Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v R Myers – Written Decision dated 30 November 2016 – Chair, Mr T Utikere
ID: JCA18159
Decision:
BEFORE 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 ROSIE MYERS
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr T Utikere (Chairman), Mr P Williams (Committee Member)
Appearing: Mr B Jones (for the informant) – Ms R Myers (as the Respondent)
Venue: Judicial Room, Wanganui Racecourse
Date of Hearing: 26 November 2016
Date of Written Decision: 30 November 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Ms Myers appears before this Judicial Committee on the following charge:
Information Number A4600
THAT on 13 November 2016 at a race meeting conducted by the Waverley Racing Club at Waverley in Race 7 Miss Myers allowed her mount DESANO to shift in when not sufficiently clear of ITELLYOUONETHING (H Andrew) which clipped a heel and blundered dislodging its rider, also dislodged as a result was the rider of INCOGNITO (S McKay). An alleged breach of rule 638(1)(d) of the NZTR Rules of Racing.
[2] The rule reads as follows:
Rule 638(1) - “A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be: … (d) careless.”
[3] Ms Myers confirmed that she understood Rule 638(1)(d), and that she did not admit the charge.
[4] Mr Jones presented a signed authority from the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) General Manager Mr Godber to proceed with the charge against Ms Myers. Copies of the Information, the appropriate notice to the various parties, and the appointment of the Judicial Committee were also tabled. Ms Myers confirmed that she had received all of the relevant documentation prior to the commencement of the hearing.
EVIDENCE
[5] Mr Jones called Holly Andrew as a witness. She confirmed that she was the rider of ITELLYOUONETHING in Race 7 of the Waverley Racing Club’s Meeting on 13 November 2016, and was dislodged near the 750 metres. She said leading up to the incident her horse was quite settled and was not pulling. She stated that Ms Myers had crossed over when not quite clear and that as a result she had clipped a heel. She described this as “just one clip”. She said that it had all happened quite quickly for her and she believed that Ms Myers had been a “bare length” in front of her. In response to questions from the committee, she said Ms Myers was positioned to her outside and that she believed she was going forward towards her outside.
[6] Under cross-examination from Ms Myers, Miss Andrew stated that she did not take a hold of her mount as she did not think Ms Myers would cross her so closely. She also responded to Ms Myers by saying that she could confidently recollect that she had crossed her, even though she had been knocked unconscious as a result of being dislodged. Under questioning, she clarified that she had remembered clipping a heel, and that the rest of it had come from watching the films. In response to a question from the committee, she said she had viewed the footage on the NZTR website and had seen all camera angles two days before this hearing. In reference to the day’s events, Miss Andrew recalled the drive to Waverley and that she had a couple of placings prior to the race that saw her being dislodged.
[7] Stipendiary Steward Gavin Whiterod was called to present his interpretation of the films. He identified Ms Myers (DESANO) racing outside the line of Miss Andrew as the field was passing the 800 metres. He demonstrated that Ms Myers looked to her inside at least two times before shifting across Miss Andrew’s line of running. As a result, ITELLYOUONETHING had clipped a heel. The incident also caused Mr McKay (INCOGNITO) to be dislodged and Messrs Chan, Tanaka and Johnson, who were racing further back in the field, were also required to take evasive action. He used the side-on view to demonstrate that Ms Myers was barely a length clear when moving inwards, and that ITELLYOUONETHING had clipped a heel, blundered and dislodged its rider. The back-straight angle had identified Ms Myers racing three-out, and that she had allowed her mount to come inwards, moving into the line of Miss Andrew. He observed that there had been no outwards movement from Miss Andrew’s horse and that Ms Myers had ended up in the two-wide position. In moving from the three-wide to two-wide position, he submitted that Ms Myers had taken Miss Andrew’s line and that no movement from any other runners had contributed to the incident.
