Riccarton Park-Canterbury JC 15 July 2022 – R7 – Diego Montes de Oca

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 7, an Information was filed by Mr Davidson alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) in that Mr Montes de Oca on DA VINCI GIRL shifted ground inwards when not sufficiently clear passing the 600 metre mark and as a result crowding and checking Ms Williams’ mount ORIGINAL GANGSTER.

Mr Montes de Oca acknowledged he understood the Rule and confirmed that he did not admit the breach. Mr Montes de Oca was assisted at the hearing by Mr Pitman.

Rule 638(1) (d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Adjudicative Committee considers to be careless.

Using the available race films Mr Davidson firstly showed the incident and, with the assistance of Ms Haley, identified the relevant runners. Mr Davidson then called Ms Williams, the Rider of ORIGINAL GANGSTER. In short, Mr Davidson said that the Stewards were alleging that as Mr Montes de Oca was improving forward on DA VINCI GIRL, travelling around ORIGINAL GANGSTER who was on the fence, Mr Montes de Oca has looked over his shoulder and, as he improves forward, he has clearly caused Ms Williams to take a strong hold of her mount.

Ms Williams said she was traveling “not too bad” and saw a horse coming round three wide and she had to take a hold for a few strides as it has crossed to the running rail. Ms Williams said that she saw Mr Montes de Oca coming and so she had to take a hold. She estimated the room he gave her as 3/4 to one length clear of her. In response to a question by the Adjudicative Committee she confirmed that it was when she saw Mr Montes de Oca coming that she took a hold. Mr Davidson then played Ms Williams the available films. Ms Williams said as a result of the incident her horse lost momentum.

Initially, Mr Pitman had no questions of Ms Williams.  However, upon hearing submissions from Mr Pitman it was apparent that Ms Williams needed to be recalled to respond to matters he had raised. The hearing was briefly adjourned to allow the Jockeys to ride in the next race.

Once the hearing recommenced, Mr Pitman asked Ms Williams about the point at which Mr Montes de Oca crossed her.  In response she said she could see him coming in so felt she had to take a hold. She conceded that at the point she took a hold Mr Montes de Oca was moving in but had not crossed her. Her view was that if she had not taken a hold she could have “clipped a heel.”

The nub of Mr Montes de Oca’s case was that Ms Williams had taken an unnecessary hold in anticipation that there was not going to be available room when, in fact, Mr Montes de Oca was sufficiently clear of Ms Williams’ mount when he eventually moved down to the rail. Put another way, when Mr Montes de Oca initially shifted inwards he did not attempt to cross Ms Williams, but she has taken a hold when there was a run available for her to continue on the rail.

Mr Pitman said, on behalf of Mr Montes de Oca, that he looked across and had plenty of room and Ms Williams could have continued to ride forward but chose to take a hold. Mr Montes de Oca’s defence was that at the point where and when Ms Williams took a hold Mr Montes de Oca had not crossed her and there was enough room for her to keep her place.

In summary, Mr Montes de Oca said he did not place Ms Williams under pressure as there was sufficient room.

Decision:

Four different angles of the race films were viewed multiple times during the hearing. These films were also considered next to one another.

In order to find the charge of careless riding proved the Adjudicative Committee had to be satisfied that Mr Montes de Oca moved inwards when not sufficiently clear of Ms Williams’ mount and that this action caused Ms Williams to be placed in restricted room which had the consequence of crowding and checking her mount ORIGINAL GANGSTER.

In her evidence, Ms Williams said that she took a hold of her horse as Mr Montes de Oca was moving inwards. Mr Montes de Oca was moving in from a three wide position, the Adjudicative Committee find that Ms Williams’ decision to take a hold of her horse is an anticipated overreaction of what she perceived occurred without any restriction of space actually occurring.  The explanation provided by Mr Montes de Oca, which was that he had looked over his shoulder and there was sufficient room, is supported by the Adjudicative Committee’s interpretation of the race films.

Although the race films require some interpretation, they did support the defence contention that when Ms Williams took the hold of her horse Mr Montes de Oca was clear of her mount.  The films did not show that Mr Montes de Oca was not clear of Ms Williams when he eventually moved down to the rail. At the point where Mr Montes de Oca reached the final stage of moving down to the rail, Ms Williams had already taken a strong hold of her mount. When reviewing the films side by side they did support the defence contention that there was sufficient room for Ms Williams to continue on her run down the rail prior to taking a hold of her mount.

Therefore, after hearing the evidence and, more importantly, viewing the available race films, the Adjudicative Committee were of the view that it is more likely than not that Mr Montes de Oca was sufficiently clear of Ms Williams when he shifted inwards near the 600 metre mark.

Conclusion:

The Adjudicative Committee find that there was not sufficient evidence produced to prove the charge of careless riding against Mr Montes de Oca, therefore the charge is dismissed.