Archive Decision

This decision has been migrated from the JCA website. Information is accurate but formatting may differ from contemporary decisions. Please contact us for any further enquiries.

Manawatu RC 26 July 2018 – R 1 – Chair, Mr N McCutcheon

ID: JCA12794

Applicant:
Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward

Respondent(s):
Mr C Studd - Licensed Jockey

Other Person:
Ms S Thompson - Licensed Trainer (Witness0, Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward

Information Number:
A8843

Hearing Type:
Hearing

New Charge:
Failing to drive out

Rules:
636(1)(d)

Plea:
denied

Code:
Thoroughbred

Meet Title:
Manawatu RC - 26 July 2018

Meet Chair:
NMcCutcheon

Meet Committee Member 1:
PWilliams

Race Date:
2018/07/26

Race Number:
R 1

Decision:

The charge preferred against Mr Studd under the provision of Rule 636(1)(d) was upheld.

Penalty:

Mr Studd’s Jockey’s Licence was suspended from the close of racing on 28 July up to an including 24 August 2018.

 

ADDENDUM
Mr Studd was told by the Committee that they had heard many reasons why Riders had not dismounted and led horses back to the birdcage. However his reason for not doing so being because he did not want to ruin his boots was unique. Mr Studd’s response was that he had said that in jest.
He was then advised that he should not make comments in jest during a formal hearing.

Facts:

Following the running of Race 1 (Higgins Concrete Hurdles), Information No.A8843 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged by the Informant that Mr Studd failed to ride his mount out to the finish when there was a reasonable chance of running into a position for which there was prize money. (Beaten for 3rd placing by a short-neck).

Mr Studd confirmed that he understood the Rule, charge and advised the Committee that he did not admit the breach.

Mr Studd was advised by the Committee of his rights and the procedure that the hearing would follow.

Rule 636(1)(d) provides:
A person: 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.

Submissions for Decision:

Mr Goodwin, Stipendiary Steward, showed all film replays and his submission was that Mr Studd and his mount ZED LEPPELIN was in third position after jumping the last fence and about 8 lengths clear of the 4th running horse THATZ DAVID. He said that Mr Studd was riding his horse out and then looked to his inside and then stopped riding out altogether. He said THATZ DAVID who was finishing on, got up to beat ZED LEPPELIN by a short-neck. He added that Mr Studd stopped riding out 7 strides from the winning post and it appeared that he was not aware of THATZ DAVID finishing on his outside.

Mr Studd did not have any questions.

Mr Studd said that he reported to Ms Thompson as soon as he weighed in that the horse was lame. He said that ZED LEPPELIN was out of character after jumping the last fence as it felt different. He said that it felt lame due to the feeling it gave him. He agreed that he stopped riding out 7 strides from the finish but that that was because his horse felt lame.

Ms Thompson was called as a witness for Mr Studd; Ms Thompson is the co-Trainer for ZED LEPPELIN. Her submission was that after the race Charlie (Mr Studd) came back in and said that he thought the horse was lame. She said that ZED LEPPELIN did not jump the last fence well and that he appeared to be lame/sore, changed strides and started to go up and down. She said that the horse was lame in the birdcage but had recovered by the time it had returned to the stalls.

The Committee invited Ms Thompson to show on the film replays where the horse was lame/sore and changed stride but she was unable to do so.

Film replays were shown of when the horses were pulling up after the race and it showed that ZED LEPPELIN did stumble. Mr Studd said that after stumbling the horse was lame.

Mr Coles presented a Veterinary Surgeon’s Certificate that stated there was nothing amiss with the animal at the time of the examination which was undertaken immediately following the race.

Mr Studd nor Ms Thompson did not question or dispute the content of the report.

Summation
Mr Coles said that ZED LEPPELIN ran the last two fences down but that this had nothing to do with lameness. He said that if the horse had have been lame Mr Studd would have dismounted and led the horse back to the birdcage. He said that it was clear that Mr Studd had stopped riding and that that cost the horse a better placing.

Mr Studd repeated that the horse was lame and that that was the reason why he sat up.

