] continued to allow his mount to shift out under hard riding causing FAMILY PRESENT (B R Lammas) to be checked to avoid the heels of BEAT IT [ridden by Mr Bradley]”.
--
Following the running of Race 2, Yaldhurst Hotel Maiden, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr R Sanders, against Licensed Jockey, Mr D G Bradley, alleging a breach of Rule 871 (1) (d) – careless riding – in that “near the 100 metres [Mr Bradley] continued to allow his mount to shift out under hard riding causing FAMILY PRESENT (B R Lammas) to be checked to avoid the heels of BEAT IT [ridden by Mr Bradley]”.
--Mr Bradley was present at the hearing of the information and did not admit the charge.
--Mr Sanders showed head-on and side-on video replays of the final 200-300 metres of the Race. He pointed out the two runners, BEAT IT and FAMILY PRESENT. He pointed out BEAT IT “commence to lay out and did for some distance”. Mr Bradley continued to ride vigorously with the whip and the horse then ducked out across the rightful running of FAMILY PRESENT ridden by Mr Lammas. At no stage, inside the 200 metres, did Mr Bradley attempt to correct his mount but rather continued to ride with vigour. He had one hand on the reins and was using the whip with the other while his mount continued to shift out over considerable ground. Although the amount of interference to FAMILY PRESENT was not at the high end there was no doubt that FAMILY PRESENT was impeded and had to be checked to avoid the heels of BEAT IT which was only “a bare length” clear while Mr Bradley continued to ride vigorously. The horse had shown Mr Bradley over the previous 100 metres that it had wayward tendencies. He was riding for the prize money without due regard for his fellow riders, Mr Sanders submitted.
--Mr B R Lammas gave evidence to the hearing. He said that, near the 100 metres when BEAT IT went across his line, that horse was “just under a length” in front and he had to take evasive action to avoid it. BEAT IT, prior to the incident, had shown a tendency to run out and was racing erratically, Mr Lammas said.
--
Mr Bradley said that BEAT IT was having its first start and was “very green and wayward”. Mr Bradley used the video replays to show that he moved BEAT IT into a gap. The horse was running out, he tried it and it continued to run out. He continued to ride it. The horse was hanging very hard and he had a tight rein on the inside. He submitted that the horse’s head could be seen to be turned inwards with the pressure of the rein. He was “totally unaware” of Mr Lammas on his hind quarters and that that horse had to be eased as he crossed. BEAT IT ran right out to the outside fence, Mr Bradley said, and he pointed this out on the video. It continued to run out even when he stopped riding it with the whip and it made no difference when he had both hands on the reins. He said that he had done everything that he could to arrest the outward movement of BEAT IT. He had tried to ride it forward using the whip but the horse still veered outwards, he said. He was a “victim of circumstances”.
Mr Sanders asked Mr Bradley why he had not put the whip away inside the final 200 metres and attempt to straighten the horse which it was his obligation to do. Mr Bradley said that, prior to the 100 metres, he had attempted to straighten the horse but had been unable to do so. After the 200 metres, Mr Bradley agreed, he had ridden the horse fully with the whip.
--Mr Sanders submitted to the Committee that, when he learned of his mount’s tendencies, Mr Bradley should have shown “more due care”. As a professional jockey, Mr Bradley was aware that if his horse was shifting ground, it was his obligation to stop riding and straighten it and not to cause interference to other runners. He had not done so and had admitted that he was unaware of the presence of Mr Lammas.
--Mr Bradley had nothing to add and the Committee adjourned to deliberate.
--Following the deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:
--“We have listened to the evidence of both parties in this case and we have carefully viewed the video replays of the final 400 metres of the Race. The Stewards alleged that Mr Bradley had continued to use his whip on BEAT IT while the horse was shifting ground outwards inside the final 200 metres as a consequence of which Mr B Lammas on FAMILY PRESENT had to check to avoid its heels. Mr Lammas told the Committee that BEAT IT was just under a length ahead when it crossed and he confirmed that he had to check to avoid its heels.
--Mr Bradley stated that the horse was very green and wayward. He said that he did not know this prior to riding it in the Race. He admitted that BEAT IT had run out and he said that he was unaware that Mr Lammas had had to ease. He did admit that some interference had taken place to Mr Lammas’ mount. He said he had done everything in his power to control the horse and he was a victim of circumstances. He further said that, prior to the 200 metres, he did not attempt to straighten and, inside the 200 metres, he rode it fully with his whip.
--In determining this matter, the Committee notes two important points:
1. Mr Bradley was, clearly, not his own length and another length clear when he crossed Mr Lammas and Mr Lammas said that Mr Bradley was less than a length clear which, in the Committee’s view, was very significant.
2. Mr Bradley could be seen to be using his whip continuously inside the final 200 metres rather than stop riding and attempt to straighten his mount as we believe he was required to do. Mr Bradley admitted that he rode fully with the whip inside the final 200 metres.
We find that Mr Bradley’s actions in continuing to use his whip rather than to stop riding and straighten his mount and in crossing Mr Lammas when, clearly, not his own length and another length clear were not the actions of a reasonable prudent rider and, therefore, we find that he rode carelessly and the charge is found proved”.
--Mr Sanders furnished details of Mr Bradley’s record. On 23.5.09 at Wellington Mr Bradley had been suspended for 5 days. On 28.3.09 at Manawatu, he was suspended for 4 days and was fined $1,500 (a Listed Race) and on 20.12.08 at Manawatu he was suspended for 2 weeks and fined $2,000 (a Group 3 Race). Mr Bradley rides all over the country. Today’s meeting was a feature meeting but Race 2 was only a maiden race for a stake of $8,000. The interference on this occasion was “mid to low range” but Mr Bradley had showed no regard for his fellow rider. Mr Sanders recommended a suspension of 4-6 days.
--Mr Bradley urged the Committee to take into account the waywardness of the horse. There was no element of intent – he was trying to control a horse veering out. He thought he was clear of all other runners and would not inconvenience or endanger fellow riders.
--Mr Bradley said that he has a lot of rides. He is intending to ride in the South Island in the near future. He had engagements on the final day of the meeting on Saturday, 8 August. He was not intending to ride at Taupo on 12 August. Mr Sanders accepted that Mr Bradley rode all over the country.
--Mr Sanders had recommended a suspension of 4-6 days. The Committee decided to adopt the lower end of that recommendation – that is to say, 4 days. In deciding this, the Committee had regard to Mr Bradley’s submission that the horse had raced somewhat greenly and that the interference, as the Committee found, was at the lower to middle end of the scale and was relatively minor in degree. While Mr Bradley had had three previous breaches of the careless riding Rule within the previous 12 months, his record was not that bad considering the number of rides that he has. The Committee had regard to the status of the Race and the stake payable referred to above.
--Mr Bradley was suspended for a period commencing after the close of racing on Saturday 8 August 2009 up to and including Sunday, 16 August 2009 – effectively, 4 days. In calculating the period of suspension, the Committee did not include the meeting at Taupo on 12 August as Mr Bradley had indicated that he did not intend to ride at that meeting.
--R G McKenzie
CHAIR
6953
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 871.1.d
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 93e39281ac61809e7374b42456f79dc0
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: b607b27daeb189a065548789df48f2b3
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 05/08/2009
meet_title: Canterbury JC - 5 August 2009
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Canterbury JC