Hawke’s Bay RI 28 June 2014 – R 4
ID: JCA17780
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Hawkes Bay RI - 28 June 2014
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
TCastles
Race Date:
2014/06/28
Race Number:
R 4
Decision:
Penalty:
Mr Dee's licence is suspended from the close of racing on Saturday 5 July, up to and including racing on Wednesday 16 July 2014. This incorporates the Waverley (10th), Whangarei/Wellington (12th), Counties (14th) and Tauranga (16th) meetings.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 4 (TARADALE CLUB MAIDEN SPRINT 1400m), Information A6578 was filed with the judicial committee. The Information alleged that "M Dee (BASTION) allowed his mount to shift out over the final stages when not clear of SANJARA."
Mr M Dee, assisted by Mr R Dee, advised the committee that he understood Rule 638(1)(d) and that he did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Oatham called Stipendiary Steward Neil Goodwin as his first witness. Using the head-on film, Mr Goodwin identified BASTION (M Dee), SANJARA (V Johnston) to his outside and ROCKY (A Taylor) as the widest runner as they travelled down the home straight. He identified Mr Dee's mount moving outwards whilst he rode with the whip. Mr Goodwin submitted that BASTION had moved into the rightful line of SANJARA, and that Ms Johnston had to take evasive action; having stopped riding to avoid Mr Dee who had never been clear. He also submitted that there had been slight inwards movement from ROCKY. Using the side-on film, Mr Goodwin identified SANJARA as being competitive and improving along with ROCKY, and that on the balance of probabilities, SANJARA would have finished closer had the interference from Mr Dee not occurred. The back-on film was also played to identify the extent of the outwards movement.
In questioning Mr Goodwin, Mr R Dee asked if he believed that the inwards movement from ROCKY was more than minimal. In response, Mr Goodwin disagreed, stating that in his interpretation the majority of the interference had come from Mr Dee, and the minimal movement from ROCKY had not had a bearing on the interference to SANJARA. He stated that whilst Ms Taylor was moving inwards, she had no impact on Ms Johnston's line until the interference from Mr Dee had already taken place. Mr R Dee asked Mr Goodwin how the outwards movement was determined as no mown strips were evident on the films. In response, Mr Goodwin submitted that outwards movement had clearly occurred. He used the head-on film to identify that Mr Dee's horse was on a clear outwards movement, it was just to what degree his runner had moved into the line of SANJARA, and he was clear in his interpretation of this.
Under questioning from Mr Oatham, Vanessa Johnston confirmed she had ridden SANJARA which had placed 5th in Race 4. She stated that she suffered interference near the final 100m. She indicated she had to take a hold as she ran out of running room at the 50m. She observed that Mr Dee's horse was laying out under pressure over the final stages and that he had moved outwards a few horse widths. She believed ROCKY had also moved in half a width. She placed the outwards movement from BASTION at two or three horse widths. She also believed her running line had been impeded prior to the slight shift inwards from ROCKY, but also that her horse may have contacted the hindquarters of ROCKY which would have exaggerated ROCKY's movement. Viewing the head-on film, Ms Johnston confirmed her evidence that without the shift from Mr Dee, she did not believe she would have suffered the interference. Further, she believed that the interference had cost her 3rd placing.
Mr R Dee asked Ms Johnston if the movement from ROCKY had had a significant bearing on the interference she had suffered. In response she used the film to confirm her evidence that the outwards movement from Mr Dee was the major reason that her rightful line of running had been taken.
Mr R Dee did not believe the outwards movement from Mr Dee's horse had contributed to the interference as Mr Goodwin had stated. He believed the inwards movement from ROCKY, creating pressure, was the main contributor to Ms Johnston's line being taken. He believed ROCKY's inwards movement was more severe than the outwards movement of BASTION. Using the head-on film, Mr R Dee reconfirmed this view, pointing out that Ms Taylor's horse was on an inwards movement down the entire length of the straight and that Ms Johnston had moved inwards as a result of the shadowing pressure from ROCKY. In response to a question from the committee, Mr R Dee stated that he believed that if there had been no inwards movement from Ms Taylor, SANJARA would have had a clear run to the line.
In summing up, Mr Oatham stated the film evidence was compelling; that approaching the 100m, Ms Johnston had ample room and was entitled to her line of running. Mr Dee's mount had clearly shifted outwards quite considerably under a vigorous ride. Mr Dee had not made any attempts to take corrective action until after he had impinged on Ms Johnston's running line, who was then required to take a hold of her mount.