Reasons for Decision:

After considering all of the evidence carefully and reviewing all film replays at length the Committee was not satisfied that ZED LEPPELIN was lame/sore after jumping the last fence up until the conclusion of the race. The horse landed over the last fence with its near foreleg leading and continued to do so and did not change stride, falter or show any sign of soreness. The Veterinary Surgeon’s Certificate confirmed that there was not anything amiss with the animal at time of inspection. As a result of the Committee’s finding the submission that the horse was lame/sore was rejected. The film evidence was crystal clear in that after jumping the last fence clearly in third position, Mr Studd looked to his inside and then sat up with approximately 7 strides still to travel and was run down for third placing by THATZ DAVID who finished on down the outside.

The margin was a short-neck.

Riders are not obliged to ride out vigorously with the whip, but they are under an obligation to continue to urge their mounts with hands and heels to the conclusion of a race.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Coles said that Mr Studd had a good record. He said that on account of Mr Studd’s action of failing to ride out over the final 7 strides this stopped ZED LEPPELIN from finishing in a better position. He said that it was an error of judgement by Mr Studd in that he did not look to his outside. He submitted that a suspension of not less than 3 weeks be imposed.

Mr Studd said that his record was good and that he had confirmed rides at Christchurch. He added that on pulling up his horse stumbled and was lame and that the reason he did not get off was because the track was so wet that he did not want to ruin his boots.

Reasons for Penalty:

The record showed that Mr Studd had not breached Rule 636(1)(d) during his riding career. Other than the record the Committee considered that there were no other mitigating factors to take into consideration. The aggravating matters were that there was no genuine reason/s for Mr Studd to sit up and stop riding out. He was racing in third position and well clear of the 4th positioned horse (8 lengths) and in the Committee’s opinion would have held that placing if he had continued to urge his mount to the line. As a consequence of this lack of action some punters would have lost out on a trifecta return. In addition the owners of the horse lost $1,000 in prizemoney.

Taking into account the JCA penalty guideline the Committee determined that a suspension of approximately 4 weeks was the 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: 58f99d56274003a92215b7ea50829fb0


informantnumber: A8843


horsename:


hearing_racingtype:


startdate: no date provided


newcharge: Failing to drive out


plea: denied


penaltyrequired: 1


decisiondate: 29/07/2018


hearing_title: Manawatu RC 26 July 2018 - R 1 - Chair, Mr N McCutcheon


charge:


facts:

Following the running of Race 1 (Higgins Concrete Hurdles), Information No.A8843 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged by the Informant that Mr Studd failed to ride his mount out to the finish when there was a reasonable chance of running into a position for which there was prize money. (Beaten for 3rd placing by a short-neck).

Mr Studd confirmed that he understood the Rule, charge and advised the Committee that he did not admit the breach.

Mr Studd was advised by the Committee of his rights and the procedure that the hearing would follow.

Rule 636(1)(d) provides:
A person: 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.


appealdecision:


isappeal:


submissionsfordecision:

Mr Goodwin, Stipendiary Steward, showed all film replays and his submission was that Mr Studd and his mount ZED LEPPELIN was in third position after jumping the last fence and about 8 lengths clear of the 4th running horse THATZ DAVID. He said that Mr Studd was riding his horse out and then looked to his inside and then stopped riding out altogether. He said THATZ DAVID who was finishing on, got up to beat ZED LEPPELIN by a short-neck. He added that Mr Studd stopped riding out 7 strides from the winning post and it appeared that he was not aware of THATZ DAVID finishing on his outside.

Mr Studd did not have any questions.

Mr Studd said that he reported to Ms Thompson as soon as he weighed in that the horse was lame. He said that ZED LEPPELIN was out of character after jumping the last fence as it felt different. He said that it felt lame due to the feeling it gave him. He agreed that he stopped riding out 7 strides from the finish but that that was because his horse felt lame.

Ms Thompson was called as a witness for Mr Studd; Ms Thompson is the co-Trainer for ZED LEPPELIN. Her submission was that after the race Charlie (Mr Studd) came back in and said that he thought the horse was lame. She said that ZED LEPPELIN did not jump the last fence well and that he appeared to be lame/sore, changed strides and started to go up and down. She said that the horse was lame in the birdcage but had recovered by the time it had returned to the stalls.

The Committee invited Ms Thompson to show on the film replays where the horse was lame/sore and changed stride but she was unable to do so.

Film replays were shown of when the horses were pulling up after the race and it showed that ZED LEPPELIN did stumble. Mr Studd said that after stumbling the horse was lame.