[8] Under cross-examination from Ms Myers, Mr Whiterod confirmed that he was confident in his observation that she had moved from the three-wide to two-wide position. With reference to the back-straight film Ms Myers identified a gap between her horse and that of Mr Parkes who was located on her inside, but closest to the running rail. In doing so, she asked Mr Whiterod, how she could be positioned two-wide if she could observe this gap. His response was that he had read races for many years, and the back-straight angle categorically showed that she was two-wide. He went further in his analysis, stating that she was positioned ahead of Miss Andrew, but adjacent to Ms Hemi who was located in the one-back position, following Mr Parkes. After crossing, Mr Whiterod observed her to be positioned immediately adjacent to Ms Hemi. Initially Mr Whiterod did not believe that Ms Hemi had moved away from the rail, however, under further questioning from Ms Myers, he did concede that there had been slight movement from Ms Hemi, but that it had no bearing on the incident that resulted in ITELLYOUONETHING clipping a heel. He was also resolute in his observation that there had been no significant movement from Miss Andrew.
[9] Ms Myers commenced her defence by saying that she did not believe she had been careless, and she wished to make four points.
[10] Firstly, she asked the committee to observe the back-straight film from the point of dispatch. She pointed out that this head-on view from the start of the race identified that she had not moved in, and that she was also aware that Miss Andrew was located to her inside. She pointed out that she had consistently turned her head and looked inwards, to see who was racing to her inside. She believed she had been careful in this regard and had not moved in from the three-wide position.
[11] Secondly, she submitted that the alleged incident took place right on the point of the turn. She described the films as “very inconclusive” and asked the committee to consider that horses often moved in and out at this part of a race. She believed that it was possible that Miss Andrew had actually moved out and that the film angles changing views meant that the allegation against her was largely based on assumption rather than fact. Further, she pointed out that it was accepted that there had been outwards movement from Ms Hemi, and as such, it was possible for ITELLYOUONETHING’s line to have been dictated.
[12] Penultimately, she submitted that Miss Andrew did not take a hold of her mount at any point. She believed that Miss Andrew had not been placed in any danger or in tight quarters and that there was a lack of reaction on the part of Miss Andrew. As a comparative, Ms Myers used the side-on view to identify the difference between Ms Hemi taking a hold of her mount, and Miss Andrew not. She detailed the circumstances as she saw them; Ms Hemi having to take a hold of her mount and come off Mr Parkes’ heels as a result of his inwards movement.
[13] Finally, she noted that it had been two weeks since this incident and the delay for this charge to be heard was unreasonable and had been mentally challenging for her. Ms Myers described the allegation against her as unfair and unjust in these circumstances.
[14] Under cross-examination, Mr Jones asked Ms Myers whether there had been any evidence presented as part of the hearing to indicate that Ms Hemi had moved out. Ms Myers confirmed her position that there was every chance that Ms Hemi had moved out, and that such movement only had to be ever so slight. She believed that the films illustrated that any potential outwards movement from Ms Hemi was just as apparent as the inwards movement that Ms Myers was alleged to have made. Mr Jones accepted that while Miss Andrew was in a dangerous position at that stage of the race, if Ms Myers had been the required two lengths clear, Ms Andrew would not have “skimmed a heel”. Ms Myers disagreed that she had crossed Miss Andrew, reiterating her belief that the films were inconclusive.
[15] In summing up, Mr Jones stated that from the point of barrier dispatch Miss Andrew’s horse posed no problems and was racing in a tractable manner. The stewards alleged that the back-straight film had shown that Ms Myers had moved into the line of ITELLYOUONETHING. He also believed that the side-on film demonstrated that she was never the required distance clear. As a result, Miss Andrew had clipped a heel, blundered, and was dislodged. She was also forced out onto Mr McKay, who was also dislodged as a result. Mr Jones identified that the requirement to be two lengths clear before shifting ground was in place to protect riders and give them time to react. He believed that on this occasion with the margin being cut down to a bare length, Miss Andrew had not had a chance to react.
[16] In summing up, Miss Myers believed that the films were largely inconclusive and that the synchronised change of camera angles made it very difficult to ascertain some clarity of the incident. She reiterated that the alleged incident occurred at a dangerous turn and to suggest that she had caused the incident was absurd.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[17] Ms Myers has defended a charge of careless riding in relation to Waverley Racing Club’s Meeting on 13 November. She has advanced the view that the delay in this matter progressing to a hearing is unsatisfactory. We note that the Information was signed by Ms Myers on 18 November, this Judicial Committee was appointed by a Notice dated 22 November and this matter set down for a hearing on 26 November. This committee has sought to hear this defended matter as soon as practicable, and in the context of these circumstances, we do not consider the timeframe that has been adopted to be unreasonable.