In summary Mr R Dee referred to Ms Taylor's position at the top of the straight, and then her position near the 100m, noting that she had made substantial inwards movement. He believed this demonstrated ROCKY's movement was more of a compelling factor in the interference suffered by Ms Johnston, rather than Mr Dee's outwards movement.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee considered all of the evidence placed before it, and viewed the available films, finding the head-on film of particular use. There was no question that Mr Dee's horse had moved outwards, and the availability of mown strips was not required to demonstrate this. It was suggested that Mr Dee's outwards movement was placed at 2-3 horse widths, and the committee accepted this based on its interpretation of the films. It was also clear from the films that there was inwards movement from Ms Taylor's mount, but the committee determined that this was not to the extent of the outwards movement from BASTION. Mr Dee's submission was that the contributing factor on Ms Johnston's rightful line of running being taken was the inwards movement from ROCKY and the shadowing pressure that was also applied. What the committee needed to be satisfied of was that the line of SANJARA was taken as a direct result of Mr Dee's outwards movement prior to any contact or prohibitive movement from Ms Taylor. The committee determined that the line of Ms Johnston's mount was dictated to as a direct result of Mr Dee's outwards movement near the 50m. What happened after that point was secondary in relation to this charge.
Submissions for Penalty:
In presenting Mr Dee's record, Mr Oatham described it as a very good one. He had one breach of this rule within the previous 12 months period at the Auckland meeting on 1 January 2014 for which a 9 day suspension was imposed for serious interference to a number of runners. He submitted an aggravating feature on this occasion was that Ms Johnston's mount was denied the opportunity to finish in a better position as a result of the interference she suffered. He submitted a 4-5 day period of suspension as appropriate.
Mr Dee indicated that he sought any period of suspension to commence after racing on Saturday 5 July due to engagements at the Taumarunui meeting. He submitted he was a North Island rider and had nothing further to add.
Reasons for Penalty:
The committee had regard to all of the penalty submissions placed before it and determined that a period of suspension was appropriate, adopting a starting point of 5 days. On balance the committee placed the level of carelessness at the low-mid range. It was clear that BASTION was under a vigorous ride by Mr Dee, but no attempt was made to straighten his mount when clearly he was obliged to do so. An aggravating feature was the denial of Ms Johnston's ability to finish the race in a potentially better position as a result of the interference she suffered. In mitigation, the committee considered Mr Dee's very good record under this rule, and noted that the details surrounding his previous suspension in January were distinctly different from the breach currently before the committee. On balance, the committee determined a 4 day period of suspension as appropriate.
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: ecf49f9683fa6e93ce71f69a710c173c
informantnumber: A6578
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 17/06/2014
hearing_title: Hawke's Bay RI 28 June 2014 - R 4
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 4 (TARADALE CLUB MAIDEN SPRINT 1400m), Information A6578 was filed with the judicial committee. The Information alleged that "M Dee (BASTION) allowed his mount to shift out over the final stages when not clear of SANJARA."
Mr M Dee, assisted by Mr R Dee, advised the committee that he understood Rule 638(1)(d) and that he did not admit the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Oatham called Stipendiary Steward Neil Goodwin as his first witness. Using the head-on film, Mr Goodwin identified BASTION (M Dee), SANJARA (V Johnston) to his outside and ROCKY (A Taylor) as the widest runner as they travelled down the home straight. He identified Mr Dee's mount moving outwards whilst he rode with the whip. Mr Goodwin submitted that BASTION had moved into the rightful line of SANJARA, and that Ms Johnston had to take evasive action; having stopped riding to avoid Mr Dee who had never been clear. He also submitted that there had been slight inwards movement from ROCKY. Using the side-on film, Mr Goodwin identified SANJARA as being competitive and improving along with ROCKY, and that on the balance of probabilities, SANJARA would have finished closer had the interference from Mr Dee not occurred. The back-on film was also played to identify the extent of the outwards movement.
In questioning Mr Goodwin, Mr R Dee asked if he believed that the inwards movement from ROCKY was more than minimal. In response, Mr Goodwin disagreed, stating that in his interpretation the majority of the interference had come from Mr Dee, and the minimal movement from ROCKY had not had a bearing on the interference to SANJARA. He stated that whilst Ms Taylor was moving inwards, she had no impact on Ms Johnston's line until the interference from Mr Dee had already taken place. Mr R Dee asked Mr Goodwin how the outwards movement was determined as no mown strips were evident on the films. In response, Mr Goodwin submitted that outwards movement had clearly occurred. He used the head-on film to identify that Mr Dee's horse was on a clear outwards movement, it was just to what degree his runner had moved into the line of SANJARA, and he was clear in his interpretation of this.
Under questioning from Mr Oatham, Vanessa Johnston confirmed she had ridden SANJARA which had placed 5th in Race 4. She stated that she suffered interference near the final 100m. She indicated she had to take a hold as she ran out of running room at the 50m. She observed that Mr Dee's horse was laying out under pressure over the final stages and that he had moved outwards a few horse widths. She believed ROCKY had also moved in half a width. She placed the outwards movement from BASTION at two or three horse widths. She also believed her running line had been impeded prior to the slight shift inwards from ROCKY, but also that her horse may have contacted the hindquarters of ROCKY which would have exaggerated ROCKY's movement. Viewing the head-on film, Ms Johnston confirmed her evidence that without the shift from Mr Dee, she did not believe she would have suffered the interference. Further, she believed that the interference had cost her 3rd placing.
