Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M Cameron 7 March 2016 – Decision dated 17 March 2016 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA15529
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND MATTHEW CAMERON
Licensed Jockey
Respondent
INFORMATION NO. A7582
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Prof G Hall (Chairman) - Mr N McCutcheon (Committee Member)
APPEARING: Mr R Neal for the RIU, Mr A Galbraith for the respondent
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] The informant, the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU), alleges that Mr M Cameron breached r 636(1)(b) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules of Racing in that on 9 January last when he rode MIME in Race 6 at the Auckland Racing Club’s meeting, he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to give MIME full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible finishing place.
[2] Rule r 636(1)(b) states: “A person being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the Race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the Race or to obtain the best possible finishing place.”
[3] MIME finished second in the race a length and three quarters behind the winner, HUNAPO. The times for the final 600 metres of the race were 34.82 for HUNAPO and 34.76 for MIME. These were the two quickest times for the final 600.
Informant’s case
[4] Mr Neal showed various video angles of the race, identifying MIME in the process and commenting that the horse was the tote favourite. The horse drew barrier 8 and received interference shortly after the start. As a consequence, the respondent had to take hold, and MIME settled further back than intended.
[5] Mr Neal pointed out that BUFFALO LASS was 3 wide and stepped in and crowded Mr Cameron Lammas (GETALONGHOME CINDY). MIME received interference just past the 800 metres and the respondent changed the whip from his right to his left hand. That MIME was hanging outwards was evident from the camera on the turn.
[6] Mr Neal stated the Stipendiary Stewards would have expected MIME to follow BUFFALO LASS, as there was ample opportunity to improve forward on the turn of the bend.
[7] Mr Neal said over the next 100 metres the respondent could have improved into an outwards run but he was showing little aggression at this time. He said Mr Coleman improved into the gap to the inside of ADRENALINE RUSH that the respondent could have elected to go to into. Mr Cameron did not do so and was then held up behind ADRENALINE RUSH.
[8] The Stipendiary Stewards conceded that the respondent was awkwardly placed on the bend. MIME was travelling well when she was held up behind ADRENALINE RUSH. Mr Neal emphasised that the respondent could have come to the outside of ADRENALINE RUSH for an unobstructed run to the line, either to the immediate outside of that horse or of BUFFALO LASS, which was further out. However, the respondent had elected to go to the inside where there was no run. He said the respondent would have only have needed to move out a maximum of two horse widths to obtain the run, whereas he was held up as a result of moving to the inside. Mr Cameron, he alleged, had failed in his obligation to take the run to the outside and had gone in behind a wall of horses.
[9] Mr Neal alleged that the respondent’s ride was “quiet” when the run came on the inside. He said that “the ride was hesitant at best”. He emphasised the respondent was an aggressive rider by nature. Aggression had only been shown at the 75 metres mark.
[10] He concluded his opening by emphasising that the respondent had taken four poor decisions in the one race.
[11] Mr Neal then called Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson, to give evidence. Mr Williamson said that when watching the race live as Chairman of the Stewards, he thought to himself from the 600 metres, “What is he [the respondent] doing”? He said the Stewards conceded that MIME was not the easiest horse to ride, however the respondent had not reported to the Stewards on the day that the filly was giving him trouble, ie was hanging out.
[12] Mr Williamson stated he believed the respondent was going to state in evidence that he was reluctant to follow an inexperienced apprentice into the race. He demonstrated in other races on the day that Mr Cameron had done so, and he had also taken runs 3 to 4 wide. He also emphasised Mr Coleman had elected to follow the “inexperienced apprentice” in the race in question. He said Mr Coleman had thought it prudent to take the run that was open to Mr Cameron.
[13] Mr Williamson said that when questioned on the day the respondent stated that with the rail 9 metres out he was reluctant to go wide. Yet the video of race 8 on the day, when he was riding the favourite CALL ME ROYAL, demonstrated that he had done so. He said the respondent had been the widest runner from the 600 metres and had taken the very option he said he could not take in race 6, and had gone on to win the race.
[14] Mr Williamson emphasised that the ride in question was on its merits and that there was no charge under r 636(1)(a). He stated there were four aspects of the race in question, four poor decisions at vital times, that were of concern to the RIU and which led them to contend that the respondent was in breach of r 636(1)(b). These were that Mr Cameron had:
1. Elected not to continue to follow BUFFALO LASS from the 600 metres when it was reasonable and permissible to do so, which would have allowed MIME to improve into the race with cover.
2. Failed to improve into a run to the inside of ADRENALINE RUSH near the 400 metres where there was clear racing room and it was reasonable and permissible for him to do so. His failure to do this allowed PERSUASIVE to improve its position into that run, with him then steadying MIME for a distance, therefore losing his position and ground.
3. Failed to shift to the outside of ADRENALINE RUSH when held up behind that runner near the 350 metres when it was reasonable and permissible to do so, which would have given MIME the opportunity to improve either onto the back of BUFFALO LASS which was improving, or shift to the outside of BUFFALO LASS which would have given MIME an unobstructed run. Instead he elected to shift in, where there was no clear racing room, which resulted in MIME being held up for a considerable distance.
4. Failed to use sufficient vigour between the 150 metres and the 75 metres when riding out MIME when he was in clear racing room and it was reasonable and permissible for him to do so.
[15] He reiterated the failure to follow BUFFALO LASS and to take a run either inside or outside that horse was of concern. There was also a failure to take a run to the inside of ADRENALINE RUSH. And Mr Cameron, he alleged, was hesitant at best, in the run to the finishing line. He said this was not the normal manner in which Mr Cameron rode. He emphasised how aggressive the respondent had been in riding out CALL ME ROYAL in race 8.
[16] When questioned by Mr Galbraith, who emphasised MIME had finished 2nd, Mr Williamson stated had the respondent rode within the rules, MIME may have finished 1st. He agreed with Mr Galbraith that MIME had been checked at the start, however, he was of the view that a lot of horses can win after being checked, even over a distance of 1200 metres. He said RICH BILLIE MARSH had ensured there was a genuine pace and there was an opportunity for horses to run on.