[18] We have considered all of the evidence placed before us and have also had the opportunity to review all of the available films at length. While there are limited film angles of this incident; the films available to us have allowed us to make some conclusions in relation to this charge.
[19] We are satisfied that there were no issues in relation to the racing manners of Miss Andrew’s horse in the lead up to the 750 metres mark; and Ms Myers accepts this. We have also observed that there was no outwards movement from ITELLYOUONETHING leading up to that stage of the race as well.
[20] It is clear from viewing the films that Ms Myers looked to her inside on a number of occasions from the beginning of the race through to the incident happening. We accept that there was some outwards movement from Ms Hemi, and while Ms Myers has suggested that there is the possibility that Miss Andrew may have been dictated by that movement, we have reviewed the films and do not believe that any movement from Ms Hemi has had an impact upon Miss Andrew or her rightful running line.
[21] In the run to the turn, we have established that Ms Myers was racing in at least a three-wide position. As she has commenced rounding the turn, we believe that she has moved in from that three-wide position. We observe from the films that this is a gradual movement, rather than one that is abrupt in nature.
[22] It is clear that Miss Andrew was entitled to be where she was. While other more experienced riders in a similar situation may have reacted differently, there was no obligation for her to do so.
[23] In moving across, it is very clear from the side-on view that Ms Myers has ended up 1 and ¼ lengths in front of Miss Andrew, rather than the requirement to be two lengths clear before shifting ground.
DECISION
[24] Accordingly, we find the charge of careless riding against Ms Myers proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS
[25] In presenting submissions as to penalty, Mr Jones tabled Ms Myers’ record under the rule; her riding history for the previous 12 month period; and a list of careless riding breaches that had resulted in falls and the resultant penalty imposed.
[26] He identified two previous careless riding breaches for Ms Myers within the previous 12 months (21 August at Wanganui - 4 days; and 8 August at Egmont - 4 days).
[27] He submitted that the stewards viewed Ms Myers as a Central Districts rider who rode outside of the area on Premier and Feature days.
[28] He stated that as the carelessness resulted in a fall, the position of the RIU was that a four week period of suspension should be the starting point, and that on this occasion a four week period of suspension would be the appropriate end result.
[29] He submitted that the level of carelessness was at the high end as Ms Myers was not the required margin clear and that the consequences of the resulting interference, two riders being dislodged and three others being badly hampered, was also at the high end.
[30] In response to a question from the Chairman regarding the stewards’ rationale for placing the level of carelessness at the high end, when there seemed to be a particular emphasis on the fact that the carelessness had resulted in two falls, Mr Jones stated that Ms Myers had cut her margin down to the extreme, where the slightest clip had resulted in Ms Andrew being dislodged. He also submitted that as Ms Myers had been aware that Miss Andrew was located to her inside, yet she still elected to move inwards, this supported the stewards’ view that the carelessness sat at the high end.
[31] In making her submissions as to penalty Ms Myers acknowledged that Christmas racing was coming up and that the delay in hearing the charge against her was unfair and could hinder her opportunities over a busy part of the year and specifically her ability to ride BENZINI in a Group 1 race in Hong Kong on 11 December. Ms Myers disagreed with Mr Jones, stating that she believed the level of carelessness had been very minor. She believed that a four week suspension was comparatively unfair, and cited the specific decisions of RIU v R Hannam (14 July 2016 - 4 week suspension), RIU v T Moseley (15 October 2016 - 6 day suspension) and RIU v J Fawcett (12 October 2016 - 9 day suspension) where she submitted the circumstances were much more significant that the charge she was facing.
[32] She disagreed with the submission that she only rode outside the Central Districts area on Premier and Feature days as she was riding at Te Rapa (a non-Feature Meeting) on 27 November and had ridden mid-week at Ellerslie earlier in the month and at Ashburton last month.
