Hawke’s Bay RI 18 July 2013 – Race 2
ID: JCA17064
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Hawkes Bay RI - 18 July 2013
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
TCastles
Race Date:
2013/07/18
Race Number:
Race 2
Decision:
The committee found the charge proved.
Penalty:
Miss Myers' licence to ride was suspended from the close of racing on Sunday 21 July 2013 until the close of racing on Saturday 3 August 2013, two calendar weeks of domestic racing.
Charge:
Following the running of Race 2 (Trinity Hill Wines Sprint), Information A3267 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 636(1)(c) in that "R Myers the rider of QUALITY ROYAL failed to ride her mount out fully to the end of the race."
Facts:
Rule 636(1) states: "A person:...(c) being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must ride his horse out to the end of the Race if there is a reasonable chance of it running into a position for which there is prize money to be awarded or a dividend to be declared;"
Miss Myers confirmed that she understood the rule and that she did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Using the side-on film, Mr Goodwin identified QUALITY ROYAL racing past the final 100 metres with Miss Myers riding with vigour, however; approximately one and a half to two strides from the winning post Miss Myers appeared to stop riding with the same vigour. Using the head-on film, Mr Goodwin submitted that there was no doubt that she was riding her mount out to the best of her ability whilst passing the 100 metres, but when she did relax her ride he played the simultaneous side-on film; which identified her as doing so before the winning post. Mr Neal submitted that Miss Myers had simply misjudged where the winning post was and had relaxed her ride some 20 metres before the post. He presented as evidence a photofinish printout of the margins between both horses and defined the margin as a "very tight nose" between third and fourth places. Mr Neal advised that the rail was out 10 metres from the true position; but that the winning post had not been shifted and that it may be difficult for riders to determine where the winning post was; however, he stated that the repsonsibility rested with riders to not put matters to risk, and on this occasion Miss Myers had not discharged her full duty to ride her mount to the line and leave nothing to question.
Miss Myers asked for the films to be replayed and identified that the rail was out 10 metres and that her mount was positioned a further 10 metres from the rail. She submitted that the principle of parallax was relevant in explaining her perception of where she was placed, and how her understanding of where the winning post was clearly out of touch with where it was in reality. She firmly believed she was at the post; but having viewed the films, she could see that she had made an error in misjudging where the post was. She believed that QUALITY ROYAL had maintained its momentum and did not believe the horse had stopped when she sat up just before the post. Miss Myers also advanced two recent examples of riders who had been "let off" a charge with less mitigating circumstances that those relevant to her case and wanted to place those before the committee. The first was concerning Jockey I on 8 June 2013, and the other concerning Jockey H on 22 June 2013. In response to a question of clarification from the committee, Miss Myers and Mr Neal advised that neither jockeys were charged on these occasions. Miss Myers also stated that while Mr Bradley's horse (SIR COSWORTH) was stopping on the inside, her view of SIR COSWORTH was obscured by Mr Riddell's horse (KEYORA) which was positioned to her inside, directly to her left. In response to Miss Myers' submission regarding Jockey I and Jockey H, Mr Neal stated that every case where riders stop riding their horses does not necessarily result in a charge being laid as every incident was different. He referred to a set of circumstances in Jockey I''s case that were quite different to the circumstances in this matter currently before the committee; namely, Jockey I's horse being beaten in the run home and the margin being a long head. The margin of a close nose in this case meant the discretion of the stewards as to whether or not to file a charge was much less.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee considered the submissions placed before it by all parties. Rule 636(1)(c) is quite clear with regard to the inclusion of the word "must". This in essence is not permissive as it does not provide for the word "shall", and places an onus of responsibilty upon the rider to ensure that if there is a reasonable chance of the horse finishing in a better position, that things are done to ensure this happens. It is clear from the films that Miss Myers was showing vigour with her riding style at the point of five strides before the post. The committee also noticed from the films that one and a half to two strides before the post, there is quite a noticable difference in Miss Myers' riding style to one without a similar fashion of vigour. Miss Myers is a senior jockey who has a professional obligation to ensure she is familiar with the placement of the winning post, regardless of how far out from the true position the running rail may be, and that she leaves nothing to chance. The two cases of Jockey I and Jockey H that were advanced by Miss Myers are irrelevant to our consideration in reaching a decision as neither of those instances resulted in a charge being laid. If a charge had been laid in either of those cases and a successful defence mounted, then Miss Myers could have relied on similar aspects for her defence, but as this is not the case, they do not form the basis of 'case law'. The margin of a nose is the closest one possible; and the "tight nose" is evident from the copy of the photofinish placed before the committee.