[17] Mr Williamson agreed with Mr Galbraith that MIME was a 2000 metres horse and was first up at 1200 metres, but explained such horses do win over 1200 metres. If the question was could MIME win the race, the answer was yes.
[18] When questioned whether Mr Coleman had beaten the respondent to the gap inside ADRENALINE RUSH, Mr Williamson replied Mr Cameron had not competed for it. Mr Galbraith stated MIME was the outside horse, and was hanging, and asked whether there was a risk of clipping heels. Mr Williamson replied that the respondent could have steadied his horse. He said MIME had gone in and had got held up as a consequence. When Mr Cameron eventually secured a run, he had finished second.
[19] Mr Williamson agreed that the gap inside BUFFALO LASS had closed fairly quickly, but emphasised it had been available to the respondent, who had instead gone into “a wall of horses”. He believed Mr Cameron should have steadied MIME, come outside BUFFALO LASS, and he would then have had a clear run to the line.
[20] Mr Galbraith questioned whether the respondent could have won the race by moving to the inside, as Mr Cameron had, had he not been held up for a run. Mr Williamson agreed that MIME had finished well.
[21] Mr Galbraith referred to times from the Formpro website. These indicated MIME had run from the 400 to the 200 metres in 11.36 and from the 200 to the finish in 11.70. MIME had thus run the first of these 200s quicker than the last. Mr Williamson commented that these times were not electronically recorded and there was a 0.5 margin of error.
[22] Mr Galbraith alleged that the transcript of the Stipendiary Stewards questioning of Mr Cameron evidenced there was badgering. Mr Williamson denied this and emphasised the questioning had occurred both before and after the respondent had ridden in a later race.
[23] When his attention was drawn to the fact that the respondent had said he was awkwardly placed and “squeezed up” and that riding with safety was the first concern of a jockey who had to make split second decisions, Mr Williamson responded the respondent had made four poor decisions and their cumulative effect was that the respondent had not given MIME full opportunity.
[24] Mr Williamson re-emphasised the respondent had the opportunity to take the run to the inside or the outside of BUFFALO LASS and it was a poor decision to go in looking for a run. He disagreed with Mr Galbraith that MIME would have been closer to heels had Mr Cameron come out. He said MIME had to come across heels whichever way the horse shifted on the track.
[25] When questioned about the run home, he agreed the respondent was searching for an inside run, but when he found it, he was hesitant at best. He said at this time Mr Cameron had pushed his horse but he had also sat up. He had not fully ridden the horse out. He said at the 125 metres the respondent had been hesitant in taking the gap that had presented itself. Mr Cameron had said he was unsure what to do, but Mr Williamson could see no reason why he should have been.
[26] Mr Williamson stated he believed, however, that the race was basically gone from the 350 metres due to Mr Cameron’s poor decisions prior to and at that time. He concluded his evidence by stating the there had been a series of errors by Mr Cameron and the ride was questionable at best.
[27] Mr Neal in closing the informant’s case addressed a number of the points made by Mr Galbraith when questioning Mr Williamson. He said the race had to be viewed in its own circumstances and emphasised there were times where a 1200 metre race could be won from the back, although this was not the normal course of events. MIME had carried on her good form and a good horse could win from anywhere. MIME was a filly with “significant ability” and this was relevant.
[28] With reference to the safety aspect, Mr Neal said some riders were more cautious than others. Mr Cameron was not a cautious rider; he was an aggressive rider. As to his not wanting to follow an inexperienced apprentice, Mr Cameron had ridden in the South Island where there were a number of such apprentices.
[29] Mr Neal reiterated the Stipendiary Stewards accepted MIME had received interference at the start and that the filly settled further back than anticipated. From that point in the race, however, the respondent was cautious and had failed to take opportunities that were presented to him, such as following another runner and to compete with Mr Coleman for the gap inside ADRENALINE RUSH.
[30] Mr Neal stated that the Stipendiary Stewards disagreed with Mr Cameron’s statement to Mr Williamson, when questioned on the day, that MIME was hanging quite badly. The Stewards would agree that the horse was hanging out slightly but believed only a minor slap was necessary to get the horse back into the race. They believed in “the normal course of events” the respondent would have competed for the gap and that he had “appeared to be indifferent throughout the race” and, once he had had gone inside, he appeared “not quite sure what to do”.
[31] Mr Neal stated that the times were irrelevant as MIME was a “very very good horse”. The “permissible measure” available to the respondent he believed, was to take the run out wide. He believed the extra ground Mr Cameron would have had to cover was only “marginal” or “nominal”. He said there was no run for the respondent when he went back to the inside; it was “a pig in a poke”.
[32] Mr Neal pointed out that the transcript of the raceday questioning of Mr Cameron by Mr Williamson evidenced that the respondent had said it was “a bad ride”. Mr Neal reiterated there had been four bad decisions.
[33] Mr Neal referred to McMullan v Racing Queensland 2012 where it was said a Committee should look objectively at a ride and, in determining whether there was a breach, to consider if a reasonable observer would say, “What on earth is that jockey doing?”
[34] Mr Neal concluded the informant’s case by reiterating the respondent was indifferent throughout the race and, as a consequence, MIME was denied full opportunity to win. Had Mr Cameron taken the run to the outside, MIME could have picked up ground and gone on to win the race.
Respondent’s case
[35] Mr Galbraith opened his case by calling the respondent to give evidence.
[36] Mr Cameron stated his instructions from Mr M Baker were to go forward but not to lead. That possibility was gone immediately after the start when got checked. He said he had no choice but to settle back and MIME immediately started to hang and changed stride on the bend. He then had to check because of interference from the horses in front, and MIME had moved out as a consequence. He wanted cover and was trying to get back in.
[37] BUFFALO LASS was not a horse he wanted to follow, as it was not going to carry him into the race. If he were then to go wider, MIME would have had to do too much work to go around the field. Mr Coleman was travelling better than him so he could not push into the gap inside ADRENALINE RUSH or he would have clipped heels. His only option was to check out as Mr Coleman had beaten him to the gap and was travelling.