[33] She also sought consideration of a period of suspension along with a fine, if appropriate, to allow her to ride BENZINI in Hong Kong on 11 December. Mr Jones responded that it was not a common occurrence and that a period of suspension alongside a fine should only be imposed on very rare occasions. However, he did concede that the opportunity for Ms Myers to ride BENZINI in Hong Kong was a very rare one. Ms Myers informed the committee that the Group 1 race in Hong Kong was an invite only race and that BENZINI had been invited to race.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
[34] The committee has considered all of the submissions placed before it. We have also taken the opportunity to review the written decisions that Ms Myers has referred to in her penalty submissions. The context and circumstances of the previous cases that Ms Myers had cited (Hannam, Moseley and Fawcett) are, in our view, comparatively at a higher level of carelessness to the circumstances surrounding Ms Myers’ breach.
[35] We do not believe a fine alongside a period of suspension is appropriate on this occasion, instead we will impose a sole period of suspension. Accordingly, we adopt the JCA Penalty Guidelines starting point of a five day period of suspension.
[36] It is important to make a distinction between the level of carelessness and the consequential effect of any carelessness. The Appeals Tribunal Decision of McNab v RIU (dated 9 March 2016) provides guidance to Raceday Judicial Committees on this aspect. At Paragraph 7.1 of that decision, the Tribunal states:
“...We then look at the level of carelessness. In our view this was at the lower end. It is appropriate at this time to mention also the issue of consequences. As this Tribunal has emphasised in other appeal hearings the most significant consideration when assessing penalty for careless riding is the degree of carelessness rather than the consequences which have followed. While those consequences must be considered they are not as significant as the exercise of measuring the degree of carelessness which has been exhibited...”
[37] When looking at the current breach, we assess the level of carelessness to sit within the lower range. It is clear that Ms Myers consistently and regularly was looking to her inside in the lead up to the carelessness. It is clear that she understood that Miss Andrew was positioned where she was. Her movement was gradual rather than abrupt. She was 1 and ¼ length clear, and all parties agree that the contact, specifically the clipping of the heel, was minimal in nature.
[38] When looking at Ms Myers’ record under this rule, while a busy rider she has two breaches within the previous 12 months, both within the last four months. As such we consider her record as a neutral factor.
[39] In considering the consequences, we note that two riders were dislodged. This is an aggravating feature. We are aware that one of the dislodged riders sustained injuries which has prevented them from returning to race riding for the time being.
[40] We also note the position of the RIU, in that they consider Ms Myers to be a Central Districts rider who rides outside of the region on Premier and Feature days. This position is slightly at odds with the evidence presented by Ms Myers to indicate that there have been times where she has been declared to ride, and has ridden, outside of the region on Industry days.
[41] The committee also notes that the four week period of suspension being sought by the RIU would equate to a 12 day suspension on this occasion. After considering all matters, we consider that a seven to eight day period of suspension is appropriate.
[42] We turn again to the Appeals Tribunal Decision of McNab v RIU, where other considerations when fixing penalty are identified. At Paragraph 7.2, the Tribunal goes on to say:
“There are other considerations when fixing penalty. One of those is the financial impact and significance that the period of suspension will have for the rider. Plainly if there are significant upcoming races the financial impact and significance will be greater than if that were not the case.”
[43] When looking at the application of a seven to eight day period of suspension in this case, the eighth day would be Sunday 11 December; the date of the Group 1 race in Hong Kong, for which Ms Myers has been invited to ride in. We are also aware that we are entering a busy time in the racing calendar.
[44] In this circumstance, the committee is of the view that including this eighth day in the period of suspension would be disproportionate to the level of carelessness that Ms Myers had exhibited.
[45] Accordingly, we impose a period of suspension of seven riding days. When fixing the quantum of penalty, the committee is also aware that two Premier race days are including within the period of suspension.
PENALTY
[46] Ms Myers’ is suspended from the close of racing on Sunday 27 November up to and including racing on Saturday 10 December 2016. This incorporates the Taranaki (1st), Canterbury (2nd), Wellington (3rd), Waipukurau (4th), Auckland (7th), Hawke’s Bay (8th) and Manawatu (10th) meetings.
COSTS
[47] The RIU sought no order for costs. There will also be no order for costs in favour of the JCA.
