Facts:
Following the running of Race 9, the “Gallagher Handicap”, Information A6771 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N Goodwin under Rule 638(1)(d). The Information stated “that Apprentice N Teeluck permitted “Missteeflying” to shift out when not clear of “Mibachelorboy” passing the 400 metres resulting in “Mibachelorboy being checked”. Mr Teeluck signed the Information stating he admitted the breach and at the beginning of the hearing confirmed that was correct and also that he understood the rule under which he was charged. Mr Teeluck was assisted by Licensed Jockey Mr R Hannam at the beginning of the hearing because Mr Teeluck’s employer, Licensed Trainer Mrs K Zimmerman, was unavailable at that time. Mrs Zimmerman joined the hearing soon after it started.
Rule 638 (1) (d) states “A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be .....careless”.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Goodwin, using the side-on film of the race at the beginning of the bend into the home straight, highlighted Mr Teeluck racing behind the leaders and close to the running rail. Mr Goodwin said as Mr Teeluck rounded the bend into the straight he angled his horse out into the path of “Mibachelorboy” causing Mr Smith to have to take a hold and check off the heels of Mr Teeluck’s horse. Mr Goodwin said the film clearly showed Mr Teeluck had moved out and then looked behind him before straightening his mount by which time the interference to Mr Smith had occurred. He then showed the other available angles of the incident and said at no time was Mr Teeluck ever clear of Mr Smith.
Mr Teeluck said he did not look behind him until he heard Mr Smith call out and when he heard that call he straightened his horse straight away.
Mr Hannam said Mr Teeluck thought Mr Smith’s horse was not going that good and did not expect him to be as close as he was. He also pointed out that as soon as the interference happened Mr Teeluck took corrective action and straightened his horse.
Mrs Zimmerman had no further comments to make.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Goodwin said the Stewards considered the severity of the interference to be in the low to mid range and closer to low and that a period of suspension was an appropriate penalty. He said Mr Teeluck was a Central Districts rider and pointed out the lack of racedays in the Central Districts over the next couple of weeks.
Mrs Zimmerman also commented on the upcoming lack of racing in the Central Districts. She said Mr Teeluck had been offered a ride in the Listed 2 year old race on the third day of the Riccarton carnival on a horse he had previously won on and asked for consideration of that when determining the period of suspension. She asked that any suspension be deferred until after racing at Hastings on Sunday 09 November.
Mr Goodwin said the Stewards had no objection to the last day at Riccarton being included in any suspension.
Mr Teeluck said he had a good riding record and had had approximately 80 rides this season and was starting to pick up rides from other CD trainers.
Reasons for Penalty:
I have reviewed the films of the incident and taken into account all the submissions made. The films clearly show that as Mr Teeluck rounded the bend into the straight near the 400m mark he moved out into the line of “Mibachelorboy” ridden by Mr Smith when not sufficiently clear of that horse (at best he was only ¾ of a length clear) which forced Mr Smith to take a hold and check off the heels of Mr Teeluck.
The JCA’s Penalty Guidelines state the starting point for a breach of the careless riding rule is 5 riding days. I have taken into account Mr Teeluck’s admittance of the breach and also that this is his third breach of this rule in the past 7 months with the previous breaches being on 28 April at Woodville (4 days) and 23 August at New Plymouth (4 days). I believe the severity of the interference in the low to mid range but Mr Teeluck should have looked to his outside prior to moving out rather than afterwards. Because he did not look to his outside I do not believe he could have come to the conclusion that Mr Smith wasn't travelling that well as was suggested by Mr Hannam. It is to Mr Teeluck’s credit, however, that he did straighten his horse as soon as Mr Smith called out but by then the interference had occurred.
The interference caused must be reflected in an appropriate penalty which I have decided is a period of suspension. I have reviewed the JCA’s list of penalties imposed under this Rule in recent months to ensure, as best I can, a general consistency with those decisions. Whilst noting that Mr Teeluck is a Central Districts rider I accept he was to ride at Riccarton on the third day of that carnival and have included that day in the period of suspension.
Mr Teeluck’s request for a deferment of 5 days is agreed to in terms of Rule 1106(2).