Feilding JC 29 October 2016 – R 8 – Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
ID: JCA11802
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Feilding JC - 29 October 2016
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
TUtikere
Race Date:
2016/10/29
Race Number:
R 8
Decision:
Accordingly the Committee found the charge of careless riding proved.
Penalty:
Mr Bradley is suspended from the close of racing on Saturday November 5th up to and including racing on Saturday November 12th – in effect 4 Central District and Southern days. Mr Bradley was forthright in telling the Committee that he had not intended to ride at either the Waipa or Dargaville meetings.
Days included in this suspension are:
Sunday Nov 6th - Hastings
Wednesday Nov 9th - Riccarton
Thursday Nov 10th - Manawatu
Saturday Nov 12th - Riccarton/Tauranga
Facts:
Following the running of Race 8, the Feilding Hotel Handicap, an information was lodged by Mr N Goodwin alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) in that Darryl Bradley allowed his mount to shift inwards in the back straight dictating ICEHOUSE inwards onto MR DARCEE’S GOLD which in turn shifted onto HOT SPOT who was checked near the 900 metres.
Mr Goodwin read out the careless riding rule and Mr Bradley acknowledged he understood the nature of the charge and confirmed to the committee he did not admit the breach.
Mr Goodwin indicated he would be calling three witnesses, Mr M Tanaka, Ms D Hirini and Mr J Riddell. They were asked to wait outside until called.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Goodwin then asked Mr Whiterod to show the films and give his interpretation of the events leading to the charge. After identifying all the runners involved Mr Whiterod said it was the contention of the RIU that Mr Bradley allowed his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear (of Mr Riddell) putting pressure on Mr Riddell’s mount, which in turn put pressure onto Ms Hirini’s mount who then caused Mr Tanaka’s mount (closest to the rail) to clip a heel. He said Mr Bradley was not dictated inwards by any other runner to his outside. He was following the path of the horse in front of him, who was moving across towards the rail, but whereas that runner was clear Mr Bradley was not.
Mr Whiterod said the pressure went on for some time and Mr Riddell was forced to restrain his horse off the heels of Mr Bradley’s mount. In doing so Mr Riddell put pressure onto Ms Hirini’s mount. Ms Hirini tried to angle her mount out in order to give Mr Tanaka room on the inside but she was unable to do so due to the pressure from Mr Riddell on her outside. Mr Whiterod said both Mr Tanaka and Ms Hirini were entitled to their places in the race having been in those positions for some time.
Mr Bradley asked Mr Whiterod to show exactly where he had put pressure onto Mr Riddell and queried why Mr Riddell would be angling his mount outwards if he was receiving pressure from his outside. Mr Whiterod explained that Mr Riddell was trying to relieve the pressure to the horses on his inside and was doing so by angling his mount’s head outwards.
Mr Goodwin called Mr Tanaka, the rider of HOT SPOT, as a witness. Mr Tanaka told the committee that he was racing in a position on the rail. Going into the first corner the space in front of him got tighter and tighter as Ms Hirini’s horse, on his outside, came in eventually causing him to clip the heels of that horse. He could not tell if there was any pressure coming on the outside of Ms Hirini but he said there were a lot of horses out there. Mr Bradley had no questions of Mr Tanaka.
The next witness for Mr Goodwin was Ms Hirini who rode MR DARCEE’S GOLD. In response to questions from Mr Goodwin Ms Hirini said that prior to the 900m she had a trouble-free run but then received pressure from her outside and had nowhere to go as Mr Tanaka was on her inside against the rail. She said she was entitled to be where she was and was not affecting anyone else until she received pressure from Mr Riddell. She could not see where the pressure started from as she was only concerned with trying to give Mr Tanaka some room. She was unable to relieve the pressure due to the presence of Mr Riddell on her outside. Mr Bradley had no questions of Ms Hirini.
Mr Goodwin’s final witness was Mr Riddell, the rider of ICEHOUSE. Mr Riddell said he did not believe that Ms Hirini should have been in the position she was. He said she had jumped clear and was in a position to go forward but she had taken a hold of her horse. Mr Riddell came from a position behind her and went past, as far as he knew she had taken a hold of her horse. It was Mr Riddell’s opinion that Ms Hirini was 50/50 whether she wanted to go forward or not and her horse got away on her. He said, as a rider, he would be disappointed with himself if he had put himself in that position.