Submissions for Penalty:
In presenting Miss Myers' record, Mr Neal identified a previous suspension within the last 12 months and only two suspensions in total since the end of 2011. As she was a national rider, he classified her record as excellent. In respect to previous penalties for offences of this nature, Mr Neal identified a sliding scale approach; the higher the placing lost, the more significant the penalty imposed. A most recent case involving Jockey T where a similar third placing was lost attracted a three week suspension. He submitted that a similar penalty was appropriate on this occasion.
Miss Myers stated that she had a lot of experience and this was the first time she had encountered this problem. She asked the committee to take into consideration the width distance of her horse from the horse that ended up in third position, the running rail being 10 metres from the true position and her obscured view of the third runner by the horse which placed second. She believed it was unfair to compare her to the Jockey T case as she believed her offending was similar to that of Jockey I . Miss Myers advised that she had upcoming commitments at New Plymouth on Saturday 20 July, and that any period of suspension could commence after that.
Reasons for Penalty:
The committee considered all of the submissions placed before it. Miss Myers is a senior rider who had a responsibilty to know where the winning post was, and it is clear that she had made an error of judgement on this occasion.The JCA Penalty Guidelines suggest a starting point of a period of suspension of three calendar weeks, and the committee considered it appropriate to adopt this as a starting point. The aggravating features related to the loss of stake and dividend monies, although this is softened slightly as there was no third dividend on this race due to insufficient starters. There were a number of mitigating factors that resulted in a reduction from the starting point we had adopted. Miss Myers is a national rider who has an exceptional record, demonstrated by two suspensions since the end of 2011 when her record is viewed in totality. The committee accepted that while Miss Myers did not admit the breach, she did advance some arguments that have been applied in mitigation. The first was that even though she should have rode without leaving anything to chance, the running rail being placed 10 metres from its true position had made it difficult for Miss Myers to determine the exact placement of the winning post. QUALITY ROYAL's placement at a width of some 10 metres further onto the track, in combination with the obscured view of the third place-getter and the barest of margins between third and fourth were also to be applied in mitigation. Reasons as to the irrelevance of Jockey I''s situation, while advanced further in Miss Myer's penalty submission, has already been alluded to in the committee's reasons for its decision.
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: c8cc2247d303af01bfe4824df5758f1b
informantnumber: A3267
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 18/07/2013
hearing_title: Hawke's Bay RI 18 July 2013 - Race 2
charge:
Following the running of Race 2 (Trinity Hill Wines Sprint), Information A3267 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 636(1)(c) in that "R Myers the rider of QUALITY ROYAL failed to ride her mount out fully to the end of the race."
facts:
Rule 636(1) states: "A person:...(c) being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must ride his horse out to the end of the Race if there is a reasonable chance of it running into a position for which there is prize money to be awarded or a dividend to be declared;"
Miss Myers confirmed that she understood the rule and that she did not admit the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Using the side-on film, Mr Goodwin identified QUALITY ROYAL racing past the final 100 metres with Miss Myers riding with vigour, however; approximately one and a half to two strides from the winning post Miss Myers appeared to stop riding with the same vigour. Using the head-on film, Mr Goodwin submitted that there was no doubt that she was riding her mount out to the best of her ability whilst passing the 100 metres, but when she did relax her ride he played the simultaneous side-on film; which identified her as doing so before the winning post. Mr Neal submitted that Miss Myers had simply misjudged where the winning post was and had relaxed her ride some 20 metres before the post. He presented as evidence a photofinish printout of the margins between both horses and defined the margin as a "very tight nose" between third and fourth places. Mr Neal advised that the rail was out 10 metres from the true position; but that the winning post had not been shifted and that it may be difficult for riders to determine where the winning post was; however, he stated that the repsonsibility rested with riders to not put matters to risk, and on this occasion Miss Myers had not discharged her full duty to ride her mount to the line and leave nothing to question.
Miss Myers asked for the films to be replayed and identified that the rail was out 10 metres and that her mount was positioned a further 10 metres from the rail. She submitted that the principle of parallax was relevant in explaining her perception of where she was placed, and how her understanding of where the winning post was clearly out of touch with where it was in reality. She firmly believed she was at the post; but having viewed the films, she could see that she had made an error in misjudging where the post was. She believed that QUALITY ROYAL had maintained its momentum and did not believe the horse had stopped when she sat up just before the post. Miss Myers also advanced two recent examples of riders who had been "let off" a charge with less mitigating circumstances that those relevant to her case and wanted to place those before the committee. The first was concerning Jockey I on 8 June 2013, and the other concerning Jockey H on 22 June 2013. In response to a question of clarification from the committee, Miss Myers and Mr Neal advised that neither jockeys were charged on these occasions. Miss Myers also stated that while Mr Bradley's horse (SIR COSWORTH) was stopping on the inside, her view of SIR COSWORTH was obscured by Mr Riddell's horse (KEYORA) which was positioned to her inside, directly to her left. In response to Miss Myers' submission regarding Jockey I and Jockey H, Mr Neal stated that every case where riders stop riding their horses does not necessarily result in a charge being laid as every incident was different. He referred to a set of circumstances in Jockey I''s case that were quite different to the circumstances in this matter currently before the committee; namely, Jockey I's horse being beaten in the run home and the margin being a long head. The margin of a close nose in this case meant the discretion of the stewards as to whether or not to file a charge was much less.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee considered the submissions placed before it by all parties. Rule 636(1)(c) is quite clear with regard to the inclusion of the word "must". This in essence is not permissive as it does not provide for the word "shall", and places an onus of responsibilty upon the rider to ensure that if there is a reasonable chance of the horse finishing in a better position, that things are done to ensure this happens. It is clear from the films that Miss Myers was showing vigour with her riding style at the point of five strides before the post. The committee also noticed from the films that one and a half to two strides before the post, there is quite a noticable difference in Miss Myers' riding style to one without a similar fashion of vigour. Miss Myers is a senior jockey who has a professional obligation to ensure she is familiar with the placement of the winning post, regardless of how far out from the true position the running rail may be, and that she leaves nothing to chance. The two cases of Jockey I and Jockey H that were advanced by Miss Myers are irrelevant to our consideration in reaching a decision as neither of those instances resulted in a charge being laid. If a charge had been laid in either of those cases and a successful defence mounted, then Miss Myers could have relied on similar aspects for her defence, but as this is not the case, they do not form the basis of 'case law'. The margin of a nose is the closest one possible; and the "tight nose" is evident from the copy of the photofinish placed before the committee.
Decision:
The committee found the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
In presenting Miss Myers' record, Mr Neal identified a previous suspension within the last 12 months and only two suspensions in total since the end of 2011. As she was a national rider, he classified her record as excellent. In respect to previous penalties for offences of this nature, Mr Neal identified a sliding scale approach; the higher the placing lost, the more significant the penalty imposed. A most recent case involving Jockey T where a similar third placing was lost attracted a three week suspension. He submitted that a similar penalty was appropriate on this occasion.
Miss Myers stated that she had a lot of experience and this was the first time she had encountered this problem. She asked the committee to take into consideration the width distance of her horse from the horse that ended up in third position, the running rail being 10 metres from the true position and her obscured view of the third runner by the horse which placed second. She believed it was unfair to compare her to the Jockey T case as she believed her offending was similar to that of Jockey I . Miss Myers advised that she had upcoming commitments at New Plymouth on Saturday 20 July, and that any period of suspension could commence after that.
reasonsforpenalty:
The committee considered all of the submissions placed before it. Miss Myers is a senior rider who had a responsibilty to know where the winning post was, and it is clear that she had made an error of judgement on this occasion.The JCA Penalty Guidelines suggest a starting point of a period of suspension of three calendar weeks, and the committee considered it appropriate to adopt this as a starting point. The aggravating features related to the loss of stake and dividend monies, although this is softened slightly as there was no third dividend on this race due to insufficient starters. There were a number of mitigating factors that resulted in a reduction from the starting point we had adopted. Miss Myers is a national rider who has an exceptional record, demonstrated by two suspensions since the end of 2011 when her record is viewed in totality. The committee accepted that while Miss Myers did not admit the breach, she did advance some arguments that have been applied in mitigation. The first was that even though she should have rode without leaving anything to chance, the running rail being placed 10 metres from its true position had made it difficult for Miss Myers to determine the exact placement of the winning post. QUALITY ROYAL's placement at a width of some 10 metres further onto the track, in combination with the obscured view of the third place-getter and the barest of margins between third and fourth were also to be applied in mitigation. Reasons as to the irrelevance of Jockey I''s situation, while advanced further in Miss Myer's penalty submission, has already been alluded to in the committee's reasons for its decision.
penalty:
Miss Myers' licence to ride was suspended from the close of racing on Sunday 21 July 2013 until the close of racing on Saturday 3 August 2013, two calendar weeks of domestic racing.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 636(1)(c)
Informant: Mr R Neal - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Miss R Myers - Licensed Jockey
Otherperson: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d16d2b0cf7ee0aef6602158cfce3380c
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: 4d857eefad6685e6c9996aa8b8b8237d
meet_expapproval: approved
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 18/07/2013
meet_title: Hawkes Bay RI - 18 July 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "MemberRole": "Chair ", "MemberID": "TUtikere", "Member": "", "OtherExpenses": "0", "KMs": "160", "Total": "99.2", "kmprice": 99.200000000000003, "Approved": "on"}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: hawkes-bay-ri
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: TCastles
meet_pm2: none
name: Hawkes Bay RI