[38] MIME was still hanging. Mr Cameron said that at the time MIME had a normal ring bit but she now raced with a hanging bit. He believed the bit was changed after the horse raced at Wellington.
[39] Mr Cameron said he did not come to the outside as he was last when the field straightened for the run home. He was never going to take the gap inside BUFFALO LASS as he thought that gap was going to close. He was aware there were a lot of horses on the inside but not a wall of horses. MIME was continuing to hang and he was looking for somewhere to go. He found a clear run on the fence. He said he had not sat up on MIME for 2 to 3 strides. He was still urging her.
[40] Mr Cameron explained that when in the gap on the rail he was wary as the horse to his outside was ridden by the apprentice to whom he had called when he received interference at the start. It was rolling about and he knew it would stop. He was aware the horse ridden by Mr Grylls was tiring and stopping and he was not sure where that horse would go. He did not want to roll out onto Mr Grylls. He had called to him and said he was going for a run inside.
[41] Mr Cameron said he exercised judgement and decided he could push up on the fence but there was the safety issue of would the apprentice roll back to the fence. This was the reason why he was slightly hesitant. He accepted he was vigorous at the finish and not when he first took the gap, however he was always niggling at the horse from the 200 metres to the finish. He was certain he would never have won the race by coming round the outside.
[42] Mr Cameron reiterated the filly was hanging out badly. He did not believe it was a bad ride, which was how he had described his ride when questioned by Mr Williamson. He had been badgered into making such statements on the day. He now believed it was a brilliant ride. He had given MIME every opportunity to finish in the best possible position having regard to the fact he had been checked three times in the running. Mr M Baker had not said it was a bad ride and he was happy with the ride after the day. There was comment to this effect in the New Zealand Herald. He had not ridden the horse since and commented that Mr Bosson was the senior rider for the Baker stable.
[43] Mr Neal cross-examined Mr Cameron. He showed a video of race 7 at Ellerslie to demonstrate that the respondent was a vigorous rider and took marginal options. Mr Cameron emphasised that he had been suspended for that ride and relegated. It had been the wrong thing to do and he had learned from the incident.
[44] Mr Cameron said MIME was hanging before he changed his whip hand and this had made things worse and the filly began hanging out badly. He said he went in because it was easier to go in than out and it was the shortest way home. He would have been fighting the horse whether he went in or out but it would have been worse had he gone out as she would have moved out further.
[45] When Mr Neal drew Mr Cameron’s attention to his admissions on the day that this was a bad ride, he said he had been under pressure from Stewards, Mr Williamson and Mr Robinson. He reiterated on repeatedly viewing the videos and now having gathered his thoughts, the decision to go to the inside was the best possible decision having regard to the position he was in. If he had gone to the outside, MIME might have kept hanging, and going to the inside gave him the opportunity to balance the horse. MIME was still hanging when he was hitting her with his left hand. He would never had gone into the gap inside BUFFALO LASS as that gap closed almost immediately and he believed he would have ended up clipping heels.
[46] Mr M Coleman, licensed jockey, gave evidence. He stated he had some 30 years’ riding experience. He had ridden MIME in her last two starts subsequent to the race at issue. It was his belief that MIME had a habit of hanging to the left quite severely during a race. At Waikato he thought he would have to change his whip hand as the horse was inclined to lug left although eventually the horse relented and he did not have to.
[47] Mr Coleman said the race in question was a sprint race and with the rail out the corner was sharp. The negative camber pushed horses out on the bend. He had seen a gap at the top of the straight and as his horse was travelling quite well he had improved into it. He believed the respondent would have beaten him to the gap and got the run if MIME had been running straight and had not been hanging.
[48] Mr Coleman explained that the gap was not fully open and he had to dictate the outside horse off its line. He had had a bit of trouble balancing his horse once he was in the gap. He also said he had the advantage of getting the gap as his was the inside horse and was better placed to shift the outside horse in the gap wider. He explained there was not room for two horses and once he got there, there would not have been a run for Mr Cameron.
[49] Mr Coleman stated that if he had been riding MIME he too would have been faced with a split second decision as to what to do — which was the better option, to go inside or out. He believed if MIME had gone to the outside the filly would have lost momentum, possibly losing half a length, as she would have had to ease off heels. He believed in going to the inside MIME lost less momentum than if the filly had gone for an outside run. He added the racing manners of MIME would have influenced the respondent’s decision making and that the filly raced in a truer fashion when going to the inside.
[50] Mr Coleman was of the view that MIME would have finished 6th or 7th had she come down the outside, whereas she had finished 2nd by taking an inside run. He now questioned his own tactics on his mount, PERSUASIVE, and wondered whether he too should have gone for an inside run.
[51] Mr Coleman stated the respondent was never held up when taking the inside run home and, while Mr Cameron was slightly hesitant when inside Ms Holmquist for a stride, he had then pushed MIME to the line. He added the sectional times were excellent.
[52] Mr Neal questioned Mr Coleman and pointed out that MIME had taken an outside run when ridden by Mr Coleman last Saturday. Mr Coleman replied that the distance of the race was 2100 metres, the race tempo was different, and there was more time to get the filly into a rhythm. In addition, MIME had begun well and had raced handy. His only option was to go the outside and, while MIME was hanging, this was not to such an extent that he could not ride her out.
[53] Mr Coleman did not agree that there was a marked difference in ability between MIME and his mount, PERSUASIVE, as his horse was no slouch. MIME was a very promising 3-year-old with good ability, but this was a 1200 metre race and he had only ridden her in 2000 and 2100 metre races. He had viewed videos of MIME’s racing performances before riding her, and it was clear to him that she had a tendency to hang in her races.
[54] Mr Coleman stated that when he had ridden MIME she had a straight bit, which he believed was more effective than the ring bit she had worn when ridden by Mr Cameron in the race in question.
[55] Mr Galbraith then made brief submissions. He reminded the Committee the standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities. He submitted the use of the rule in these particular circumstances, with four decisions throughout a race being questioned, was unusual as breaches of the rule were often where jockeys dropped their hands near the finish and failed to see another horse finishing quickly.
[56] Mr Galbraith emphasised MIME was a 2000 metre plus horse and this was a first up 1200 metre race. He added 2000 metre horses do not usually win over 1200 metres fresh up. Although the horse was the favourite, it was bred to stay. In contrast, the winner of the race had ability and was a 1200 metre specialist.
[57] Mr Galbraith drew the Committee’s attention to the fact MIME had been checked at the start and not too many horses win a 1200 metre race from the back of the field and, if they did, it was usually from the inside. If MIME had raced wide, she would have covered extra ground and would have been on the wrong leg for longer. Her chance of winning the race in these circumstances was “zilch” or “highly improbable”. He asked us to consider this fact when considering the wording of the rule.
[58] Mr Galbraith emphasised the split second decision that the respondent had to make and the safety issues that would also have influenced Mr Cameron’s decision-making. He then referred to the four matters identified by the informant.
[59] BUFFALO LASS was not the horse to track into the race and had Mr Cameron done so he would have been very wide on the track coming around the bend. As MIME was hanging, he believed the respondent’s decision not to improve wide on the track was correct.
[60] Mr Coleman had got to the gap inside ADRENALINE RUSH first. The horse racing on the inside, always had the advantage on a bend and this had assisted Mr Coleman to exert pressure on the outside horse and to improve into the gap. The respondent would never have got to the gap first and there was initially only room for three quarters of a horse anyway. Mr Coleman had created the gap for his mount and in so doing closed any potential gap inside BUFFALO LASS. Even if Mr Cameron had pulled back half a length and gone to the outside, the gap would not have lasted because Mr Coleman had dictated the line of the horse on the outside. This was simply not an option for Mr Cameron.
[61] Mr Galbraith stated MIME had not lost momentum by going in. He did not have to pull off heels to same extent he would have had, had he looked for an outside run.
[62] MIME was still hanging and while Mr Cameron did hesitate for a stride or two, this was to confirm there was a run on the inside of Mr Grylls. Mr Cameron had called out to Mr Grylls to let him know he was making a run to his inside and to ensure he got a clear run through. The sectional times indicate that MIME did not lose momentum.
[63] With reference to Mr Cameron’s statements to Mr Williamson, Mr Galbraith noted that all were qualified and were appropriate and reasonable responses at the time.
[64] Mr Galbraith concluded his submissions by stating the fact that Mr Cameron had checked out and missed the gap taken by Mr Coleman was fortunate for the connections of the filly, as he had obtained a run that he otherwise would not have received. After 100 metres from the start and at the top of the straight it was an unlikely proposal that MIME would run a place. The Committee had to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent would have won the race had he taken different options to those that he had adopted. Going to the outside would not have improved MIME’s chances of winning. Mr Cameron’s riding for luck had worked out in his favour and he was not in breach of the rule. MIME was never going to finish in a better finishing place.
[65] Mr Neal in summing up stated the Committee had an obligation to look at the race in its entirety. He emphasised that when deciding whether or not to take a run a jockey had to be aware of the ability and limitations of his horse. He said MIME was held in high regard and had ability that recent performances had embellished.
[66] The rule was to be viewed objectively. At the point of the turn the respondent made the decision to go in although there was no run at the time. In Mr Neal’s view the only option was to shift ground outwards. Mr Coleman had finished relatively close up through taking an unimpeded run on the outside. It was reasonable for Mr Cameron to improve at the 600 metres and follow a non-favoured runner as he could still get a run into the race.
[67] Mr Neal emphasised that the respondent had conceded the gap to Mr Coleman and had gone in when there was not a clear run. There was also considerable inconsistency in the manner in which the respondent rode the filly when he got the gap even acknowledging that RICH BILLIE MARSH was inclined to shift ground under pressure.
[68] Mr Neal concluded by stating the respondent’s ride “fell short of the rule”.
[69] Mr Galbraith declined the opportunity to sum up.
Reasons for decision
[70] Shortly after the start was made MIME was checked and as a consequence the horse settled towards the rear of the field. The videos showed that the horse was hanging outwards. Prior to the 800 metres Mr Cameron changed the whip from his right to his left hand.
[71] Near the 800 metres MIME had to be steadied away from the heels of the runner ahead (ADRENALINE RUSH), when that horse came back onto MIME. The films showed that MIME was still hanging outwards and that Mr Cameron had some difficulty getting the horse to shift back towards the running rail. The rear-on video was quite telling in this respect and clearly evidenced the difficulty the respondent had when MIME went wider on the track at this point in the race.
[72] As the field approached the straight entrance, MIME was still inclined to hang outwards and came very close to the heels of the runner ahead (ADRENALINE RUSH) when Mr Coleman’s mount shifted outwards for a run. Mr Cameron then shifted MIME inwards for a run rather than move outwards where there was a gap to improve into. However that gap closed rather quickly due to outward movement from other runners and in our opinion MIME would not have been able to shift fully into the gap prior to it closing.
[73] After shifting to the inside, MIME was briefly held up for a run. Mr Cameron urged his mount, without riding with full vigour, early in the run home when he believed that there was a possibility that the horse ahead, TANIA, ridden by Mr Grylls, may have rolled in and taken his line of running.
[74] Mr Cameron was observed on the video to pause in riding out for two to three strides. His explanation was that he was concerned RICH BILLIE MARSH would roll to the fence. Mr Cameron rode out fully over the final stages after a clear run ahead was presented. It was unlikely that MIME, who finished second – beaten by one and three quarter lengths, would have won the race had it been able to be ridden out fully for the duration of the final straight once the inside gap had presented itself to Mr Cameron.
