Otaki-Maori RC 8 March 2013 – R 2
ID: JCA15210
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Otaki-Maori RC - 8 March 2013
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
TUtikere
Race Date:
2013/03/08
Race Number:
R 2
Decision:
The committee accordingly found the charge of careless riding proved.
Penalty:
Mr Bradley is suspended from the close of racing on Monday March 11th up to and including racing on Friday March 15th – in effect 3 days.
These dates were subsequently amended when it was noted that one of the three days included in Mr Bradley’s suspension was Waipa which has been cancelled. His suspension now ends after the close of racing on Saturday March 16th.
Charge:
Careless riding.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 2, an information was lodged by Mr N Goodwin alleging a breach of Rule 638(1) (d). The information alleged that D G Bradley allowed his mount PRIDE ROCK to shift in near the 800m mark when not clear of FASHION LASS who was checked.
Mr Goodwin read out the careless riding rule and Mr Bradley acknowledged he understood the nature of the charge and confirmed to the committee he did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Goodwin called Mrs Allpress as a witness.
She said prior to the 800m she was racing free of interference however on rounding the bend she was crowded for room when pressure came on her mount from the outside. She wasn’t sure if it was Mr Bradley who was responsible for the tightening or if it came from the horse further out. Mrs Allpress did say that she was aware of Mr Bradley’s horse being difficult during the preliminaries and she heard him say, while standing in the barriers, that his horse had a really hard mouth. Mrs Allpress said she lost one length when she was forced to take a hold of her horse. There was no movement from horses to her inside and shortly after the incident Mr Bradley was in a position in front of her horse.
Mr Bradley had no questions of Mrs Allpress.
Mr Goodwin asked Mr Whiterod to show the films of the incident. He identified Mr Bradley riding PRIDE ROCK with Mrs Allpress to the inside of him and Mr Dee to his outside. Mr Johnson was in front of Mr Bradley and Mrs Allpress. Mr Whiterod showed where Mr Bradley moved inwards and caused interference to Mrs Allpress. He said there was no pressure on Mr Bradley’s outside and there was no pressure on Mrs Allpress from the inside. The side-on view showed the degree to which Mrs Allpress was checked with the horse behind her also being slightly affected in the incident.
Mr Bradley said Mrs Allpress was one hundred percent correct in what she said about his horse being difficult and having “speed but no brakes”. He said his horse was very strong, it raced fiercely and he did not have much control. Coming into the bend he said all the horses had plenty of room and he only gradually followed Mr Johnson across. He did not look to angle inwards and he did not hear any calling from Mrs Allpress therefore he was not aware that she was in any trouble. Mr Bradley believed Mrs Allpress was a victim of circumstances and she took a hold of her horse anticipating things could get tight. He could not see where he had ridden carelessly and believed he was just trying to negotiate the bend responsibly. Mr Bradley raised the possibility that Mrs Allpress’ horse may have overreacted when she took a hold of it.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee had careful regard to all of the submissions. The films clearly showed Mrs Allpress having to restrain her horse and in her evidence she stated that she was tightened for room when she received pressure from her outside. The only uncertainty for Mrs Allpress was which horse was responsible for the crowding. Looking at the films Mr Bradley was immediately to her outside with another horse, ridden by Mr Dee, outside of him. We could see no evidence on any of the films to suggest that Mr Dee moved inwards onto Mr Bradley. There was always a large gap between them. It was the committee’s opinion that the interference to Mrs Allpress occurred when Mr Bradley moved inwards rounding the bend when not the required distance clear. Prior to the incident Mr Bradley was approximately five horse widths off the rail and sometime after the incident he was only one to two horse widths off the rail. Mr Bradley suggested Mrs Allpress may have overreacted but she was entitled to a clear run which she did not get when he moved across on the bend.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Goodwin and Mr Bradley were invited to make submissions on penalty. Mr Bradley has had one suspension in the past 12 months on the 24th March 2012. Mr Goodwin placed the degree of carelessness as “below mid-range” and submitted that a period of suspension of four days was appropriate. He said Mr Bradley rode throughout the country and was a very busy rider.
Mr Bradley told the committee that he hadn’t moved in sharply, it was his horses’ first start and there was no calling from back in the field. He was worried about rounding the bend and was just trying to keep his horse straight.
Reasons for Penalty:
In coming to a decision on penalty the committee considered all of the submissions and adopted as a starting point a suspension of 5 days. While we found the charge of careless riding against Mr Bradley proven we did not consider there to be any further aggravating factors. There were however several mitigating factors. It was our opinion that the degree of carelessness was at the low end. Mr Bradley moved in only gradually as he followed the horse in front of him around the bend. He did not hear any calling from Mrs Allpress to suggest she was being tightened. If he had been aware of the situation behind him he may well have made an attempt to relieve the pressure. As it was Mr Bradley was trying to negotiate the bend on a horse with a hard mouth having its first start.
We have also given considerable credit for Mr Bradley’s impeccable record. He rides extensively throughout the country and his only suspension for careless riding was nearly one year ago. Balancing up all of these factors we believe a suspension of three days to be an appropriate penalty.
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: 76b46bb51f1be76c436008f8c335b463
informantnumber: A3128
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 10/03/2013
hearing_title: Otaki-Maori RC 8 March 2013 - R 2
charge:
Careless riding.
facts:
Following the running of Race 2, an information was lodged by Mr N Goodwin alleging a breach of Rule 638(1) (d). The information alleged that D G Bradley allowed his mount PRIDE ROCK to shift in near the 800m mark when not clear of FASHION LASS who was checked.
Mr Goodwin read out the careless riding rule and Mr Bradley acknowledged he understood the nature of the charge and confirmed to the committee he did not admit the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Goodwin called Mrs Allpress as a witness.
She said prior to the 800m she was racing free of interference however on rounding the bend she was crowded for room when pressure came on her mount from the outside. She wasn’t sure if it was Mr Bradley who was responsible for the tightening or if it came from the horse further out. Mrs Allpress did say that she was aware of Mr Bradley’s horse being difficult during the preliminaries and she heard him say, while standing in the barriers, that his horse had a really hard mouth. Mrs Allpress said she lost one length when she was forced to take a hold of her horse. There was no movement from horses to her inside and shortly after the incident Mr Bradley was in a position in front of her horse.
Mr Bradley had no questions of Mrs Allpress.
Mr Goodwin asked Mr Whiterod to show the films of the incident. He identified Mr Bradley riding PRIDE ROCK with Mrs Allpress to the inside of him and Mr Dee to his outside. Mr Johnson was in front of Mr Bradley and Mrs Allpress. Mr Whiterod showed where Mr Bradley moved inwards and caused interference to Mrs Allpress. He said there was no pressure on Mr Bradley’s outside and there was no pressure on Mrs Allpress from the inside. The side-on view showed the degree to which Mrs Allpress was checked with the horse behind her also being slightly affected in the incident.
Mr Bradley said Mrs Allpress was one hundred percent correct in what she said about his horse being difficult and having “speed but no brakes”. He said his horse was very strong, it raced fiercely and he did not have much control. Coming into the bend he said all the horses had plenty of room and he only gradually followed Mr Johnson across. He did not look to angle inwards and he did not hear any calling from Mrs Allpress therefore he was not aware that she was in any trouble. Mr Bradley believed Mrs Allpress was a victim of circumstances and she took a hold of her horse anticipating things could get tight. He could not see where he had ridden carelessly and believed he was just trying to negotiate the bend responsibly. Mr Bradley raised the possibility that Mrs Allpress’ horse may have overreacted when she took a hold of it.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee had careful regard to all of the submissions. The films clearly showed Mrs Allpress having to restrain her horse and in her evidence she stated that she was tightened for room when she received pressure from her outside. The only uncertainty for Mrs Allpress was which horse was responsible for the crowding. Looking at the films Mr Bradley was immediately to her outside with another horse, ridden by Mr Dee, outside of him. We could see no evidence on any of the films to suggest that Mr Dee moved inwards onto Mr Bradley. There was always a large gap between them. It was the committee’s opinion that the interference to Mrs Allpress occurred when Mr Bradley moved inwards rounding the bend when not the required distance clear. Prior to the incident Mr Bradley was approximately five horse widths off the rail and sometime after the incident he was only one to two horse widths off the rail. Mr Bradley suggested Mrs Allpress may have overreacted but she was entitled to a clear run which she did not get when he moved across on the bend.
Decision:
The committee accordingly found the charge of careless riding proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Goodwin and Mr Bradley were invited to make submissions on penalty. Mr Bradley has had one suspension in the past 12 months on the 24th March 2012. Mr Goodwin placed the degree of carelessness as “below mid-range” and submitted that a period of suspension of four days was appropriate. He said Mr Bradley rode throughout the country and was a very busy rider.
Mr Bradley told the committee that he hadn’t moved in sharply, it was his horses’ first start and there was no calling from back in the field. He was worried about rounding the bend and was just trying to keep his horse straight.
reasonsforpenalty:
In coming to a decision on penalty the committee considered all of the submissions and adopted as a starting point a suspension of 5 days. While we found the charge of careless riding against Mr Bradley proven we did not consider there to be any further aggravating factors. There were however several mitigating factors. It was our opinion that the degree of carelessness was at the low end. Mr Bradley moved in only gradually as he followed the horse in front of him around the bend. He did not hear any calling from Mrs Allpress to suggest she was being tightened. If he had been aware of the situation behind him he may well have made an attempt to relieve the pressure. As it was Mr Bradley was trying to negotiate the bend on a horse with a hard mouth having its first start.
We have also given considerable credit for Mr Bradley’s impeccable record. He rides extensively throughout the country and his only suspension for careless riding was nearly one year ago. Balancing up all of these factors we believe a suspension of three days to be an appropriate penalty.
penalty:
Mr Bradley is suspended from the close of racing on Monday March 11th up to and including racing on Friday March 15th – in effect 3 days.
These dates were subsequently amended when it was noted that one of the three days included in Mr Bradley’s suspension was Waipa which has been cancelled. His suspension now ends after the close of racing on Saturday March 16th.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr D Bradley - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mrs L Allpress - Licensed Rider, Mr G Whiterod - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 027432afaf4871e581d7152ba4f394ad
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 1d7c89267bb12c77637c6033586137a6
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 08/03/2013
meet_title: Otaki-Maori RC - 8 March 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: otaki-maori-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: TUtikere
meet_pm2: none
name: Otaki-Maori RC