Mr Coles presented a Veterinary Surgeon’s Certificate that stated there was nothing amiss with the animal at the time of the examination which was undertaken immediately following the race.

Mr Studd nor Ms Thompson did not question or dispute the content of the report.

Summation
Mr Coles said that ZED LEPPELIN ran the last two fences down but that this had nothing to do with lameness. He said that if the horse had have been lame Mr Studd would have dismounted and led the horse back to the birdcage. He said that it was clear that Mr Studd had stopped riding and that that cost the horse a better placing.

Mr Studd repeated that the horse was lame and that that was the reason why he sat up.


reasonsfordecision:

After considering all of the evidence carefully and reviewing all film replays at length the Committee was not satisfied that ZED LEPPELIN was lame/sore after jumping the last fence up until the conclusion of the race. The horse landed over the last fence with its near foreleg leading and continued to do so and did not change stride, falter or show any sign of soreness. The Veterinary Surgeon’s Certificate confirmed that there was not anything amiss with the animal at time of inspection. As a result of the Committee’s finding the submission that the horse was lame/sore was rejected. The film evidence was crystal clear in that after jumping the last fence clearly in third position, Mr Studd looked to his inside and then sat up with approximately 7 strides still to travel and was run down for third placing by THATZ DAVID who finished on down the outside.

The margin was a short-neck.

Riders are not obliged to ride out vigorously with the whip, but they are under an obligation to continue to urge their mounts with hands and heels to the conclusion of a race.


Decision:

The charge preferred against Mr Studd under the provision of Rule 636(1)(d) was upheld.


sumissionsforpenalty:

Mr Coles said that Mr Studd had a good record. He said that on account of Mr Studd’s action of failing to ride out over the final 7 strides this stopped ZED LEPPELIN from finishing in a better position. He said that it was an error of judgement by Mr Studd in that he did not look to his outside. He submitted that a suspension of not less than 3 weeks be imposed.

Mr Studd said that his record was good and that he had confirmed rides at Christchurch. He added that on pulling up his horse stumbled and was lame and that the reason he did not get off was because the track was so wet that he did not want to ruin his boots.


reasonsforpenalty:

The record showed that Mr Studd had not breached Rule 636(1)(d) during his riding career. Other than the record the Committee considered that there were no other mitigating factors to take into consideration. The aggravating matters were that there was no genuine reason/s for Mr Studd to sit up and stop riding out. He was racing in third position and well clear of the 4th positioned horse (8 lengths) and in the Committee’s opinion would have held that placing if he had continued to urge his mount to the line. As a consequence of this lack of action some punters would have lost out on a trifecta return. In addition the owners of the horse lost $1,000 in prizemoney.

Taking into account the JCA penalty guideline the Committee determined that a suspension of approximately 4 weeks was the appropriate penalty.


penalty:

Mr Studd’s Jockey’s Licence was suspended from the close of racing on 28 July up to an including 24 August 2018.

 

ADDENDUM
Mr Studd was told by the Committee that they had heard many reasons why Riders had not dismounted and led horses back to the birdcage. However his reason for not doing so being because he did not want to ruin his boots was unique. Mr Studd’s response was that he had said that in jest.
He was then advised that he should not make comments in jest during a formal hearing.


hearing_type: Hearing


Rules: 636(1)(d)


Informant: Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward


JockeysandTrainer: Mr C Studd - Licensed Jockey


Otherperson: Ms S Thompson - Licensed Trainer (Witness0, Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward


PersonPresent:


Respondent:


StipendSteward:


raceid: c328ba2f14c86c39ae0edbc00f66322d


race_expapproval:


racecancelled: 0


race_noreport: 0


race_emailed1: 0


race_emailed2: 0


race_title: R 1


submittochair:


race_expappcomment:


race_km:


race_otherexp:


race_chair:


race_pm1:


race_pm2:


meetid: c1df5e12a9317c6aa11164647022a6ff


meet_expapproval:


meet_noreport: 0


waitingforpublication: 0


meet_emailed1: 0


meet_emailed2: 0


meetdate: 26/07/2018


meet_title: Manawatu RC - 26 July 2018


meet_expappcomment:


meet_km:


meet_otherexp:


tracklocation: manawatu-rc


meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing


meet_chair: NMcCutcheon


meet_pm1: PWilliams


meet_pm2: none


name: Manawatu RC