Tangi Utikere Paul Williams
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 01/12/2016
Publish Date: 01/12/2016
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: f4f94ddca23264bbad1b0dc9e2bcd493
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 01/12/2016
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v R Myers - Written Decision dated 30 November 2016 - Chair, Mr T Utikere
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE 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 ROSIE MYERS
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr T Utikere (Chairman), Mr P Williams (Committee Member)
Appearing: Mr B Jones (for the informant) – Ms R Myers (as the Respondent)
Venue: Judicial Room, Wanganui Racecourse
Date of Hearing: 26 November 2016
Date of Written Decision: 30 November 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Ms Myers appears before this Judicial Committee on the following charge:
Information Number A4600
THAT on 13 November 2016 at a race meeting conducted by the Waverley Racing Club at Waverley in Race 7 Miss Myers allowed her mount DESANO to shift in when not sufficiently clear of ITELLYOUONETHING (H Andrew) which clipped a heel and blundered dislodging its rider, also dislodged as a result was the rider of INCOGNITO (S McKay). An alleged breach of rule 638(1)(d) of the NZTR Rules of Racing.
[2] The rule reads as follows:
Rule 638(1) - “A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be: … (d) careless.”
[3] Ms Myers confirmed that she understood Rule 638(1)(d), and that she did not admit the charge.
[4] Mr Jones presented a signed authority from the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) General Manager Mr Godber to proceed with the charge against Ms Myers. Copies of the Information, the appropriate notice to the various parties, and the appointment of the Judicial Committee were also tabled. Ms Myers confirmed that she had received all of the relevant documentation prior to the commencement of the hearing.
EVIDENCE
[5] Mr Jones called Holly Andrew as a witness. She confirmed that she was the rider of ITELLYOUONETHING in Race 7 of the Waverley Racing Club’s Meeting on 13 November 2016, and was dislodged near the 750 metres. She said leading up to the incident her horse was quite settled and was not pulling. She stated that Ms Myers had crossed over when not quite clear and that as a result she had clipped a heel. She described this as “just one clip”. She said that it had all happened quite quickly for her and she believed that Ms Myers had been a “bare length” in front of her. In response to questions from the committee, she said Ms Myers was positioned to her outside and that she believed she was going forward towards her outside.
[6] Under cross-examination from Ms Myers, Miss Andrew stated that she did not take a hold of her mount as she did not think Ms Myers would cross her so closely. She also responded to Ms Myers by saying that she could confidently recollect that she had crossed her, even though she had been knocked unconscious as a result of being dislodged. Under questioning, she clarified that she had remembered clipping a heel, and that the rest of it had come from watching the films. In response to a question from the committee, she said she had viewed the footage on the NZTR website and had seen all camera angles two days before this hearing. In reference to the day’s events, Miss Andrew recalled the drive to Waverley and that she had a couple of placings prior to the race that saw her being dislodged.
[7] Stipendiary Steward Gavin Whiterod was called to present his interpretation of the films. He identified Ms Myers (DESANO) racing outside the line of Miss Andrew as the field was passing the 800 metres. He demonstrated that Ms Myers looked to her inside at least two times before shifting across Miss Andrew’s line of running. As a result, ITELLYOUONETHING had clipped a heel. The incident also caused Mr McKay (INCOGNITO) to be dislodged and Messrs Chan, Tanaka and Johnson, who were racing further back in the field, were also required to take evasive action. He used the side-on view to demonstrate that Ms Myers was barely a length clear when moving inwards, and that ITELLYOUONETHING had clipped a heel, blundered and dislodged its rider. The back-straight angle had identified Ms Myers racing three-out, and that she had allowed her mount to come inwards, moving into the line of Miss Andrew. He observed that there had been no outwards movement from Miss Andrew’s horse and that Ms Myers had ended up in the two-wide position. In moving from the three-wide to two-wide position, he submitted that Ms Myers had taken Miss Andrew’s line and that no movement from any other runners had contributed to the incident.
[8] Under cross-examination from Ms Myers, Mr Whiterod confirmed that he was confident in his observation that she had moved from the three-wide to two-wide position. With reference to the back-straight film Ms Myers identified a gap between her horse and that of Mr Parkes who was located on her inside, but closest to the running rail. In doing so, she asked Mr Whiterod, how she could be positioned two-wide if she could observe this gap. His response was that he had read races for many years, and the back-straight angle categorically showed that she was two-wide. He went further in his analysis, stating that she was positioned ahead of Miss Andrew, but adjacent to Ms Hemi who was located in the one-back position, following Mr Parkes. After crossing, Mr Whiterod observed her to be positioned immediately adjacent to Ms Hemi. Initially Mr Whiterod did not believe that Ms Hemi had moved away from the rail, however, under further questioning from Ms Myers, he did concede that there had been slight movement from Ms Hemi, but that it had no bearing on the incident that resulted in ITELLYOUONETHING clipping a heel. He was also resolute in his observation that there had been no significant movement from Miss Andrew.
[9] Ms Myers commenced her defence by saying that she did not believe she had been careless, and she wished to make four points.
[10] Firstly, she asked the committee to observe the back-straight film from the point of dispatch. She pointed out that this head-on view from the start of the race identified that she had not moved in, and that she was also aware that Miss Andrew was located to her inside. She pointed out that she had consistently turned her head and looked inwards, to see who was racing to her inside. She believed she had been careful in this regard and had not moved in from the three-wide position.
[11] Secondly, she submitted that the alleged incident took place right on the point of the turn. She described the films as “very inconclusive” and asked the committee to consider that horses often moved in and out at this part of a race. She believed that it was possible that Miss Andrew had actually moved out and that the film angles changing views meant that the allegation against her was largely based on assumption rather than fact. Further, she pointed out that it was accepted that there had been outwards movement from Ms Hemi, and as such, it was possible for ITELLYOUONETHING’s line to have been dictated.
[12] Penultimately, she submitted that Miss Andrew did not take a hold of her mount at any point. She believed that Miss Andrew had not been placed in any danger or in tight quarters and that there was a lack of reaction on the part of Miss Andrew. As a comparative, Ms Myers used the side-on view to identify the difference between Ms Hemi taking a hold of her mount, and Miss Andrew not. She detailed the circumstances as she saw them; Ms Hemi having to take a hold of her mount and come off Mr Parkes’ heels as a result of his inwards movement.
[13] Finally, she noted that it had been two weeks since this incident and the delay for this charge to be heard was unreasonable and had been mentally challenging for her. Ms Myers described the allegation against her as unfair and unjust in these circumstances.
[14] Under cross-examination, Mr Jones asked Ms Myers whether there had been any evidence presented as part of the hearing to indicate that Ms Hemi had moved out. Ms Myers confirmed her position that there was every chance that Ms Hemi had moved out, and that such movement only had to be ever so slight. She believed that the films illustrated that any potential outwards movement from Ms Hemi was just as apparent as the inwards movement that Ms Myers was alleged to have made. Mr Jones accepted that while Miss Andrew was in a dangerous position at that stage of the race, if Ms Myers had been the required two lengths clear, Ms Andrew would not have “skimmed a heel”. Ms Myers disagreed that she had crossed Miss Andrew, reiterating her belief that the films were inconclusive.
[15] In summing up, Mr Jones stated that from the point of barrier dispatch Miss Andrew’s horse posed no problems and was racing in a tractable manner. The stewards alleged that the back-straight film had shown that Ms Myers had moved into the line of ITELLYOUONETHING. He also believed that the side-on film demonstrated that she was never the required distance clear. As a result, Miss Andrew had clipped a heel, blundered, and was dislodged. She was also forced out onto Mr McKay, who was also dislodged as a result. Mr Jones identified that the requirement to be two lengths clear before shifting ground was in place to protect riders and give them time to react. He believed that on this occasion with the margin being cut down to a bare length, Miss Andrew had not had a chance to react.
[16] In summing up, Miss Myers believed that the films were largely inconclusive and that the synchronised change of camera angles made it very difficult to ascertain some clarity of the incident. She reiterated that the alleged incident occurred at a dangerous turn and to suggest that she had caused the incident was absurd.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[17] Ms Myers has defended a charge of careless riding in relation to Waverley Racing Club’s Meeting on 13 November. She has advanced the view that the delay in this matter progressing to a hearing is unsatisfactory. We note that the Information was signed by Ms Myers on 18 November, this Judicial Committee was appointed by a Notice dated 22 November and this matter set down for a hearing on 26 November. This committee has sought to hear this defended matter as soon as practicable, and in the context of these circumstances, we do not consider the timeframe that has been adopted to be unreasonable.
