R Tauranga 2 January 2020 – R 6 – Chair, Mr A Godsalve
ID: JCA12628
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Racing Tauranga - 2 January 2020
Meet Chair:
AGodsalve
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2020/01/02
Race Number:
R6
Decision:
We do not consider that the threshold between careless riding and reckless riding has been breached in this instance. We found that although Mr Calder's actions were not reckless they did fall well below the standard of care expected of a reasonable and competent rider and we therefore, for the reasons set out assess the breach to be at the high end of careless riding.
We therefore found that the correct course of action for this Committee was to substitute a charge of careless riding (Rule 638 (1)(d)) for the charge of reckless riding as per the Information.
NZ Thoroughbred Rules of Racing, Part 1X (Judicial Committee - Functions and Duties of Judicial Committee) authorise Committees under Rule 915 (5) 'Without limiting the generality of the powers conferred by sub-Rules (3) and (4) of this Rule an Information may be amended by substituting one alleged breach of these Rules for another'.
Accordingly the Information was duly amended and signed by both Mr Williamson and Mr Calder, with Mr Calder adding the notation ' I admit this breach'.
We note here that earlier in this decision we refer to an adjournment and re-commencement of the hearing. At that time Mr Calder stated that he wished the hearing to go ahead after having been advised it was of a 'serious' nature. He also added that he accepted that his actions had been 'high-end careless'. At that stage of the hearing the Committee had not heard all of the evidence or reviewed the films and we were not prepared to accept Mr Calder's admission to a lesser charge without giving due deliberation to the more serious charge before us of reckless riding.
Penalty:
The Committee granted a deferment to Mr Calder’s suspension pursuant to Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Mr Calder had his license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 4 January and conclude after racing on 24 January 2020.
The race meeting scheduled for Taranaki on 16 January was not included in the penalty because this race meeting is for apprentice riders only. In addition the race meeting on 5 January was not included in the penalty because the declaration of riders had closed.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 6 Mr Williamson presented an Information in which he alleged that Mr A Calder 'angled and rode his mount SOFT HEARTED inwards when not sufficiently clear of MERSEY BEAT and CAUGHT THE EYE which were both checked near the 275 metres'.
Mr Calder was present at the hearing and acnowledged that :
(a) He understood the Rule, and that he
(b) Denied the breach.
Rule 638(1)(b) states : 'A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be reckless'.
Prior to the hearing of evidence Mr Williamson confirmed that he would be calling Mrs T Thornton and Ms D Johnson, riders of the affected horses, as witnesses.
Mr Calder advised that he would not be calling any witnesses.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Oatham, for the Informant, referred to the available films of the race.
Using the head-on film, Mr Oatham identified the horses SOFT HEARTED (Mr Calder), MERSEY BEAT (Mrs T Thornton), and CAUGHT THE EYE (Ms D Johnson) as the field entered the home straight.
At that time SOFT HEARTED was in a trailing position approximately 5 wide. MERSEY BEAT was closer to the rails and CAUGHT THE EYE was also close to the rails alongside the horse PAUL'S SUPER ARIKI. Mr Oatham pointed out that SOFT HEARTED was looking for a clear run as it was travelling strongly. He then stated that as the field neared the 300 metres point Mr Calder had turned the horses head inwards and continued to ride forward as SOFT HEARTED was improving. MERSEY BEAT was beginning a run also, and as SOFT HEARTED shifted inwards it took the line of MERSEY BEAT, causing a severe check to MERSEY BEAT and forcing Mrs Thornton to take quick evasive action. Mr Oatham said that at that time SOFT HEARTED had been at best a bare length ahead of MERSEY BEAT. Mr Calder continued to ride his mount forward and when less than a length clear of CAUGHT THE EYE had further shifted inwards towards that horse causing Ms Johnson to restrain her mount. Mr Oatham said that as a result of Mr Calder's actions both MERSEY BEAT and CAUGHT THE EYE had lost considerable ground. He added that MERSEY BEAT had recovered well and ran on strongly after the incident to finish in 4th place.
Mr Oatham further stated that in his opinion the riding by Mr Calder had been somewhat rash and said that at no point did he take any corrective measures.
At this time the Chairman asked Mr Williamson if it was the Stewards allegation that the charge of 'reckless riding' referred to both horses named in the Information.
Mr Oatham replied, saying that there was one piece of riding which affected both horses and their riders.
Mr Calder was invited to cross-examine Mr Oatham on his evidence, however he stated that he had no questions for Mr Oatham
The hearing was adjourned at this stage as the Stewards involved were required to supervise the running of a race.
When the hearing re-convened, the Chairman advised Mr Calder that on the evidence already given it was clear that the matter involved was of a serious nature, and Mr Calder was given the opportunity to have the remainder of the charge heard at a later time and place if he so wished.
Mr Calder advised that he wished to carry on with the hearing, and added that he accepted that his actions had been 'high end careless'.
Mr Williamson called Mrs T Thornton, rider of MERSEY BEAT. Mrs Thornton said that she had gone for a run in the straight when SOFT HEARTED ridden by Mr Calder made a sharp inwards movement towards her mount. She said that SOFT HEARTED was a 'bare length' ahead of her and she had to stop riding when SOFT HEARTED made a sudden quick movement towards her.
Mr Calder asked Mrs Thornton if she had started to steady her mount when she saw SOFT HEARTED angling in towards her. Mrs Thornton replied that that had not been the case and that she had to take an abrupt hold. Mrs Thornton also said that it was incorrect if the suggestion was made that she had taken a hold of her mount prior to SOFT HEARTED shifting inwards.
Ms D Johnson, rider of CAUGHT THE EYE said just prior to the incident her mount had been 'battling' when SOFT HEARTED came past her 'pretty quick'. She added that the horse on her inside-PAUL'S SUPER ARIKI had shifted outwards about a 1/2 width towards her, however she added that she did not believe she was affected by Mr Calder's mount coming in on her.
In reply to a question from Mr Williamson, Ms Johnson stated that SOFT HEARTED had been about 1/2 length ahead of her when it went past her and was going a lot quicker then her mount.
Mr Calder said that he accepted Ms Johnsons evidence and had no questions.
Mr Calder, giving evidence on his own behalf, said that prior to the incident he had been travelling behind SESTO (C Grylls) and that there had been a gap between that horse and HENLEY ROAD (S McKay) until HENLEY ROAD shifted inwards and closed the gap. Mr Calder said that he shifted in about 1 width before angling his mount inwards sharply. He said that he had a moment of neglect when MERSEY BEAT had 'come out' for a run and he didn't realise the horse had come out. He added that he had misjudged the situation by between 1 and 1 1/2 lengths. He said he believed PAUL'S SUPER ARIKI had shifted out for run however he said that his movement looked more severe as it was sharper. He said that there was no malice in his actions, and said that he had made an intentional movement which had been careless but not reckless. Mr Calder added that in his opinion Mrs Thornton had 'overdone it' as he was nearer to 11/2 lengths clear of her mount, and that Ms Johnson had 'copped the backwash'.
Mr Calder said that he was certainly careless but he did not believe the incident was not untoward.
Summary Submissions:
Mr Williamson said that he considered that Mr Calder had been reckless in that his actions were careless of consequences when he did not show the proper caution. He said that Mr Calder's mount had been held up at about the 300 metres mark when about 4 wide and that he had directed it inwards without looking to his inside. At that time Mr Williamson said MERSEY BEAT had been within 1 length of his mount and been severely checked and could have fallen. He added that Mr Calder had not disputed that he had been only about 1/2 length clear of CAUGHT THE EYE and while that horse may have been weakening, Mr Calder continued to ride into it. Mr Williamson ended his submission by stating that Mr Calder had shifted inwards at least 4 horse widths and checked 2 horses, and that the Stewards considered that the charge of reckless riding had been proved.