[75] Significantly, in our view, Mr Neal’s submission as to the undoubted ability of MIME and his questioning of the respondent’s vigour and option taking, has to be considered in the light of the fact that the filly was hanging out for much of the race and was giving Mr Cameron a d
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 17/03/2016
Publish Date: 17/03/2016
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: ae3c84fde97971ba58a44343304d216d
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 17/03/2016
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M Cameron 7 March 2016 - Decision dated 17 March 2016 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND MATTHEW CAMERON
Licensed Jockey
Respondent
INFORMATION NO. A7582
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Prof G Hall (Chairman) - Mr N McCutcheon (Committee Member)
APPEARING: Mr R Neal for the RIU, Mr A Galbraith for the respondent
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] The informant, the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU), alleges that Mr M Cameron breached r 636(1)(b) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules of Racing in that on 9 January last when he rode MIME in Race 6 at the Auckland Racing Club’s meeting, he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to give MIME full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible finishing place.
[2] Rule r 636(1)(b) states: “A person being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the Race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the Race or to obtain the best possible finishing place.”
[3] MIME finished second in the race a length and three quarters behind the winner, HUNAPO. The times for the final 600 metres of the race were 34.82 for HUNAPO and 34.76 for MIME. These were the two quickest times for the final 600.
Informant’s case
[4] Mr Neal showed various video angles of the race, identifying MIME in the process and commenting that the horse was the tote favourite. The horse drew barrier 8 and received interference shortly after the start. As a consequence, the respondent had to take hold, and MIME settled further back than intended.
[5] Mr Neal pointed out that BUFFALO LASS was 3 wide and stepped in and crowded Mr Cameron Lammas (GETALONGHOME CINDY). MIME received interference just past the 800 metres and the respondent changed the whip from his right to his left hand. That MIME was hanging outwards was evident from the camera on the turn.
[6] Mr Neal stated the Stipendiary Stewards would have expected MIME to follow BUFFALO LASS, as there was ample opportunity to improve forward on the turn of the bend.
[7] Mr Neal said over the next 100 metres the respondent could have improved into an outwards run but he was showing little aggression at this time. He said Mr Coleman improved into the gap to the inside of ADRENALINE RUSH that the respondent could have elected to go to into. Mr Cameron did not do so and was then held up behind ADRENALINE RUSH.
[8] The Stipendiary Stewards conceded that the respondent was awkwardly placed on the bend. MIME was travelling well when she was held up behind ADRENALINE RUSH. Mr Neal emphasised that the respondent could have come to the outside of ADRENALINE RUSH for an unobstructed run to the line, either to the immediate outside of that horse or of BUFFALO LASS, which was further out. However, the respondent had elected to go to the inside where there was no run. He said the respondent would have only have needed to move out a maximum of two horse widths to obtain the run, whereas he was held up as a result of moving to the inside. Mr Cameron, he alleged, had failed in his obligation to take the run to the outside and had gone in behind a wall of horses.
[9] Mr Neal alleged that the respondent’s ride was “quiet” when the run came on the inside. He said that “the ride was hesitant at best”. He emphasised the respondent was an aggressive rider by nature. Aggression had only been shown at the 75 metres mark.
[10] He concluded his opening by emphasising that the respondent had taken four poor decisions in the one race.
[11] Mr Neal then called Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson, to give evidence. Mr Williamson said that when watching the race live as Chairman of the Stewards, he thought to himself from the 600 metres, “What is he [the respondent] doing”? He said the Stewards conceded that MIME was not the easiest horse to ride, however the respondent had not reported to the Stewards on the day that the filly was giving him trouble, ie was hanging out.
[12] Mr Williamson stated he believed the respondent was going to state in evidence that he was reluctant to follow an inexperienced apprentice into the race. He demonstrated in other races on the day that Mr Cameron had done so, and he had also taken runs 3 to 4 wide. He also emphasised Mr Coleman had elected to follow the “inexperienced apprentice” in the race in question. He said Mr Coleman had thought it prudent to take the run that was open to Mr Cameron.
[13] Mr Williamson said that when questioned on the day the respondent stated that with the rail 9 metres out he was reluctant to go wide. Yet the video of race 8 on the day, when he was riding the favourite CALL ME ROYAL, demonstrated that he had done so. He said the respondent had been the widest runner from the 600 metres and had taken the very option he said he could not take in race 6, and had gone on to win the race.
[14] Mr Williamson emphasised that the ride in question was on its merits and that there was no charge under r 636(1)(a). He stated there were four aspects of the race in question, four poor decisions at vital times, that were of concern to the RIU and which led them to contend that the respondent was in breach of r 636(1)(b). These were that Mr Cameron had:
1. Elected not to continue to follow BUFFALO LASS from the 600 metres when it was reasonable and permissible to do so, which would have allowed MIME to improve into the race with cover.
2. Failed to improve into a run to the inside of ADRENALINE RUSH near the 400 metres where there was clear racing room and it was reasonable and permissible for him to do so. His failure to do this allowed PERSUASIVE to improve its position into that run, with him then steadying MIME for a distance, therefore losing his position and ground.
3. Failed to shift to the outside of ADRENALINE RUSH when held up behind that runner near the 350 metres when it was reasonable and permissible to do so, which would have given MIME the opportunity to improve either onto the back of BUFFALO LASS which was improving, or shift to the outside of BUFFALO LASS which would have given MIME an unobstructed run. Instead he elected to shift in, where there was no clear racing room, which resulted in MIME being held up for a considerable distance.
4. Failed to use sufficient vigour between the 150 metres and the 75 metres when riding out MIME when he was in clear racing room and it was reasonable and permissible for him to do so.
[15] He reiterated the failure to follow BUFFALO LASS and to take a run either inside or outside that horse was of concern. There was also a failure to take a run to the inside of ADRENALINE RUSH. And Mr Cameron, he alleged, was hesitant at best, in the run to the finishing line. He said this was not the normal manner in which Mr Cameron rode. He emphasised how aggressive the respondent had been in riding out CALL ME ROYAL in race 8.
[16] When questioned by Mr Galbraith, who emphasised MIME had finished 2nd, Mr Williamson stated had the respondent rode within the rules, MIME may have finished 1st. He agreed with Mr Galbraith that MIME had been checked at the start, however, he was of the view that a lot of horses can win after being checked, even over a distance of 1200 metres. He said RICH BILLIE MARSH had ensured there was a genuine pace and there was an opportunity for horses to run on.