[18] We have considered all of the evidence placed before us and have also had the opportunity to review all of the available films at length. While there are limited film angles of this incident; the films available to us have allowed us to make some conclusions in relation to this charge.
[19] We are satisfied that there were no issues in relation to the racing manners of Miss Andrew’s horse in the lead up to the 750 metres mark; and Ms Myers accepts this. We have also observed that there was no outwards movement from ITELLYOUONETHING leading up to that stage of the race as well.
[20] It is clear from viewing the films that Ms Myers looked to her inside on a number of occasions from the beginning of the race through to the incident happening. We accept that there was some outwards movement from Ms Hemi, and while Ms Myers has suggested that there is the possibility that Miss Andrew may have been dictated by that movement, we have reviewed the films and do not believe that any movement from Ms Hemi has had an impact upon Miss Andrew or her rightful running line.
[21] In the run to the turn, we have established that Ms Myers was racing in at least a three-wide position. As she has commenced rounding the turn, we believe that she has moved in from that three-wide position. We observe from the films that this is a gradual movement, rather than one that is abrupt in nature.
[22] It is clear that Miss Andrew was entitled to be where she was. While other more experienced riders in a similar situation may have reacted differently, there was no obligation for her to do so.
[23] In moving across, it is very clear from the side-on view that Ms Myers has ended up 1 and ¼ lengths in front of Miss Andrew, rather than the requirement to be two lengths clear before shifting ground.
DECISION
[24] Accordingly, we find the charge of careless riding against Ms Myers proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS
[25] In presenting submissions as to penalty, Mr Jones tabled Ms Myers’ record under the rule; her riding history for the previous 12 month period; and a list of careless riding breaches that had resulted in falls and the resultant penalty imposed.
[26] He identified two previous careless riding breaches for Ms Myers within the previous 12 months (21 August at Wanganui - 4 days; and 8 August at Egmont - 4 days).
[27] He submitted that the stewards viewed Ms Myers as a Central Districts rider who rode outside of the area on Premier and Feature days.
[28] He stated that as the carelessness resulted in a fall, the position of the RIU was that a four week period of suspension should be the starting point, and that on this occasion a four week period of suspension would be the appropriate end result.
[29] He submitted that the level of carelessness was at the high end as Ms Myers was not the required margin clear and that the consequences of the resulting interference, two riders being dislodged and three others being badly hampered, was also at the high end.
[30] In response to a question from the Chairman regarding the stewards’ rationale for placing the level of carelessness at the high end, when there seemed to be a particular emphasis on the fact that the carelessness had resulted in two falls, Mr Jones stated that Ms Myers had cut her margin down to the extreme, where the slightest clip had resulted in Ms Andrew being dislodged. He also submitted that as Ms Myers had been aware that Miss Andrew was located to her inside, yet she still elected to move inwards, this supported the stewards’ view that the carelessness sat at the high end.
[31] In making her submissions as to penalty Ms Myers acknowledged that Christmas racing was coming up and that the delay in hearing the charge against her was unfair and could hinder her opportunities over a busy part of the year and specifically her ability to ride BENZINI in a Group 1 race in Hong Kong on 11 December. Ms Myers disagreed with Mr Jones, stating that she believed the level of carelessness had been very minor. She believed that a four week suspension was comparatively unfair, and cited the specific decisions of RIU v R Hannam (14 July 2016 - 4 week suspension), RIU v T Moseley (15 October 2016 - 6 day suspension) and RIU v J Fawcett (12 October 2016 - 9 day suspension) where she submitted the circumstances were much more significant that the charge she was facing.
[32] She disagreed with the submission that she only rode outside the Central Districts area on Premier and Feature days as she was riding at Te Rapa (a non-Feature Meeting) on 27 November and had ridden mid-week at Ellerslie earlier in the month and at Ashburton last month.