Mr Calder said that there was interference to some degree in almost every race. He said that he had been looking for a run and had made a mistake. He added that there was no malice in his actions, that no horses had clipped heels or fallen.
Reasons for Decision:
Following the evidence and submissions from the parties the Committee independently reviewed the available video films.
We noted that when the field entered the home straight, SOFT HEARTED was at least 5 wide and travelling behind ANHEDONIA (S Collet).
The Committee noted that there was a run available for SOFT HEARTED between the horses ANHEDONIA and SESTO at the 300 metres. Immediately after that point it was clear that Mr Calder then angled SOFT HEARTED inwards in an abrupt manner when approximately 1 length ahead of MERSEY BEAT which was racing on his inside. We noted that Ms Thornton took a hold of MERSEY BEAT to avoid the heels of SOFT HEARTED as that horse crossed in front of MERSEY BEAT. Mr Calder continued to ride his mount forward while angling in abruptly. As a result of having to take a firm hold and restraining her mount MERSEY BEAT lost approximately 3 lengths.
The Commitee also noted Ms Johnson taking a firm hold of her mount CAUGHT THE EYE which was racing nearer the running rail on the outside of PAUL'S SUPER ARIKI. It was clear that CAUGHT THE EYE was weakening at that stage of the race, however Mr Calder was not the required distance ahead of it when he angled in towards that runner. We were of the view PAUL'S SUPER ARIKI outward shift was minimal. The Committee estimated that SOFT HEARTED was between 1/2 and 3/4 length ahead of CAUGHT THE EYE when this interference occurred. We deemed the level of carelessness suffered by MERSEY BEAT was more severe than the check that CAUGHT THE EYE received.
The Committee was of the firm opinion that during the time Mr Calder commenced to angle SOFT HEARTED inwards he caused intereference to both MERSEY BEAT and CAUGHT THE EYE. Mr Calder did not take any corrective action and as a result both affected horses were disadvantaged to differing degrees. SOFT HEARTED went on to win the race. MERSEY BEAT, after losing about 3 lengths as a result of Mr Calders riding, ran on well after the incident and finished the race off strongly into 4th placing beaten 1.3 lengths behind the winner. The Committee noted that after the race neither the Stipendiary Stewards or the connections of MERSEY BEAT instigated a protest against SOFT HEARTED which we may have expected to eventuate given the circumstances.
In considering our decision as to whether the charge under Rule 638(1)(b), reckless riding, had been proved by the Informant, we took into account the following.
There is no definition of 'reckless' available within the confines of the New Zealand Rules of Racing. The Committee therefore had to look at other avenues to assist us in making our decision. Charges of 'reckless riding' are very rare in racing in New Zealand. The last charge this Commitee is aware of was in 2014 when jockey 'P' was in breach of the Rule.However, it is a fact that Mr 'P' caused a fall, and was later suspended from riding for 5 weeks (on Appeal ) and further, his horse which won the race was then disqualified from the race because of the riders actions.
A number of definitions of 'reckless' refer to 'intent'. Some go further to say 'one of the elements of reckless behaviour is having an intent to commit the act in question knowing it may create a risk of harm to others....and that the risk involved is substantially greater than careless or neglectful behaviour'.
The Committee then considered whether the films and evidence submitted would entitle it to uphold the charge of 'reckless riding' against Mr Calder, or if the circumstances more aptly fell within the confines of Rule 638(1)(d), careless riding.
A definition of 'carelessness' which is available to Committees is:
' ...Carelessness, need not amount to negligence towards another person but may be a failure to exercise that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent person would exercise in looking after his or her own safety'.