Mr R Dee asked Ms Johnston if the movement from ROCKY had had a significant bearing on the interference she had suffered. In response she used the film to confirm her evidence that the outwards movement from Mr Dee was the major reason that her rightful line of running had been taken.
Mr R Dee did not believe the outwards movement from Mr Dee's horse had contributed to the interference as Mr Goodwin had stated. He believed the inwards movement from ROCKY, creating pressure, was the main contributor to Ms Johnston's line being taken. He believed ROCKY's inwards movement was more severe than the outwards movement of BASTION. Using the head-on film, Mr R Dee reconfirmed this view, pointing out that Ms Taylor's horse was on an inwards movement down the entire length of the straight and that Ms Johnston had moved inwards as a result of the shadowing pressure from ROCKY. In response to a question from the committee, Mr R Dee stated that he believed that if there had been no inwards movement from Ms Taylor, SANJARA would have had a clear run to the line.
In summing up, Mr Oatham stated the film evidence was compelling; that approaching the 100m, Ms Johnston had ample room and was entitled to her line of running. Mr Dee's mount had clearly shifted outwards quite considerably under a vigorous ride. Mr Dee had not made any attempts to take corrective action until after he had impinged on Ms Johnston's running line, who was then required to take a hold of her mount.
In summary Mr R Dee referred to Ms Taylor's position at the top of the straight, and then her position near the 100m, noting that she had made substantial inwards movement. He believed this demonstrated ROCKY's movement was more of a compelling factor in the interference suffered by Ms Johnston, rather than Mr Dee's outwards movement.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee considered all of the evidence placed before it, and viewed the available films, finding the head-on film of particular use. There was no question that Mr Dee's horse had moved outwards, and the availability of mown strips was not required to demonstrate this. It was suggested that Mr Dee's outwards movement was placed at 2-3 horse widths, and the committee accepted this based on its interpretation of the films. It was also clear from the films that there was inwards movement from Ms Taylor's mount, but the committee determined that this was not to the extent of the outwards movement from BASTION. Mr Dee's submission was that the contributing factor on Ms Johnston's rightful line of running being taken was the inwards movement from ROCKY and the shadowing pressure that was also applied. What the committee needed to be satisfied of was that the line of SANJARA was taken as a direct result of Mr Dee's outwards movement prior to any contact or prohibitive movement from Ms Taylor. The committee determined that the line of Ms Johnston's mount was dictated to as a direct result of Mr Dee's outwards movement near the 50m. What happened after that point was secondary in relation to this charge.
Decision:
sumissionsforpenalty:
In presenting Mr Dee's record, Mr Oatham described it as a very good one. He had one breach of this rule within the previous 12 months period at the Auckland meeting on 1 January 2014 for which a 9 day suspension was imposed for serious interference to a number of runners. He submitted an aggravating feature on this occasion was that Ms Johnston's mount was denied the opportunity to finish in a better position as a result of the interference she suffered. He submitted a 4-5 day period of suspension as appropriate.
Mr Dee indicated that he sought any period of suspension to commence after racing on Saturday 5 July due to engagements at the Taumarunui meeting. He submitted he was a North Island rider and had nothing further to add.
reasonsforpenalty:
The committee had regard to all of the penalty submissions placed before it and determined that a period of suspension was appropriate, adopting a starting point of 5 days. On balance the committee placed the level of carelessness at the low-mid range. It was clear that BASTION was under a vigorous ride by Mr Dee, but no attempt was made to straighten his mount when clearly he was obliged to do so. An aggravating feature was the denial of Ms Johnston's ability to finish the race in a potentially better position as a result of the interference she suffered. In mitigation, the committee considered Mr Dee's very good record under this rule, and noted that the details surrounding his previous suspension in January were distinctly different from the breach currently before the committee. On balance, the committee determined a 4 day period of suspension as appropriate.
penalty:
Mr Dee's licence is suspended from the close of racing on Saturday 5 July, up to and including racing on Wednesday 16 July 2014. This incorporates the Waverley (10th), Whangarei/Wellington (12th), Counties (14th) and Tauranga (16th) meetings.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: Rule 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr M Dee - Apprentice Rider
Otherperson: Mr R Dee - Assisting Apprentice M Dee, Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward, Ms V Johnston - Licensed Rider
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: dc16285c74759c36d02eeb8ac95b0fe9
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 69a167b51fbf20a823592bce9211fe83
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 28/06/2014
meet_title: Hawkes Bay RI - 28 June 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: hawkes-bay-ri
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: TCastles
meet_pm2: none
name: Hawkes Bay RI