Mr Riddell said there was a lot of pressure coming from his outside and while there were other runners out there Mr Bradley was the rider going forward. He said he had taken a hold of his horse in anticipation of Mr Bradley coming across but he was concentrating on the runners to his inside so was unsure how far in front Mr Bradley was when he crossed.
Mr Bradley asked Mr Riddell how much pressure or “dictation” he put on him. Mr Riddell said he had not actually been checked by Mr Bradley but had taken a hold of his mount before he came across. Mr Goodwin said the RIU never suggested that Mr Riddell had been checked but rather Mr Bradley’s inward movement had caused pressure to the inside runners that couldn’t be relieved, a statement Mr Riddell eventually agreed with.
Mr Bradley defended the incident explaining it as “a very messy situation”. He said while Ms Hirini was entitled to be in the position she was, she is an inexperienced jockey and she was in two minds about how to ride the firmer tracks. He said there was plenty of room between himself and Mr Riddell and at no time had he checked or put pressure onto that runner. Mr Bradley maintained that he was always his own length and another clear of Mr Riddell and the incident was due to a generally tight congestion of runners coming into a corner. He said that all the blame shouldn’t go onto him just because he was on the outside of the field. Mr Bradley used the head-on film to show the committee where Mr Riddell’s mount was racing erratically and looking to come out. He said if Mr Riddell had been checked he would have moved inwards not outwards. He said it was a combination of Ms Hirini being in an uncomfortable position and Mr Riddell’s mount being intractable. Mr Bradley said he was an innocent party.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee looked carefully at all the available views of the incident and took into account all of the evidence put forward by the RIU, the witnesses and Mr Bradley.
It was clear that Mr Tanaka clipped the heel of Ms Hirini’s mount and dipped when running out of room down on the fence. Ms Hirini said she was forced inwards due to pressure from Mr Riddell on her outside and she had no ability to relieve the pressure due to being sandwiched between Mr Riddell and Mr Tanaka.
Mr Riddell admitted that he received pressure from his outside and reluctantly attributed it to Mr Bradley’s forward movement. He maintained however that Ms Hirini’s inexperience as a rider put her into a position where she should not have been. It is the Committee’s view that Ms Hirini was entitled to be in that position. It was correctly pointed out that she had been established to the outside of Mr Tanaka for some distance and whether or not Mr Riddell would have ridden in the same manner is not the issue in question. While a senior rider may have made different choices we did not, on this occasion, attribute fault to Ms Hirini.
Careful scrutiny of the three available videos and the evidence of the witnesses satisfied us that the pressure began with Mr Bradley’s inward movement. Prior to that stage all three affected riders had sufficient room in the running. While we agreed with Mr Bradley that Mr Riddell’s mount was racing a little erratically prior to the incident it was only when Mr Bradley crossed that the tightening occurred and there was no room available for either Mr Riddell or Ms Hirini to relieve the pressure. Mr Riddell was attempting to stay off the runners to his inside by angling his mount’s head outwards but he said there was a lot of pressure being applied from outside. Mr Bradley was not dictated inwards by any other runner. The films and other evidence indicate that he was not the required distance clear when he moved across therefore we were satisfied that the charge of careless riding had been proved.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Goodwin told the Committee that Mr Bradley does not normally trouble the Stewards. He said his only careless riding charge in the last 12 months was in September at Wanganui where he received a four day suspension. Mr Goodwin described Mr Bradley as being unlucky and his degree of carelessness was low but the consequences were above midrange.
Mr Bradley said in his opinion the incident was not all his fault. He said that he was a regular rider down south and, when he was able, he also rode up north. Mr Bradley advised of commitments through until next Saturday therefore requested a deferment of any suspension until after that day.
Reasons for Penalty:
In coming to a decision on penalty the committee considered all of the submissions and adopted as a starting point a suspension of five days. While we found the charge of careless riding against Mr Bradley proved we did not consider there to be any further aggravating factors. In our opinion the level of carelessness was low. The incident occurred soon after the start as the runners were all racing in close proximity while approaching the first corner. There was little room for error. Mr Bradley erred in riding forward a stride too far and it was unfortunate that the concertina effect to the runners on his inside resulted in Mr Tanaka clipping a heel. Balancing up all of the factors including Mr Bradley’s good riding record and looking at the overall incident it was our opinion that a four day suspension was an appropriate penalty.