It would be incorrect to assume that to come under the confines of 'reckless riding' the circumstances of a race need to involve a fall or falls. The fact is that falls unfortunately occur in racing occasionally some of which are not the result of any carelessness on behalf of riders. There have been a number of falls since the incident involving jockey 'P' referred to above which have resulted in charges against riders. Not one of these incidents have subsequently involved a charge of 'reckless' riding. A number have resulted in 'high-end' careless riding charges, some of which we refer to below. We believe this goes to show the difficulty for Committees and particuarly Stipendiary Stewards in assessing racing incidents which may be 'careless' but do not cross the threshold to become 'reckless'.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Williamson stated that Mr Calder had a good record in respect of breaches of the Careless Riding Rule. He said that the only recent breach by Mr Calder was on 21 September 2019 when he incurred a 6 day suspension for a low level breach.
Referring to today's incident which Mr Williamson called a high end careless riding charge, he said that it was an aggravating factor that 2 horses received reasonably serious checks. He said the Stewards viewed Mr Calder's actions to be abrupt at best.
Mr Williamson referred to the JCA Penalty Guide which provides a starting point for high range careless riding of a 10 day suspension. He added that he believed that there should be an uplift on that given the circumstances, and said that he would leave the eventual penalty to the Committee.
Mr Calder told the Committee that he had engagements at Ruakaka on 4 January 2020 and any suspension imposed could start after that date.
Mr Calder had nothing further to add in respect to any proposed penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
When reviewing the video footage it was clear that Mr Calder angled his mount inwards in an abrupt manner passing the 300 metres. In doing so his mount SOFT HEARTED was only 1 length clear of MERSEY BEAT which suffered a severe check and lost approximately 3 lengths. In addition CAUGHT THE EYE was checked to a lesser degree when it was weakening back through the field. Although this is a serious case of careless riding, we were not satisfied on the evidence that the charge of reckless riding has been established. We note that the JCA Penalty Guide starting point for a breach of the reckless riding Rule is a 6 week suspension.
In assessing penalty the Committee has taken into account the overall circumstances of the breach itself as well as the particular circumstances relating to Mr Calder. The Committee also considered penalties imposed for similar breaches and are mindful of the fact that breaches of similar culpability should, as a general rule attract broadly similar penalties.
The Committee has considered and given due weight to a limited number of careless riding penalty decisions which have been deemed to be serious enough to apply an uplift from the high range starting point of 10 days.Some of these decisions have been quite recent, however the circumstances and resulting penalties were not helpful to this Committee when assessing an appropriate penalty. In this regard we have benchmarked our decision against two particular cases which we believe provide a useful starting point, but noting that each case has some points of difference. The cases concerned are RIU v Mr Goindasamy (16.5.2018) 16 day suspension where 3 runners were severely checked and the Stewards were of the view the breach was bordering on reckless riding and RIU v Mr Hashizume (6.2.2019) – 17 day suspension where 8 horses suffered various degrees of interference and Mr Oatham submitted that the interference was some of the worst he had seen without a fall occurring. We note that each of these cases involved Apprentice Riders whereas Mr Calder is an experienced Senior Rider which a higher standard of riding is expected.
The JCA Penalty Guide starting point for high end carelessness is 10 or more national riding days. Judicial Committees have a discretion to move beyond 10 days where the carelessness is so serious as to warrant this. The Committee was satisfied that this breach was so serious that it warranted a significant uplift. Therefore 16 national riding days was adopted as the appropriate starting point.
Not only is it important to deter Mr Calder from repeating his breach, it is important that the penalty deters others who might be tempted to fall well short of the standards expected of jockeys in races.
The mitigating factors were Mr Calder’s admission of the breach to the amended charge of careless riding and his good record. For these combined factors Mr Calder was afforded a 1 day reduction in penalty.
The Committee notes that SOFT HEARTED won the race.
The Committee had regard for the race meetings included in Mr Calder’s suspension.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee considered that an appropriate suspension was 15 national riding days.
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: 41337acf37316aa33b4d0996b3477263
informantnumber: A13356
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Reckless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 03/01/2020
hearing_title: R Tauranga 2 January 2020 - R 6 - Chair, Mr A Godsalve
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 6 Mr Williamson presented an Information in which he alleged that Mr A Calder 'angled and rode his mount SOFT HEARTED inwards when not sufficiently clear of MERSEY BEAT and CAUGHT THE EYE which were both checked near the 275 metres'.
Mr Calder was present at the hearing and acnowledged that :
(a) He understood the Rule, and that he
(b) Denied the breach.
Rule 638(1)(b) states : 'A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be reckless'.
Prior to the hearing of evidence Mr Williamson confirmed that he would be calling Mrs T Thornton and Ms D Johnson, riders of the affected horses, as witnesses.
Mr Calder advised that he would not be calling any witnesses.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Oatham, for the Informant, referred to the available films of the race.
Using the head-on film, Mr Oatham identified the horses SOFT HEARTED (Mr Calder), MERSEY BEAT (Mrs T Thornton), and CAUGHT THE EYE (Ms D Johnson) as the field entered the home straight.
At that time SOFT HEARTED was in a trailing position approximately 5 wide. MERSEY BEAT was closer to the rails and CAUGHT THE EYE was also close to the rails alongside the horse PAUL'S SUPER ARIKI. Mr Oatham pointed out that SOFT HEARTED was looking for a clear run as it was travelling strongly. He then stated that as the field neared the 300 metres point Mr Calder had turned the horses head inwards and continued to ride forward as SOFT HEARTED was improving. MERSEY BEAT was beginning a run also, and as SOFT HEARTED shifted inwards it took the line of MERSEY BEAT, causing a severe check to MERSEY BEAT and forcing Mrs Thornton to take quick evasive action. Mr Oatham said that at that time SOFT HEARTED had been at best a bare length ahead of MERSEY BEAT. Mr Calder continued to ride his mount forward and when less than a length clear of CAUGHT THE EYE had further shifted inwards towards that horse causing Ms Johnson to restrain her mount. Mr Oatham said that as a result of Mr Calder's actions both MERSEY BEAT and CAUGHT THE EYE had lost considerable ground. He added that MERSEY BEAT had recovered well and ran on strongly after the incident to finish in 4th place.
Mr Oatham further stated that in his opinion the riding by Mr Calder had been somewhat rash and said that at no point did he take any corrective measures.
At this time the Chairman asked Mr Williamson if it was the Stewards allegation that the charge of 'reckless riding' referred to both horses named in the Information.
Mr Oatham replied, saying that there was one piece of riding which affected both horses and their riders.
Mr Calder was invited to cross-examine Mr Oatham on his evidence, however he stated that he had no questions for Mr Oatham
The hearing was adjourned at this stage as the Stewards involved were required to supervise the running of a race.
When the hearing re-convened, the Chairman advised Mr Calder that on the evidence already given it was clear that the matter involved was of a serious nature, and Mr Calder was given the opportunity to have the remainder of the charge heard at a later time and place if he so wished.
Mr Calder advised that he wished to carry on with the hearing, and added that he accepted that his actions had been 'high end careless'.
Mr Williamson called Mrs T Thornton, rider of MERSEY BEAT. Mrs Thornton said that she had gone for a run in the straight when SOFT HEARTED ridden by Mr Calder made a sharp inwards movement towards her mount. She said that SOFT HEARTED was a 'bare length' ahead of her and she had to stop riding when SOFT HEARTED made a sudden quick movement towards her.
Mr Calder asked Mrs Thornton if she had started to steady her mount when she saw SOFT HEARTED angling in towards her. Mrs Thornton replied that that had not been the case and that she had to take an abrupt hold. Mrs Thornton also said that it was incorrect if the suggestion was made that she had taken a hold of her mount prior to SOFT HEARTED shifting inwards.
Ms D Johnson, rider of CAUGHT THE EYE said just prior to the incident her mount had been 'battling' when SOFT HEARTED came past her 'pretty quick'. She added that the horse on her inside-PAUL'S SUPER ARIKI had shifted outwards about a 1/2 width towards her, however she added that she did not believe she was affected by Mr Calder's mount coming in on her.
In reply to a question from Mr Williamson, Ms Johnson stated that SOFT HEARTED had been about 1/2 length ahead of her when it went past her and was going a lot quicker then her mount.
Mr Calder said that he accepted Ms Johnsons evidence and had no questions.
Mr Calder, giving evidence on his own behalf, said that prior to the incident he had been travelling behind SESTO (C Grylls) and that there had been a gap between that horse and HENLEY ROAD (S McKay) until HENLEY ROAD shifted inwards and closed the gap. Mr Calder said that he shifted in about 1 width before angling his mount inwards sharply. He said that he had a moment of neglect when MERSEY BEAT had 'come out' for a run and he didn't realise the horse had come out. He added that he had misjudged the situation by between 1 and 1 1/2 lengths. He said he believed PAUL'S SUPER ARIKI had shifted out for run however he said that his movement looked more severe as it was sharper. He said that there was no malice in his actions, and said that he had made an intentional movement which had been careless but not reckless. Mr Calder added that in his opinion Mrs Thornton had 'overdone it' as he was nearer to 11/2 lengths clear of her mount, and that Ms Johnson had 'copped the backwash'.
Mr Calder said that he was certainly careless but he did not believe the incident was not untoward.
Summary Submissions:
Mr Williamson said that he considered that Mr Calder had been reckless in that his actions were careless of consequences when he did not show the proper caution. He said that Mr Calder's mount had been held up at about the 300 metres mark when about 4 wide and that he had directed it inwards without looking to his inside. At that time Mr Williamson said MERSEY BEAT had been within 1 length of his mount and been severely checked and could have fallen. He added that Mr Calder had not disputed that he had been only about 1/2 length clear of CAUGHT THE EYE and while that horse may have been weakening, Mr Calder continued to ride into it. Mr Williamson ended his submission by stating that Mr Calder had shifted inwards at least 4 horse widths and checked 2 horses, and that the Stewards considered that the charge of reckless riding had been proved.
Mr Calder said that there was interference to some degree in almost every race. He said that he had been looking for a run and had made a mistake. He added that there was no malice in his actions, that no horses had clipped heels or fallen.
reasonsfordecision:
Following the evidence and submissions from the parties the Committee independently reviewed the available video films.
We noted that when the field entered the home straight, SOFT HEARTED was at least 5 wide and travelling behind ANHEDONIA (S Collet).
The Committee noted that there was a run available for SOFT HEARTED between the horses ANHEDONIA and SESTO at the 300 metres. Immediately after that point it was clear that Mr Calder then angled SOFT HEARTED inwards in an abrupt manner when approximately 1 length ahead of MERSEY BEAT which was racing on his inside. We noted that Ms Thornton took a hold of MERSEY BEAT to avoid the heels of SOFT HEARTED as that horse crossed in front of MERSEY BEAT. Mr Calder continued to ride his mount forward while angling in abruptly. As a result of having to take a firm hold and restraining her mount MERSEY BEAT lost approximately 3 lengths.
The Commitee also noted Ms Johnson taking a firm hold of her mount CAUGHT THE EYE which was racing nearer the running rail on the outside of PAUL'S SUPER ARIKI. It was clear that CAUGHT THE EYE was weakening at that stage of the race, however Mr Calder was not the required distance ahead of it when he angled in towards that runner. We were of the view PAUL'S SUPER ARIKI outward shift was minimal. The Committee estimated that SOFT HEARTED was between 1/2 and 3/4 length ahead of CAUGHT THE EYE when this interference occurred. We deemed the level of carelessness suffered by MERSEY BEAT was more severe than the check that CAUGHT THE EYE received.