[33] She also sought consideration of a period of suspension along with a fine, if appropriate, to allow her to ride BENZINI in Hong Kong on 11 December. Mr Jones responded that it was not a common occurrence and that a period of suspension alongside a fine should only be imposed on very rare occasions. However, he did concede that the opportunity for Ms Myers to ride BENZINI in Hong Kong was a very rare one. Ms Myers informed the committee that the Group 1 race in Hong Kong was an invite only race and that BENZINI had been invited to race.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
[34] The committee has considered all of the submissions placed before it. We have also taken the opportunity to review the written decisions that Ms Myers has referred to in her penalty submissions. The context and circumstances of the previous cases that Ms Myers had cited (Hannam, Moseley and Fawcett) are, in our view, comparatively at a higher level of carelessness to the circumstances surrounding Ms Myers’ breach.
[35] We do not believe a fine alongside a period of suspension is appropriate on this occasion, instead we will impose a sole period of suspension. Accordingly, we adopt the JCA Penalty Guidelines starting point of a five day period of suspension.
[36] It is important to make a distinction between the level of carelessness and the consequential effect of any carelessness. The Appeals Tribunal Decision of McNab v RIU (dated 9 March 2016) provides guidance to Raceday Judicial Committees on this aspect. At Paragraph 7.1 of that decision, the Tribunal states:
“...We then look at the level of carelessness. In our view this was at the lower end. It is appropriate at this time to mention also the issue of consequences. As this Tribunal has emphasised in other appeal hearings the most significant consideration when assessing penalty for careless riding is the degree of carelessness rather than the consequences which have followed. While those consequences must be considered they are not as significant as the exercise of measuring the degree of carelessness which has been exhibited...”
[37] When looking at the current breach, we assess the level of carelessness to sit within the lower range. It is clear that Ms Myers consistently and regularly was looking to her inside in the lead up to the carelessness. It is clear that she understood that Miss Andrew was positioned where she was. Her movement was gradual rather than abrupt. She was 1 and ¼ length clear, and all parties agree that the contact, specifically the clipping of the heel, was minimal in nature.
[38] When looking at Ms Myers’ record under this rule, while a busy rider she has two breaches within the previous 12 months, both within the last four months. As such we consider her record as a neutral factor.
[39] In considering the consequences, we note that two riders were dislodged. This is an aggravating feature. We are aware that one of the dislodged riders sustained injuries which has prevented them from returning to race riding for the time being.
[40] We also note the position of the RIU, in that they consider Ms Myers to be a Central Districts rider who rides outside of the region on Premier and Feature days. This position is slightly at odds with the evidence presented by Ms Myers to indicate that there have been times where she has been declared to ride, and has ridden, outside of the region on Industry days.
[41] The committee also notes that the four week period of suspension being sought by the RIU would equate to a 12 day suspension on this occasion. After considering all matters, we consider that a seven to eight day period of suspension is appropriate.
[42] We turn again to the Appeals Tribunal Decision of McNab v RIU, where other considerations when fixing penalty are identified. At Paragraph 7.2, the Tribunal goes on to say:
“There are other considerations when fixing penalty. One of those is the financial impact and significance that the period of suspension will have for the rider. Plainly if there are significant upcoming races the financial impact and significance will be greater than if that were not the case.”
[43] When looking at the application of a seven to eight day period of suspension in this case, the eighth day would be Sunday 11 December; the date of the Group 1 race in Hong Kong, for which Ms Myers has been invited to ride in. We are also aware that we are entering a busy time in the racing calendar.
[44] In this circumstance, the committee is of the view that including this eighth day in the period of suspension would be disproportionate to the level of carelessness that Ms Myers had exhibited.
[45] Accordingly, we impose a period of suspension of seven riding days. When fixing the quantum of penalty, the committee is also aware that two Premier race days are including within the period of suspension.
PENALTY
[46] Ms Myers’ is suspended from the close of racing on Sunday 27 November up to and including racing on Saturday 10 December 2016. This incorporates the Taranaki (1st), Canterbury (2nd), Wellington (3rd), Waipukurau (4th), Auckland (7th), Hawke’s Bay (8th) and Manawatu (10th) meetings.
COSTS
[47] The RIU sought no order for costs. There will also be no order for costs in favour of the JCA.
Tangi Utikere Paul Williams
Chairman Committee Member
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: