Non Raceday Inquiry – JKB Riddell 07 January 09

hearingid: 71404feacd7265c284b1f5d63cda0e9c

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - JKB Riddell 07 January 09

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

On 19 November 2008 Mr J K Riddell rode BRECON HEIGHTS in The Mitavite 1200 at Hawera Racecourse.  BRECON HEIGHTS was the second favourite and ran third.  The margins were a half a length and a neck.

The Stipendiary Stewards immediately inquired in to the quality of Mr Riddell’s ride and subsequently charged him under rule 866(1)(b) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing.  That rule states:

“(1) Every person commits a breach of this rule who:

(b) being the rider of a horse in a race, fails to take all reasonable

and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible finishing place and position;”

The specific concern of the stewards was that in the final 200 metres Mr Riddell failed to ride “BRECON HEIGHTS with sufficient vigour to obtain a run to the inside of YEE HA when it was reasonable and permissible to do so”.

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

AT WELLINGTON

                                                              IN THE MATTER OF   the New Zealand Rules of Racing

                                                              BETWEEN                   NEW ZEALAND

                                                                                                 THOROUGHBRED RACING

                                                                                                                         Informant

                                                              AND                            Jonathan K B RIDDELL,

                                                                                                 Licensed Rider

                                                                                                                         Defendant

DATE OF HEARING                               07 January 2009

VANUE                                                  Boardroom, NZ Thoroughbred Racing, Petone

PRESENT                                               Mr R Neal, Stipendiary Steward, New Zealand

                                                              Thoroughbred Racing                                    (Informant)

                                                              Mr J K B Riddell, Licensed Rider        (Defendant)

                                                              Mr J Tannahill, representing Mr Riddell

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE                         Mr N Harris (Chairman)

                                                              Mr B Holland

_____________________________________________________________________________

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY

____________________________________________________________________________________

On 19 November 2008 Mr J K Riddell rode BRECON HEIGHTS in The Mitavite 1200 at Hawera Racecourse.  BRECON HEIGHTS was the second favourite and ran third.  The margins were a half a length and a neck.

The Stipendiary Stewards immediately inquired in to the quality of Mr Riddell’s ride and subsequently charged him under rule 866(1)(b) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing.  That rule states:

“(1) Every person commits a breach of this rule who:

(b) being the rider of a horse in a race, fails to take all reasonable

and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible finishing place and position;”

The specific concern of the stewards was that in the final 200 metres Mr Riddell failed to ride “BRECON HEIGHTS with sufficient vigour to obtain a run to the inside of YEE HA when it was reasonable and permissible to do so”.

Mr Riddell elected to defend the charge.

The hearing was set down for 7 January 2009 and Mr J A Tannahill appeared for Mr Riddell while Mr R. Neal, Stipendiary Steward, presented the Informant’s case.

Mr Neal presented the written authority from the Chief Executive of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing to prosecute this matter as required by rule 1103 (4) (d).

Mr N Goodwin, Stipendiary Steward, interpreted BRECON HEIGHT’S performance and Mr Riddell’s ride through reference to the side, head on and 800 metre tower films of the final 800 metres of the race. His analysis was that BRECON HEIGHTS settled at the rear of the field about two off the fence and maintained that position into the straight where it was about 7 lengths off the leaders.  The horse was travelling particularly well.  It held its position on the fence up the straight and had worked up easily to be about 3 lengths off the two leaders at the 200 metre point without any particular urging from Mr Riddell.  At about the 150 metres the horse in front, YEE HA, moved out presenting a gap for BRECON HEIGHTS.  Mr Riddell did not push forward but preferred to let his mount run along until about 70 metres off the line when he started to exercise a degree of vigour in his ride.  Under those urgings his horse sprinted and closed quickly on the two leaders.  It was Mr Goodwin’s contention that BRECON HEIGHTS would have certainly run second and probably won the race if Mr Riddell had exercised a reasonable level of vigour when presented with the gap at the150 metres.

Under questioning from Mr Tannahill, Mr Goodwin acknowledged BRECON HEIGHTS was having its first start since July.   But he refuted suggestions that YEE HA was looking to roll back to the fence or that BRECON HEIGHTS was giving its best and never going to pick up the leaders.

Mr Neal advised that the horse had been vetted immediately after the race and was found by the attending vet, Mr J Robbins, to have pulled up in “excellent condition”.

Mr Neal next turned to the riding instructions given to Mr Riddell.  Interviewed immediately after the race Mr Riddell advised that he had been told by the horse’s trainer, Mr Sharrock, “to teach the horse to relax for further assignments along the way” and “in no circumstances was I to hit the horse with my stick”.  These instructions were given by telephone an hour before the race.  Mr Sharrock was at the Ready To Run Sales and in a telephone call with Mr Goodwin later that afternoon he advised that he had told Mr Riddell that the horse goes well without the whip and that his instructions were that he didn’t want the horse “bashed”.  He denied he had told Mr Riddell not to use the whip.  Subsequently advised of Mr Sharrock’s comments Mr Riddell acknowledged there may have been a misunderstanding on his part as to Mr Sharrock’s expectations.

Finally Mr Neal showed films of BRECON HEIGHTS subsequent starts at Trentham on 6 December and Awapuni on 20 December.  Mr Riddell rode the horse on both occasions when it ran 1^st and 4^th respectively.  Mr Neal observed that Mr Riddell’s horsemanship over the concluding stages of both races exhibited genuine vigour, including the use of the whip in the Awapuni race.

Mr Tannahill invited Mr Riddell to interpret his ride through reference to the films.  In doing so he conceded BRECON HEIGHTS travelled well to the 200 metres and while it was making good ground on the leaders in the straight he did not believe there was a gap inside YEE HA that he could reasonably and safely take until nearer the 100 metres.  He asserted that his more urgent riding at that point is consistent with this analysis and that although BRECON HEIGHTS responded well the post came up too soon.  He believed his horse had kept its momentum in the straight and that hitting it with the whip would have made no difference.  He believed he had given the horse every opportunity and felt his ride needed to be seen in the context of the horse’s brittle and immature constitution.  In this regard he had earlier been counselled by Mr H Tinsley, who had ridden BRECON HEIGHTS on a number of occasions, to the effect that the horse needed looking after and would do its best coming at them late with a soft run.

Mr Riddell also stated that he was learning to adapt his stronger, more vigorous jumps jockey riding style to the more balanced, subtle style required of a flat rider. This together with his understanding of his riding instructions was offered as some explanation for his undemonstrative ride.

Mr Tannahill submitted that although Mr Riddell had been riding since 1996 and had had in the order of 1700 rides he had only recently committed himself to a flat riding career in October 2008.  Although renowned as a strong and vigorous rider he was still relatively inexperienced in the finer skills and craft of flat racing.  Finally he showed a film of BRECON HEIGHTS racing erratically in the straight on 14 June 2007 and also drew an observation from Mr Riddell that at Awapuni on 20 December his use of the whip on BRECON HEIGHTS  had had no effect.

It is generally accepted that to make out a case under rule 866(1) (b) something more than a mere error of judgment on the part of the rider is required.

In this case we are satisfied that there was nothing amiss with the horse and notwithstanding a fractious disposition on occasions in the past it raced truly and generously for Mr Riddell.  Similarly we do not think in the finer analysis of Mr Riddell’s horsemanship on this occasion too much can be attached to his riding instructions, his flat riding inexperience, or Mr Tinsley’s advice.  The telling evidence lies in the films.

In our view BRECON HEIGHTS was travelling particularly well rounding the turn and was comfortably taking ground off the leaders early in the straight with Mr Riddell not having moved on the horse.  At the 150 metre point YEE HA, which had been hanging badly, rolled out and presented a substantial gap for Mr Riddell to push in to.  There is no question in our mind that there was sufficient room for BRECON HEIGHTS at the 150 metres to take the rails run and do so safely and within the rules of racing.  Any assertion to the contrary in our view is specious and bereft of merit.  We believe BRECON HEIGHTS was full of running at that point and Mr Riddell inexplicably and unreasonably elected to sit and wait until inside the final 75 metres before exhibiting any discernible vigour.  The response from BRECON HEIGHTS was instant and the horse appreciably quickened and hit the line strongly.  There is no doubt in our minds that the horse, if tried earlier, would have finished in a higher placing.  Mr Riddell’s suggestion that the horse was doing its best of its own accord and would not have given more if put under a ride is simply not borne out by the manner in which the horse finished when eventually fully tested by him.

We therefore find that Mr Riddell, in failing to show any vigour in his riding until the final 75 metres and not opting for a clearly available gap at the 150 metres failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure BRECON HEIGHTS was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible finishing position.

We find the breach of rule 866(1) (b) proved.

PENALTY

Mr Neal advised that Mr Riddell had been a licensed jockey since 1996 with most of his approximately 1700 rides having been over fences.  He has, since October 2008, committed himself to a flat riding career.  He is regarded as an accomplished horseman with an excellent riding record.  Mr Neal believed that a breach of rule 866(1)(b) has the potential to undermine the public’s confidence in racing and raise questions as to the integrity of the conduct of the sport.  He further drew attention to the betting public’s expectation that all horses will be ridden to ensure that they are afforded every opportunity to perform to their ability and that equally all riders will handle their mounts to the best of their ability.  He submitted that any penalty should have a strong deterrent element.  In his view a suspension of 6-8 weeks was warranted.

Mr Tannahill emphasised that Mr Riddell’s failure to exercise appropriate vigour was not deliberate but an error of judgment as a consequence of his inexperience as a flat rider and a belief that the horse would perform best with a quiet ride.  He conceded a suspension was likely and suggested this be 3 weeks.

We believe the offending on this occasion to be near the top end of the scale.  Our starting point is an 8 week suspension.  We have given Mr Riddell credit for his excellent riding record and his full co-operation with the stewards throughout this inquiry.  We have also taken into account his recent commitment to flat race riding and his genuine desire to learn and adapt his riding style accordingly.  Against that we concur with Mr Neal’s observations that a breach of rule 866(1)(b) is a serious matter striking as it does at the public’s perception  as to the integrity of racing.  We believe deterrence should therefore be a significant objective of any penalty imposed.  Taking these matters into account we have settled on a 6 week suspension.

Mr Riddell is therefore suspended from the close of racing on 10 January 2009 until the close of racing on 21 February 2009.

Neville Harris                                     Barry Holland

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 866.1.b, 1103.4.d

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: