Marton JC 27 February 2014 – R 6
ID: JCA11633
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Marton JC - 27 February 2014
Meet Chair:
PWilliams
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMoffatt
Race Date:
2014/02/27
Race Number:
R6
Decision:
Penalty:
Mr Riddell is suspended for 4 riding days from the close of racing on Wednesday 05 March 2014 to the close of racing on Monday 10 March 2014 – the 4 days being Otaki (07 March), Auckland (08 March), Masterton (09 March) and Egmont (10 March).
Facts:
Following the running of race 6 “The Sustain Handicap”, Information A4021 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N Goodwin under Rule 638(1)(d). The information stated “J Riddell the rider of “Iffwedance” allowed his mount to shift in near the 900m dictating “Golden Jubilee” into the line of “Carella” which was checked”. Mr Riddell signed the Information stating he did not admit the breach and at the beginning of the hearing confirmed that was correct and also that he understood the rule under which he was charged.
Rule 638 (1) (d) states “A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be .....careless”.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Goodwin using the available films showed the race from approximately the 1000m point onwards. He highlighted Mr Riddell who had drawn 11 in the 12 horse field gradually coming across from that draw to get closer to the rail as the runners progressed down the back straight. He also highlighted Miss Johnston on “Golden Jubilee” which had drawn 8 to the inside of Mr Riddell and also Mr Stam on “Carella” which had drawn 6 to the inside of and behind Miss Johnston. Mr Goodwin pointed out that immediately prior to Mr Riddell commencing to move inwards all three riders were racing in a clear space and free of interference.
Mr Goodwin said that near the 900m point Mr Riddell commenced to angle his horse inwards and apply pressure to Miss Johnston which required her to take evasive action and because there was no room for her to relieve the pressure she shifted in onto Mr Stam who had to check his mount. He also said that whilst it was not detailed in the Information when Mr Stam was checked he had moved in onto “Samsi” ridden by Mr Murray who was positioned on the rail. Mr Goodwin said the film showed Mr Riddell had moved in from a position approximately 4-5 horse widths off the fence to a position “one-off” from the fence and in doing so he was never the required distance clear.
At this point Mr Riddell claimed he had not seen all the camera angles shown by Mr Goodwin when advised earlier by Mr Goodwin that he was to be charged with careless riding. Mr Goodwin told Mr Riddell he was sure that all the available views had been shown to him. Mr Riddell was asked by the Committee if he felt he was being disadvantaged by allegedly not having seen all the camera angles of the incident when initially advised consideration was being given to charging him with careless riding. He indicated he was happy for the hearing to continue.
Mr Goodwin then called Mr Stam to give evidence. Mr Stam as he was travelling down the back straight he was attempting to get to a “one-off” position. He said Miss Johnston suddenly and abruptly came in on him. He said he saw nobody on her outside and thought Mr Riddell had already crossed over in front of her. He said he was severely checked and his horse clipped the heels of Miss Johnston’s horse and stumbled. Mr Goodwin then asked Mr Stam why he had not mentioned earlier, when all the jockeys involved were being spoken to about the incident, the fact that he had clipped heels. Mr Stam said he had had time to consider what had happened and wanted to ensure he accurately described what happened.
Mr Riddell had no questions of Mr Stam.
Mr Goodwin then called Miss Johnston to give evidence. Miss Johnston said that towards the end of the back straight she received pressure from her outside from Mr Riddell which caused her to move into Mr Stam. She said she was unable to relieve the pressure on Mr Stam because her horse was just up inside the hind quarters of Mr Riddell’s horse – “just enough to be awkward”. Miss Johnston said she had no option other than to move in onto Mr Stam because she had nowhere else to go. She said she briefly received a lot of interference from Mr Riddell but the impact on her was not that significant because she still ended up in a good position. She confirmed Mr Riddell was not his length and another clear and that she was entitled to be where she was.
Mr Riddell asked Miss Johnston to confirm that she had been looking to her inside just prior to him coming across in front of her. She said that was correct because Mr Stam had been calling out to her. He then asked if she was looking inside when he actually moved across and she said she didn’t think she was.
Mr Goodwin asked Miss Johnston to confirm who Mr Stam was calling out to and she said it was her. She then said that simultaneously she had called out to Mr Riddell as he started to move across.
To a question from the Committee Miss Johnston confirmed that her horse was running kindly before the interference to her occurred.
Mr Riddell had no further questions of Miss Johnston.
Mr Riddell confirmed he would not be calling any witnesses. He initially said he was surprised by Mr Stam’s comments that he had clipped heels as a result of the interference received as that had not been mentioned at the earlier discussion with Mr Goodwin and was not apparent from the films. Mr Riddell was advised by the Committee that, if he wished, Mr Stam would be recalled to answer further questions. After consideration Mr Riddell said he did not require Mr Stam to return to the hearing. At that point Mr Goodwin stated that he did not consider Mr Stam had clipped a heel during the incident and that Mr Stam’s evidence on that point lacked credibility.
Mr Riddell said the interference to Miss Johnston happened after he “had cleared her” and he repeated this several times during his evidence. He said he had been racing alongside on the outside of Miss Johnston down the back straight but her horse was not going fast enough to keep up with him. He then decided to go forward for 3 strides to get in front to her. He said she had been looking to her inside and when she looked back and saw him in front of her she over reacted and had moved in onto Mr Stam. He said Miss Johnston should have taken a hold earlier on and had she done so she would not have moved in onto Mr Stam. Mr Riddell considered the interference received by Mr Stam to be minor and thought Mr Murray’s mount back on the rail received no interference.
Mr Riddell said in his view the side-on film was not particularly clear and it did not clearly show that Miss Johnston’s horse was up inside of him when he moved across.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee has reviewed all the available films of the incident. Immediately prior to incident all three riders were racing free of interference with clear space around them. Before Mr Riddell started to move across in front of Miss Johnston she did momentarily move inwards but not enough to make contact with Mr Stam. It is clear and not disputed that Mr Stam received interference when Miss Johnston moved in on him. The Committee has noted Mr Goodwin’s comments on the reliability of some of Mr Stam’s evidence. The reason Miss Johnston moved in was that she was being tightened by Mr Riddell who was moving across her to take up a position closer to the rail. It was Miss Johnston’s evidence that Mr Riddell was not his length and 1 other clear when he moved across and this is supported by the film taken from the camera in the main stand (not a true side on film) which shows her horse’s head alongside the lower back of Mr Riddell. Mr Riddell said he was clear of Miss Johnston when the interference took place. The Committee does not believe that is correct. Further, had Mr Riddell not moved in as he did the tightening to Miss Johnston and resultant interference to Mr Stam would not have occurred.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Goodwin said Mr Riddell had 3 previous breaches of the careless riding rule in the previous 12 months – 05 October 2103 when he received a 5 days suspension, 27 July 2013 (5 days) and 03 June 2013 (5 days). He said Mr Riddell was a senior and very good rider who rode predominantly throughout the North Island and whose record was very good. He said the Stewards believed incident was a “mis-judgment” and that the degree of carelessness was possibly below the mid range. He submitted that a suspension of 4 riding days was an appropriate penalty.
Mr Riddell asked the Committee to consider that a suspension would mean he would miss, in his view, a winning Group1 ride at Ellerslie on Saturday 08 March. He said that was a harsh penalty for what he considered to be a minor case of interference. He confirmed he had not ridden in the South Island since Cup Week in November 2013. Mr Riddell asked that, in the event he was to be suspended, it be deferred to allow him to ride at Ellerslie on Wednesday 5 March 2014.
Mr Goodwin was asked by the Committee for the Stewards' view on a possible penalty that included a suspension and a fine. He said the Stewards did not support such a penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee has reviewed films of the incident and taken into account the submissions of both parties. The films clearly show that as the race unfolded down the back straight Mr Riddell crossed over in front of Miss Johnston near the 900m point which resulted in her being tightened and causing a check to the horse on her inside ridden by Mr Stam.
We have considered at length the impact of any penalty given Mr Riddell’s confirmed riding commitments at the upcoming Auckland Cup Carnival.
The Committee believes the interference caused must be reflected in an appropriate penalty which we have decided is a period of suspension. From a starting point of 5 days we have reduced that by 1 day because of Mr Riddell’s good riding record and the degree of carelessness which we consider to be no worse than mid-range. We have also reviewed the JCA’s list of penalties imposed under this Rule in the past 18 months to ensure as best we can a general consistency with those decisions.
Mr Riddell’s request for a deferral of the suspension is agreed to in terms of Rule 1106(2).
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: 264be31ea7da69b5399c9951b7b8a1cd
informantnumber: A4021
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 23/02/2014
hearing_title: Marton JC 27 February 2014 - R 6
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 6 “The Sustain Handicap”, Information A4021 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N Goodwin under Rule 638(1)(d). The information stated “J Riddell the rider of “Iffwedance” allowed his mount to shift in near the 900m dictating “Golden Jubilee” into the line of “Carella” which was checked”. Mr Riddell signed the Information stating he did not admit the breach and at the beginning of the hearing confirmed that was correct and also that he understood the rule under which he was charged.
Rule 638 (1) (d) states “A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be .....careless”.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Goodwin using the available films showed the race from approximately the 1000m point onwards. He highlighted Mr Riddell who had drawn 11 in the 12 horse field gradually coming across from that draw to get closer to the rail as the runners progressed down the back straight. He also highlighted Miss Johnston on “Golden Jubilee” which had drawn 8 to the inside of Mr Riddell and also Mr Stam on “Carella” which had drawn 6 to the inside of and behind Miss Johnston. Mr Goodwin pointed out that immediately prior to Mr Riddell commencing to move inwards all three riders were racing in a clear space and free of interference.
Mr Goodwin said that near the 900m point Mr Riddell commenced to angle his horse inwards and apply pressure to Miss Johnston which required her to take evasive action and because there was no room for her to relieve the pressure she shifted in onto Mr Stam who had to check his mount. He also said that whilst it was not detailed in the Information when Mr Stam was checked he had moved in onto “Samsi” ridden by Mr Murray who was positioned on the rail. Mr Goodwin said the film showed Mr Riddell had moved in from a position approximately 4-5 horse widths off the fence to a position “one-off” from the fence and in doing so he was never the required distance clear.
At this point Mr Riddell claimed he had not seen all the camera angles shown by Mr Goodwin when advised earlier by Mr Goodwin that he was to be charged with careless riding. Mr Goodwin told Mr Riddell he was sure that all the available views had been shown to him. Mr Riddell was asked by the Committee if he felt he was being disadvantaged by allegedly not having seen all the camera angles of the incident when initially advised consideration was being given to charging him with careless riding. He indicated he was happy for the hearing to continue.
Mr Goodwin then called Mr Stam to give evidence. Mr Stam as he was travelling down the back straight he was attempting to get to a “one-off” position. He said Miss Johnston suddenly and abruptly came in on him. He said he saw nobody on her outside and thought Mr Riddell had already crossed over in front of her. He said he was severely checked and his horse clipped the heels of Miss Johnston’s horse and stumbled. Mr Goodwin then asked Mr Stam why he had not mentioned earlier, when all the jockeys involved were being spoken to about the incident, the fact that he had clipped heels. Mr Stam said he had had time to consider what had happened and wanted to ensure he accurately described what happened.
Mr Riddell had no questions of Mr Stam.
Mr Goodwin then called Miss Johnston to give evidence. Miss Johnston said that towards the end of the back straight she received pressure from her outside from Mr Riddell which caused her to move into Mr Stam. She said she was unable to relieve the pressure on Mr Stam because her horse was just up inside the hind quarters of Mr Riddell’s horse – “just enough to be awkward”. Miss Johnston said she had no option other than to move in onto Mr Stam because she had nowhere else to go. She said she briefly received a lot of interference from Mr Riddell but the impact on her was not that significant because she still ended up in a good position. She confirmed Mr Riddell was not his length and another clear and that she was entitled to be where she was.
Mr Riddell asked Miss Johnston to confirm that she had been looking to her inside just prior to him coming across in front of her. She said that was correct because Mr Stam had been calling out to her. He then asked if she was looking inside when he actually moved across and she said she didn’t think she was.
Mr Goodwin asked Miss Johnston to confirm who Mr Stam was calling out to and she said it was her. She then said that simultaneously she had called out to Mr Riddell as he started to move across.
To a question from the Committee Miss Johnston confirmed that her horse was running kindly before the interference to her occurred.
Mr Riddell had no further questions of Miss Johnston.
Mr Riddell confirmed he would not be calling any witnesses. He initially said he was surprised by Mr Stam’s comments that he had clipped heels as a result of the interference received as that had not been mentioned at the earlier discussion with Mr Goodwin and was not apparent from the films. Mr Riddell was advised by the Committee that, if he wished, Mr Stam would be recalled to answer further questions. After consideration Mr Riddell said he did not require Mr Stam to return to the hearing. At that point Mr Goodwin stated that he did not consider Mr Stam had clipped a heel during the incident and that Mr Stam’s evidence on that point lacked credibility.
Mr Riddell said the interference to Miss Johnston happened after he “had cleared her” and he repeated this several times during his evidence. He said he had been racing alongside on the outside of Miss Johnston down the back straight but her horse was not going fast enough to keep up with him. He then decided to go forward for 3 strides to get in front to her. He said she had been looking to her inside and when she looked back and saw him in front of her she over reacted and had moved in onto Mr Stam. He said Miss Johnston should have taken a hold earlier on and had she done so she would not have moved in onto Mr Stam. Mr Riddell considered the interference received by Mr Stam to be minor and thought Mr Murray’s mount back on the rail received no interference.
Mr Riddell said in his view the side-on film was not particularly clear and it did not clearly show that Miss Johnston’s horse was up inside of him when he moved across.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee has reviewed all the available films of the incident. Immediately prior to incident all three riders were racing free of interference with clear space around them. Before Mr Riddell started to move across in front of Miss Johnston she did momentarily move inwards but not enough to make contact with Mr Stam. It is clear and not disputed that Mr Stam received interference when Miss Johnston moved in on him. The Committee has noted Mr Goodwin’s comments on the reliability of some of Mr Stam’s evidence. The reason Miss Johnston moved in was that she was being tightened by Mr Riddell who was moving across her to take up a position closer to the rail. It was Miss Johnston’s evidence that Mr Riddell was not his length and 1 other clear when he moved across and this is supported by the film taken from the camera in the main stand (not a true side on film) which shows her horse’s head alongside the lower back of Mr Riddell. Mr Riddell said he was clear of Miss Johnston when the interference took place. The Committee does not believe that is correct. Further, had Mr Riddell not moved in as he did the tightening to Miss Johnston and resultant interference to Mr Stam would not have occurred.
Decision:
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Goodwin said Mr Riddell had 3 previous breaches of the careless riding rule in the previous 12 months – 05 October 2103 when he received a 5 days suspension, 27 July 2013 (5 days) and 03 June 2013 (5 days). He said Mr Riddell was a senior and very good rider who rode predominantly throughout the North Island and whose record was very good. He said the Stewards believed incident was a “mis-judgment” and that the degree of carelessness was possibly below the mid range. He submitted that a suspension of 4 riding days was an appropriate penalty.
Mr Riddell asked the Committee to consider that a suspension would mean he would miss, in his view, a winning Group1 ride at Ellerslie on Saturday 08 March. He said that was a harsh penalty for what he considered to be a minor case of interference. He confirmed he had not ridden in the South Island since Cup Week in November 2013. Mr Riddell asked that, in the event he was to be suspended, it be deferred to allow him to ride at Ellerslie on Wednesday 5 March 2014.
Mr Goodwin was asked by the Committee for the Stewards' view on a possible penalty that included a suspension and a fine. He said the Stewards did not support such a penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee has reviewed films of the incident and taken into account the submissions of both parties. The films clearly show that as the race unfolded down the back straight Mr Riddell crossed over in front of Miss Johnston near the 900m point which resulted in her being tightened and causing a check to the horse on her inside ridden by Mr Stam.
We have considered at length the impact of any penalty given Mr Riddell’s confirmed riding commitments at the upcoming Auckland Cup Carnival.
The Committee believes the interference caused must be reflected in an appropriate penalty which we have decided is a period of suspension. From a starting point of 5 days we have reduced that by 1 day because of Mr Riddell’s good riding record and the degree of carelessness which we consider to be no worse than mid-range. We have also reviewed the JCA’s list of penalties imposed under this Rule in the past 18 months to ensure as best we can a general consistency with those decisions.
Mr Riddell’s request for a deferral of the suspension is agreed to in terms of Rule 1106(2).
penalty:
Mr Riddell is suspended for 4 riding days from the close of racing on Wednesday 05 March 2014 to the close of racing on Monday 10 March 2014 – the 4 days being Otaki (07 March), Auckland (08 March), Masterton (09 March) and Egmont (10 March).
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr J Riddell - Licensed Jockey & rider of "Iffwedance"
Otherperson: Miss V Johnston - Licensed Jockey & rider of "Golden Jubilee", Mr R Stam - Licensed Jockey & rider of "Carella"
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: bf83ecb0004f8412edb92f3456977b32
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 1fd1a3d8491ad871eeb69a16145d04d5
meet_expapproval: approved
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 27/02/2014
meet_title: Marton JC - 27 February 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "MemberRole": "Chair ", "MemberID": "PWilliams", "Member": "", "OtherExpenses": "0", "KMs": "258", "Total": "159.96", "kmprice": 159.96000000000001, "Approved": "on"}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: marton-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: PWilliams
meet_pm1: NMoffatt
meet_pm2: none
name: Marton JC