[17] Mr Williamson agreed with Mr Galbraith that MIME was a 2000 metres horse and was first up at 1200 metres, but explained such horses do win over 1200 metres. If the question was could MIME win the race, the answer was yes.
[18] When questioned whether Mr Coleman had beaten the respondent to the gap inside ADRENALINE RUSH, Mr Williamson replied Mr Cameron had not competed for it. Mr Galbraith stated MIME was the outside horse, and was hanging, and asked whether there was a risk of clipping heels. Mr Williamson replied that the respondent could have steadied his horse. He said MIME had gone in and had got held up as a consequence. When Mr Cameron eventually secured a run, he had finished second.
[19] Mr Williamson agreed that the gap inside BUFFALO LASS had closed fairly quickly, but emphasised it had been available to the respondent, who had instead gone into “a wall of horses”. He believed Mr Cameron should have steadied MIME, come outside BUFFALO LASS, and he would then have had a clear run to the line.
[20] Mr Galbraith questioned whether the respondent could have won the race by moving to the inside, as Mr Cameron had, had he not been held up for a run. Mr Williamson agreed that MIME had finished well.
[21] Mr Galbraith referred to times from the Formpro website. These indicated MIME had run from the 400 to the 200 metres in 11.36 and from the 200 to the finish in 11.70. MIME had thus run the first of these 200s quicker than the last. Mr Williamson commented that these times were not electronically recorded and there was a 0.5 margin of error.
[22] Mr Galbraith alleged that the transcript of the Stipendiary Stewards questioning of Mr Cameron evidenced there was badgering. Mr Williamson denied this and emphasised the questioning had occurred both before and after the respondent had ridden in a later race.
[23] When his attention was drawn to the fact that the respondent had said he was awkwardly placed and “squeezed up” and that riding with safety was the first concern of a jockey who had to make split second decisions, Mr Williamson responded the respondent had made four poor decisions and their cumulative effect was that the respondent had not given MIME full opportunity.
[24] Mr Williamson re-emphasised the respondent had the opportunity to take the run to the inside or the outside of BUFFALO LASS and it was a poor decision to go in looking for a run. He disagreed with Mr Galbraith that MIME would have been closer to heels had Mr Cameron come out. He said MIME had to come across heels whichever way the horse shifted on the track.
[25] When questioned about the run home, he agreed the respondent was searching for an inside run, but when he found it, he was hesitant at best. He said at this time Mr Cameron had pushed his horse but he had also sat up. He had not fully ridden the horse out. He said at the 125 metres the respondent had been hesitant in taking the gap that had presented itself. Mr Cameron had said he was unsure what to do, but Mr Williamson could see no reason why he should have been.
[26] Mr Williamson stated he believed, however, that the race was basically gone from the 350 metres due to Mr Cameron’s poor decisions prior to and at that time. He concluded his evidence by stating the there had been a series of errors by Mr Cameron and the ride was questionable at best.
[27] Mr Neal in closing the informant’s case addressed a number of the points made by Mr Galbraith when questioning Mr Williamson. He said the race had to be viewed in its own circumstances and emphasised there were times where a 1200 metre race could be won from the back, although this was not the normal course of events. MIME had carried on her good form and a good horse could win from anywhere. MIME was a filly with “significant ability” and this was relevant.
[28] With reference to the safety aspect, Mr Neal said some riders were more cautious than others. Mr Cameron was not a cautious rider; he was an aggressive rider. As to his not wanting to follow an inexperienced apprentice, Mr Cameron had ridden in the South Island where there were a number of such apprentices.
[29] Mr Neal reiterated the Stipendiary Stewards accepted MIME had received interference at the start and that the filly settled further back than anticipated. From that point in the race, however, the respondent was cautious and had failed to take opportunities that were presented to him, such as following another runner and to compete with Mr Coleman for the gap inside ADRENALINE RUSH.
[30] Mr Neal stated that the Stipendiary Stewards disagreed with Mr Cameron’s statement to Mr Williamson, when questioned on the day, that MIME was hanging quite badly. The Stewards would agree that the horse was hanging out slightly but believed only a minor slap was necessary to get the horse back into the race. They believed in “the normal course of events” the respondent would have competed for the gap and that he had “appeared to be indifferent throughout the race” and, once he had had gone inside, he appeared “not quite sure what to do”.
[31] Mr Neal stated that the times were irrelevant as MIME was a “very very good horse”. The “permissible measure” available to the respondent he believed, was to take the run out wide. He believed the extra ground Mr Cameron would have had to cover was only “marginal” or “nominal”. He said there was no run for the respondent when he went back to the inside; it was “a pig in a poke”.
[32] Mr Neal pointed out that the transcript of the raceday questioning of Mr Cameron by Mr Williamson evidenced that the respondent had said it was “a bad ride”. Mr Neal reiterated there had been four bad decisions.
[33] Mr Neal referred to McMullan v Racing Queensland 2012 where it was said a Committee should look objectively at a ride and, in determining whether there was a breach, to consider if a reasonable observer would say, “What on earth is that jockey doing?”
[34] Mr Neal concluded the informant’s case by reiterating the respondent was indifferent throughout the race and, as a consequence, MIME was denied full opportunity to win. Had Mr Cameron taken the run to the outside, MIME could have picked up ground and gone on to win the race.
Respondent’s case
[35] Mr Galbraith opened his case by calling the respondent to give evidence.
[36] Mr Cameron stated his instructions from Mr M Baker were to go forward but not to lead. That possibility was gone immediately after the start when got checked. He said he had no choice but to settle back and MIME immediately started to hang and changed stride on the bend. He then had to check because of interference from the horses in front, and MIME had moved out as a consequence. He wanted cover and was trying to get back in.
[37] BUFFALO LASS was not a horse he wanted to follow, as it was not going to carry him into the race. If he were then to go wider, MIME would have had to do too much work to go around the field. Mr Coleman was travelling better than him so he could not push into the gap inside ADRENALINE RUSH or he would have clipped heels. His only option was to check out as Mr Coleman had beaten him to the gap and was travelling.