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: 271458e77adafd66ca63fdd5fdaf88bd
informantnumber: A7685
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 31/10/2016
hearing_title: Feilding JC 29 October 2016 - R 8 - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 8, the Feilding Hotel Handicap, an information was lodged by Mr N Goodwin alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) in that Darryl Bradley allowed his mount to shift inwards in the back straight dictating ICEHOUSE inwards onto MR DARCEE’S GOLD which in turn shifted onto HOT SPOT who was checked near the 900 metres.
Mr Goodwin read out the careless riding rule and Mr Bradley acknowledged he understood the nature of the charge and confirmed to the committee he did not admit the breach.
Mr Goodwin indicated he would be calling three witnesses, Mr M Tanaka, Ms D Hirini and Mr J Riddell. They were asked to wait outside until called.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Goodwin then asked Mr Whiterod to show the films and give his interpretation of the events leading to the charge. After identifying all the runners involved Mr Whiterod said it was the contention of the RIU that Mr Bradley allowed his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear (of Mr Riddell) putting pressure on Mr Riddell’s mount, which in turn put pressure onto Ms Hirini’s mount who then caused Mr Tanaka’s mount (closest to the rail) to clip a heel. He said Mr Bradley was not dictated inwards by any other runner to his outside. He was following the path of the horse in front of him, who was moving across towards the rail, but whereas that runner was clear Mr Bradley was not.
Mr Whiterod said the pressure went on for some time and Mr Riddell was forced to restrain his horse off the heels of Mr Bradley’s mount. In doing so Mr Riddell put pressure onto Ms Hirini’s mount. Ms Hirini tried to angle her mount out in order to give Mr Tanaka room on the inside but she was unable to do so due to the pressure from Mr Riddell on her outside. Mr Whiterod said both Mr Tanaka and Ms Hirini were entitled to their places in the race having been in those positions for some time.
Mr Bradley asked Mr Whiterod to show exactly where he had put pressure onto Mr Riddell and queried why Mr Riddell would be angling his mount outwards if he was receiving pressure from his outside. Mr Whiterod explained that Mr Riddell was trying to relieve the pressure to the horses on his inside and was doing so by angling his mount’s head outwards.
Mr Goodwin called Mr Tanaka, the rider of HOT SPOT, as a witness. Mr Tanaka told the committee that he was racing in a position on the rail. Going into the first corner the space in front of him got tighter and tighter as Ms Hirini’s horse, on his outside, came in eventually causing him to clip the heels of that horse. He could not tell if there was any pressure coming on the outside of Ms Hirini but he said there were a lot of horses out there. Mr Bradley had no questions of Mr Tanaka.
The next witness for Mr Goodwin was Ms Hirini who rode MR DARCEE’S GOLD. In response to questions from Mr Goodwin Ms Hirini said that prior to the 900m she had a trouble-free run but then received pressure from her outside and had nowhere to go as Mr Tanaka was on her inside against the rail. She said she was entitled to be where she was and was not affecting anyone else until she received pressure from Mr Riddell. She could not see where the pressure started from as she was only concerned with trying to give Mr Tanaka some room. She was unable to relieve the pressure due to the presence of Mr Riddell on her outside. Mr Bradley had no questions of Ms Hirini.
Mr Goodwin’s final witness was Mr Riddell, the rider of ICEHOUSE. Mr Riddell said he did not believe that Ms Hirini should have been in the position she was. He said she had jumped clear and was in a position to go forward but she had taken a hold of her horse. Mr Riddell came from a position behind her and went past, as far as he knew she had taken a hold of her horse. It was Mr Riddell’s opinion that Ms Hirini was 50/50 whether she wanted to go forward or not and her horse got away on her. He said, as a rider, he would be disappointed with himself if he had put himself in that position.
Mr Riddell said there was a lot of pressure coming from his outside and while there were other runners out there Mr Bradley was the rider going forward. He said he had taken a hold of his horse in anticipation of Mr Bradley coming across but he was concentrating on the runners to his inside so was unsure how far in front Mr Bradley was when he crossed.
Mr Bradley asked Mr Riddell how much pressure or “dictation” he put on him. Mr Riddell said he had not actually been checked by Mr Bradley but had taken a hold of his mount before he came across. Mr Goodwin said the RIU never suggested that Mr Riddell had been checked but rather Mr Bradley’s inward movement had caused pressure to the inside runners that couldn’t be relieved, a statement Mr Riddell eventually agreed with.
Mr Bradley defended the incident explaining it as “a very messy situation”. He said while Ms Hirini was entitled to be in the position she was, she is an inexperienced jockey and she was in two minds about how to ride the firmer tracks. He said there was plenty of room between himself and Mr Riddell and at no time had he checked or put pressure onto that runner. Mr Bradley maintained that he was always his own length and another clear of Mr Riddell and the incident was due to a generally tight congestion of runners coming into a corner. He said that all the blame shouldn’t go onto him just because he was on the outside of the field. Mr Bradley used the head-on film to show the committee where Mr Riddell’s mount was racing erratically and looking to come out. He said if Mr Riddell had been checked he would have moved inwards not outwards. He said it was a combination of Ms Hirini being in an uncomfortable position and Mr Riddell’s mount being intractable. Mr Bradley said he was an innocent party.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee looked carefully at all the available views of the incident and took into account all of the evidence put forward by the RIU, the witnesses and Mr Bradley.
It was clear that Mr Tanaka clipped the heel of Ms Hirini’s mount and dipped when running out of room down on the fence. Ms Hirini said she was forced inwards due to pressure from Mr Riddell on her outside and she had no ability to relieve the pressure due to being sandwiched between Mr Riddell and Mr Tanaka.
Mr Riddell admitted that he received pressure from his outside and reluctantly attributed it to Mr Bradley’s forward movement. He maintained however that Ms Hirini’s inexperience as a rider put her into a position where she should not have been. It is the Committee’s view that Ms Hirini was entitled to be in that position. It was correctly pointed out that she had been established to the outside of Mr Tanaka for some distance and whether or not Mr Riddell would have ridden in the same manner is not the issue in question. While a senior rider may have made different choices we did not, on this occasion, attribute fault to Ms Hirini.
Careful scrutiny of the three available videos and the evidence of the witnesses satisfied us that the pressure began with Mr Bradley’s inward movement. Prior to that stage all three affected riders had sufficient room in the running. While we agreed with Mr Bradley that Mr Riddell’s mount was racing a little erratically prior to the incident it was only when Mr Bradley crossed that the tightening occurred and there was no room available for either Mr Riddell or Ms Hirini to relieve the pressure. Mr Riddell was attempting to stay off the runners to his inside by angling his mount’s head outwards but he said there was a lot of pressure being applied from outside. Mr Bradley was not dictated inwards by any other runner. The films and other evidence indicate that he was not the required distance clear when he moved across therefore we were satisfied that the charge of careless riding had been proved.
Decision:
Accordingly the Committee found the charge of careless riding proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Goodwin told the Committee that Mr Bradley does not normally trouble the Stewards. He said his only careless riding charge in the last 12 months was in September at Wanganui where he received a four day suspension. Mr Goodwin described Mr Bradley as being unlucky and his degree of carelessness was low but the consequences were above midrange.
Mr Bradley said in his opinion the incident was not all his fault. He said that he was a regular rider down south and, when he was able, he also rode up north. Mr Bradley advised of commitments through until next Saturday therefore requested a deferment of any suspension until after that day.
reasonsforpenalty:
In coming to a decision on penalty the committee considered all of the submissions and adopted as a starting point a suspension of five days. While we found the charge of careless riding against Mr Bradley proved we did not consider there to be any further aggravating factors. In our opinion the level of carelessness was low. The incident occurred soon after the start as the runners were all racing in close proximity while approaching the first corner. There was little room for error. Mr Bradley erred in riding forward a stride too far and it was unfortunate that the concertina effect to the runners on his inside resulted in Mr Tanaka clipping a heel. Balancing up all of the factors including Mr Bradley’s good riding record and looking at the overall incident it was our opinion that a four day suspension was an appropriate penalty.
penalty:
Mr Bradley is suspended from the close of racing on Saturday November 5th up to and including racing on Saturday November 12th – in effect 4 Central District and Southern days. Mr Bradley was forthright in telling the Committee that he had not intended to ride at either the Waipa or Dargaville meetings.
Days included in this suspension are:
Sunday Nov 6th - Hastings
Wednesday Nov 9th - Riccarton
Thursday Nov 10th - Manawatu
Saturday Nov 12th - Riccarton/Tauranga
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr D Bradley - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mr M Tanaka - Licensed Rider, Ms D Hirini - Apprentice Rider, Mr J Riddell - Licensed Rider, Mr G Whiterod - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 1bcc8c436208c19f9848e4659dc6a465
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 662186863ca337837ad233b65bfb2ced
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 29/10/2016
meet_title: Feilding JC - 29 October 2016
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: feilding-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: TUtikere
meet_pm2: none
name: Feilding JC