The Committee was of the firm opinion that during the time Mr Calder commenced to angle SOFT HEARTED inwards he caused intereference to both MERSEY BEAT and CAUGHT THE EYE. Mr Calder did not take any corrective action and as a result both affected horses were disadvantaged to differing degrees. SOFT HEARTED went on to win the race. MERSEY BEAT, after losing about 3 lengths as a result of Mr Calders riding, ran on well after the incident and finished the race off strongly into 4th placing beaten 1.3 lengths behind the winner. The Committee noted that after the race neither the Stipendiary Stewards or the connections of MERSEY BEAT instigated a protest against SOFT HEARTED which we may have expected to eventuate given the circumstances.
In considering our decision as to whether the charge under Rule 638(1)(b), reckless riding, had been proved by the Informant, we took into account the following.
There is no definition of 'reckless' available within the confines of the New Zealand Rules of Racing. The Committee therefore had to look at other avenues to assist us in making our decision. Charges of 'reckless riding' are very rare in racing in New Zealand. The last charge this Commitee is aware of was in 2014 when jockey 'P' was in breach of the Rule.However, it is a fact that Mr 'P' caused a fall, and was later suspended from riding for 5 weeks (on Appeal ) and further, his horse which won the race was then disqualified from the race because of the riders actions.
A number of definitions of 'reckless' refer to 'intent'. Some go further to say 'one of the elements of reckless behaviour is having an intent to commit the act in question knowing it may create a risk of harm to others....and that the risk involved is substantially greater than careless or neglectful behaviour'.
The Committee then considered whether the films and evidence submitted would entitle it to uphold the charge of 'reckless riding' against Mr Calder, or if the circumstances more aptly fell within the confines of Rule 638(1)(d), careless riding.
A definition of 'carelessness' which is available to Committees is:
' ...Carelessness, need not amount to negligence towards another person but may be a failure to exercise that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent person would exercise in looking after his or her own safety'.
It would be incorrect to assume that to come under the confines of 'reckless riding' the circumstances of a race need to involve a fall or falls. The fact is that falls unfortunately occur in racing occasionally some of which are not the result of any carelessness on behalf of riders. There have been a number of falls since the incident involving jockey 'P' referred to above which have resulted in charges against riders. Not one of these incidents have subsequently involved a charge of 'reckless' riding. A number have resulted in 'high-end' careless riding charges, some of which we refer to below. We believe this goes to show the difficulty for Committees and particuarly Stipendiary Stewards in assessing racing incidents which may be 'careless' but do not cross the threshold to become 'reckless'.
Decision:
We do not consider that the threshold between careless riding and reckless riding has been breached in this instance. We found that although Mr Calder's actions were not reckless they did fall well below the standard of care expected of a reasonable and competent rider and we therefore, for the reasons set out assess the breach to be at the high end of careless riding.
We therefore found that the correct course of action for this Committee was to substitute a charge of careless riding (Rule 638 (1)(d)) for the charge of reckless riding as per the Information.
NZ Thoroughbred Rules of Racing, Part 1X (Judicial Committee - Functions and Duties of Judicial Committee) authorise Committees under Rule 915 (5) 'Without limiting the generality of the powers conferred by sub-Rules (3) and (4) of this Rule an Information may be amended by substituting one alleged breach of these Rules for another'.
Accordingly the Information was duly amended and signed by both Mr Williamson and Mr Calder, with Mr Calder adding the notation ' I admit this breach'.
We note here that earlier in this decision we refer to an adjournment and re-commencement of the hearing. At that time Mr Calder stated that he wished the hearing to go ahead after having been advised it was of a 'serious' nature. He also added that he accepted that his actions had been 'high-end careless'. At that stage of the hearing the Committee had not heard all of the evidence or reviewed the films and we were not prepared to accept Mr Calder's admission to a lesser charge without giving due deliberation to the more serious charge before us of reckless riding.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Williamson stated that Mr Calder had a good record in respect of breaches of the Careless Riding Rule. He said that the only recent breach by Mr Calder was on 21 September 2019 when he incurred a 6 day suspension for a low level breach.
Referring to today's incident which Mr Williamson called a high end careless riding charge, he said that it was an aggravating factor that 2 horses received reasonably serious checks. He said the Stewards viewed Mr Calder's actions to be abrupt at best.
Mr Williamson referred to the JCA Penalty Guide which provides a starting point for high range careless riding of a 10 day suspension. He added that he believed that there should be an uplift on that given the circumstances, and said that he would leave the eventual penalty to the Committee.
Mr Calder told the Committee that he had engagements at Ruakaka on 4 January 2020 and any suspension imposed could start after that date.
Mr Calder had nothing further to add in respect to any proposed penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
When reviewing the video footage it was clear that Mr Calder angled his mount inwards in an abrupt manner passing the 300 metres. In doing so his mount SOFT HEARTED was only 1 length clear of MERSEY BEAT which suffered a severe check and lost approximately 3 lengths. In addition CAUGHT THE EYE was checked to a lesser degree when it was weakening back through the field. Although this is a serious case of careless riding, we were not satisfied on the evidence that the charge of reckless riding has been established. We note that the JCA Penalty Guide starting point for a breach of the reckless riding Rule is a 6 week suspension.
In assessing penalty the Committee has taken into account the overall circumstances of the breach itself as well as the particular circumstances relating to Mr Calder. The Committee also considered penalties imposed for similar breaches and are mindful of the fact that breaches of similar culpability should, as a general rule attract broadly similar penalties.
The Committee has considered and given due weight to a limited number of careless riding penalty decisions which have been deemed to be serious enough to apply an uplift from the high range starting point of 10 days.Some of these decisions have been quite recent, however the circumstances and resulting penalties were not helpful to this Committee when assessing an appropriate penalty. In this regard we have benchmarked our decision against two particular cases which we believe provide a useful starting point, but noting that each case has some points of difference. The cases concerned are RIU v Mr Goindasamy (16.5.2018) 16 day suspension where 3 runners were severely checked and the Stewards were of the view the breach was bordering on reckless riding and RIU v Mr Hashizume (6.2.2019) – 17 day suspension where 8 horses suffered various degrees of interference and Mr Oatham submitted that the interference was some of the worst he had seen without a fall occurring. We note that each of these cases involved Apprentice Riders whereas Mr Calder is an experienced Senior Rider which a higher standard of riding is expected.
The JCA Penalty Guide starting point for high end carelessness is 10 or more national riding days. Judicial Committees have a discretion to move beyond 10 days where the carelessness is so serious as to warrant this. The Committee was satisfied that this breach was so serious that it warranted a significant uplift. Therefore 16 national riding days was adopted as the appropriate starting point.
Not only is it important to deter Mr Calder from repeating his breach, it is important that the penalty deters others who might be tempted to fall well short of the standards expected of jockeys in races.
The mitigating factors were Mr Calder’s admission of the breach to the amended charge of careless riding and his good record. For these combined factors Mr Calder was afforded a 1 day reduction in penalty.
The Committee notes that SOFT HEARTED won the race.
The Committee had regard for the race meetings included in Mr Calder’s suspension.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee considered that an appropriate suspension was 15 national riding days.
penalty:
The Committee granted a deferment to Mr Calder’s suspension pursuant to Rule 1106(2).
Accordingly, Mr Calder had his license to ride in races suspended for a period to commence after racing on 4 January and conclude after racing on 24 January 2020.
The race meeting scheduled for Taranaki on 16 January was not included in the penalty because this race meeting is for apprentice riders only. In addition the race meeting on 5 January was not included in the penalty because the declaration of riders had closed.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 6381)(b)
Informant: Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr A Calder - Class A Rider
Otherperson: Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward, Ms D Johnson - Class A Rider, Mrs T D Thornton - Class A Rider
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: e890bf9daf53b1b732c2796854def601
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 611e1c6a05c133c9b75b789e70d81ca6
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 02/01/2020
meet_title: Racing Tauranga - 2 January 2020
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: racing-tauranga
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: AGodsalve
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Racing Tauranga