[38] MIME was still hanging. Mr Cameron said that at the time MIME had a normal ring bit but she now raced with a hanging bit. He believed the bit was changed after the horse raced at Wellington.
[39] Mr Cameron said he did not come to the outside as he was last when the field straightened for the run home. He was never going to take the gap inside BUFFALO LASS as he thought that gap was going to close. He was aware there were a lot of horses on the inside but not a wall of horses. MIME was continuing to hang and he was looking for somewhere to go. He found a clear run on the fence. He said he had not sat up on MIME for 2 to 3 strides. He was still urging her.
[40] Mr Cameron explained that when in the gap on the rail he was wary as the horse to his outside was ridden by the apprentice to whom he had called when he received interference at the start. It was rolling about and he knew it would stop. He was aware the horse ridden by Mr Grylls was tiring and stopping and he was not sure where that horse would go. He did not want to roll out onto Mr Grylls. He had called to him and said he was going for a run inside.
[41] Mr Cameron said he exercised judgement and decided he could push up on the fence but there was the safety issue of would the apprentice roll back to the fence. This was the reason why he was slightly hesitant. He accepted he was vigorous at the finish and not when he first took the gap, however he was always niggling at the horse from the 200 metres to the finish. He was certain he would never have won the race by coming round the outside.
[42] Mr Cameron reiterated the filly was hanging out badly. He did not believe it was a bad ride, which was how he had described his ride when questioned by Mr Williamson. He had been badgered into making such statements on the day. He now believed it was a brilliant ride. He had given MIME every opportunity to finish in the best possible position having regard to the fact he had been checked three times in the running. Mr M Baker had not said it was a bad ride and he was happy with the ride after the day. There was comment to this effect in the New Zealand Herald. He had not ridden the horse since and commented that Mr Bosson was the senior rider for the Baker stable.
[43] Mr Neal cross-examined Mr Cameron. He showed a video of race 7 at Ellerslie to demonstrate that the respondent was a vigorous rider and took marginal options. Mr Cameron emphasised that he had been suspended for that ride and relegated. It had been the wrong thing to do and he had learned from the incident.
[44] Mr Cameron said MIME was hanging before he changed his whip hand and this had made things worse and the filly began hanging out badly. He said he went in because it was easier to go in than out and it was the shortest way home. He would have been fighting the horse whether he went in or out but it would have been worse had he gone out as she would have moved out further.
[45] When Mr Neal drew Mr Cameron’s attention to his admissions on the day that this was a bad ride, he said he had been under pressure from Stewards, Mr Williamson and Mr Robinson. He reiterated on repeatedly viewing the videos and now having gathered his thoughts, the decision to go to the inside was the best possible decision having regard to the position he was in. If he had gone to the outside, MIME might have kept hanging, and going to the inside gave him the opportunity to balance the horse. MIME was still hanging when he was hitting her with his left hand. He would never had gone into the gap inside BUFFALO LASS as that gap closed almost immediately and he believed he would have ended up clipping heels.
[46] Mr M Coleman, licensed jockey, gave evidence. He stated he had some 30 years’ riding experience. He had ridden MIME in her last two starts subsequent to the race at issue. It was his belief that MIME had a habit of hanging to the left quite severely during a race. At Waikato he thought he would have to change his whip hand as the horse was inclined to lug left although eventually the horse relented and he did not have to.
[47] Mr Coleman said the race in question was a sprint race and with the rail out the corner was sharp. The negative camber pushed horses out on the bend. He had seen a gap at the top of the straight and as his horse was travelling quite well he had improved into it. He believed the respondent would have beaten him to the gap and got the run if MIME had been running straight and had not been hanging.
[48] Mr Coleman explained that the gap was not fully open and he had to dictate the outside horse off its line. He had had a bit of trouble balancing his horse once he was in the gap. He also said he had the advantage of getting the gap as his was the inside horse and was better placed to shift the outside horse in the gap wider. He explained there was not room for two horses and once he got there, there would not have been a run for Mr Cameron.
[49] Mr Coleman stated that if he had been riding MIME he too would have been faced with a split second decision as to what to do — which was the better option, to go inside or out. He believed if MIME had gone to the outside the filly would have lost momentum, possibly losing half a length, as she would have had to ease off heels. He believed in going to the inside MIME lost less momentum than if the filly had gone for an outside run. He added the racing manners of MIME would have influenced the respondent’s decision making and that the filly raced in a truer fashion when going to the inside.
[50] Mr Coleman was of the view that MIME would have finished 6th or 7th had she come down the outside, whereas she had finished 2nd by taking an inside run. He now questioned his own tactics on his mount, PERSUASIVE, and wondered whether he too should have gone for an inside run.
[51] Mr Coleman stated the respondent was never held up when taking the inside run home and, while Mr Cameron was slightly hesitant when inside Ms Holmquist for a stride, he had then pushed MIME to the line. He added the sectional times were excellent.
[52] Mr Neal questioned Mr Coleman and pointed out that MIME had taken an outside run when ridden by Mr Coleman last Saturday. Mr Coleman replied that the distance of the race was 2100 metres, the race tempo was different, and there was more time to get the filly into a rhythm. In addition, MIME had begun well and had raced handy. His only option was to go the outside and, while MIME was hanging, this was not to such an extent that he could not ride her out.
[53] Mr Coleman did not agree that there was a marked difference in ability between MIME and his mount, PERSUASIVE, as his horse was no slouch. MIME was a very promising 3-year-old with good ability, but this was a 1200 metre race and he had only ridden her in 2000 and 2100 metre races. He had viewed videos of MIME’s racing performances before riding her, and it was clear to him that she had a tendency to hang in her races.
[54] Mr Coleman stated that when he had ridden MIME she had a straight bit, which he believed was more effective than the ring bit she had worn when ridden by Mr Cameron in the race in question.
[55] Mr Galbraith then made brief submissions. He reminded the Committee the standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities. He submitted the use of the rule in these particular circumstances, with four decisions throughout a race being questioned, was unusual as breaches of the rule were often where jockeys dropped their hands near the finish and failed to see another horse finishing quickly.
[56] Mr Galbraith emphasised MIME was a 2000 metre plus horse and this was a first up 1200 metre race. He added 2000 metre horses do not usually win over 1200 metres fresh up. Although the horse was the favourite, it was bred to stay. In contrast, the winner of the race had ability and was a 1200 metre specialist.
[57] Mr Galbraith drew the Committee’s attention to the fact MIME had been checked at the start and not too many horses win a 1200 metre race from the back of the field and, if they did, it was usually from the inside. If MIME had raced wide, she would have covered extra ground and would have been on the wrong leg for longer. Her chance of winning the race in these circumstances was “zilch” or “highly improbable”. He asked us to consider this fact when considering the wording of the rule.
[58] Mr Galbraith emphasised the split second decision that the respondent had to make and the safety issues that would also have influenced Mr Cameron’s decision-making. He then referred to the four matters identified by the informant.
[59] BUFFALO LASS was not the horse to track into the race and had Mr Cameron done so he would have been very wide on the track coming around the bend. As MIME was hanging, he believed the respondent’s decision not to improve wide on the track was correct.
[60] Mr Coleman had got to the gap inside ADRENALINE RUSH first. The horse racing on the inside, always had the advantage on a bend and this had assisted Mr Coleman to exert pressure on the outside horse and to improve into the gap. The respondent would never have got to the gap first and there was initially only room for three quarters of a horse anyway. Mr Coleman had created the gap for his mount and in so doing closed any potential gap inside BUFFALO LASS. Even if Mr Cameron had pulled back half a length and gone to the outside, the gap would not have lasted because Mr Coleman had dictated the line of the horse on the outside. This was simply not an option for Mr Cameron.
[61] Mr Galbraith stated MIME had not lost momentum by going in. He did not have to pull off heels to same extent he would have had, had he looked for an outside run.
[62] MIME was still hanging and while Mr Cameron did hesitate for a stride or two, this was to confirm there was a run on the inside of Mr Grylls. Mr Cameron had called out to Mr Grylls to let him know he was making a run to his inside and to ensure he got a clear run through. The sectional times indicate that MIME did not lose momentum.
[63] With reference to Mr Cameron’s statements to Mr Williamson, Mr Galbraith noted that all were qualified and were appropriate and reasonable responses at the time.
[64] Mr Galbraith concluded his submissions by stating the fact that Mr Cameron had checked out and missed the gap taken by Mr Coleman was fortunate for the connections of the filly, as he had obtained a run that he otherwise would not have received. After 100 metres from the start and at the top of the straight it was an unlikely proposal that MIME would run a place. The Committee had to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent would have won the race had he taken different options to those that he had adopted. Going to the outside would not have improved MIME’s chances of winning. Mr Cameron’s riding for luck had worked out in his favour and he was not in breach of the rule. MIME was never going to finish in a better finishing place.
[65] Mr Neal in summing up stated the Committee had an obligation to look at the race in its entirety. He emphasised that when deciding whether or not to take a run a jockey had to be aware of the ability and limitations of his horse. He said MIME was held in high regard and had ability that recent performances had embellished.
[66] The rule was to be viewed objectively. At the point of the turn the respondent made the decision to go in although there was no run at the time. In Mr Neal’s view the only option was to shift ground outwards. Mr Coleman had finished relatively close up through taking an unimpeded run on the outside. It was reasonable for Mr Cameron to improve at the 600 metres and follow a non-favoured runner as he could still get a run into the race.
[67] Mr Neal emphasised that the respondent had conceded the gap to Mr Coleman and had gone in when there was not a clear run. There was also considerable inconsistency in the manner in which the respondent rode the filly when he got the gap even acknowledging that RICH BILLIE MARSH was inclined to shift ground under pressure.
[68] Mr Neal concluded by stating the respondent’s ride “fell short of the rule”.
[69] Mr Galbraith declined the opportunity to sum up.
Reasons for decision
[70] Shortly after the start was made MIME was checked and as a consequence the horse settled towards the rear of the field. The videos showed that the horse was hanging outwards. Prior to the 800 metres Mr Cameron changed the whip from his right to his left hand.
[71] Near the 800 metres MIME had to be steadied away from the heels of the runner ahead (ADRENALINE RUSH), when that horse came back onto MIME. The films showed that MIME was still hanging outwards and that Mr Cameron had some difficulty getting the horse to shift back towards the running rail. The rear-on video was quite telling in this respect and clearly evidenced the difficulty the respondent had when MIME went wider on the track at this point in the race.
[72] As the field approached the straight entrance, MIME was still inclined to hang outwards and came very close to the heels of the runner ahead (ADRENALINE RUSH) when Mr Coleman’s mount shifted outwards for a run. Mr Cameron then shifted MIME inwards for a run rather than move outwards where there was a gap to improve into. However that gap closed rather quickly due to outward movement from other runners and in our opinion MIME would not have been able to shift fully into the gap prior to it closing.
[73] After shifting to the inside, MIME was briefly held up for a run. Mr Cameron urged his mount, without riding with full vigour, early in the run home when he believed that there was a possibility that the horse ahead, TANIA, ridden by Mr Grylls, may have rolled in and taken his line of running.
[74] Mr Cameron was observed on the video to pause in riding out for two to three strides. His explanation was that he was concerned RICH BILLIE MARSH would roll to the fence. Mr Cameron rode out fully over the final stages after a clear run ahead was presented. It was unlikely that MIME, who finished second – beaten by one and three quarter lengths, would have won the race had it been able to be ridden out fully for the duration of the final straight once the inside gap had presented itself to Mr Cameron.
[75] Significantly, in our view, Mr Neal’s submission as to the undoubted ability of MIME and his questioning of the respondent’s vigour and option taking, has to be considered in the light of the fact that the filly was hanging out for much of the race and was giving Mr Cameron a d
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules:
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: