South Canterbury RC – 26 November 2009 – Race 4
ID: JCA21332
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
South Canterbury RC - 26 November 2009
Race Date:
2009/11/26
Race Number:
Race 4
Decision:
As a result of an incident near the 1,000 metre mark in Race 4 at the South Canterbury Racing Club’s meeting on Thursday 26th November 2009, Apprentice Jockey J Collett was charged with a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing (careless riding).
--
As a result of an incident near the 1,000 metre mark in Race 4 at the South Canterbury Racing Club’s meeting on Thursday 26th November 2009, Apprentice Jockey J Collett was charged with a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing (careless riding).
--Mr Collett did not admit a breach of the Rule.
--It was alleged that Mr Collett allowed his mount “Citi de Lago” to shift in when not clear dictating “Missdaflight” (J Morris) onto “Sudders” (S Muniandy) causing that runner to clip a heel and check.
--Mr Davidson called Apprentice Jockey Shankar Muniandy to give evidence. Mr Muniandy told the hearing that about the 1,000 metre mark he was racing one off the rail. He said that “Missdaflight” ridden by Ms J Morris, crossed his path when not clear of him and that caused his mount, “Sudders”, to clip a heel of “Missdaflight” and as a consequence, Mr Muniandy had to check his mount.
--Mr Collett cross-examined Mr Muniandy on his evidence. He asked him was “Sudders” slow away, and as a consequence of that, did Mr Muniandy “hunt up” his mount, and as a consequence, did he find his horse racing fiercely? He asked him, did he, as a consequence, come in behind the quarters of Ms Morris’s mount, quite closely
--In response, Mr Muniandy said that he was slow away, but that he put himself into a position of being one off the fence and wanted to hold that position in order “to put his horse into the race”.
--Assistant Stipendiary Steward Mr J McLaughlin showed the video coverage to the hearing. He identified the horses, and showed how Mr Collett moved across on to the line of “Missdaflight” and as a consequence of that, Ms Morris had to take hold of her mount, with the consequence of that being that Mr Muniandy’s horse was checked, and clipped a heel in the process.
--Mr Davidson then called Apprentice Jockey Ms J Morris, the rider of “Missdaflight”. She told the hearing that she received pressure from the outside. She said that she was racing two off the fence and that is where she wanted to be. However, at around the 1,000 metre mark, she was forced over by Mr Collett's mount and at that point, Mr Collett was not his own length and another length clear. With the assistance of the video coverage, she demonstrated how the head of her mount was on the rump of Mr Collett’s horse. As a consequence of that, she had to ease her mount back.
--Mr Collett then presented his defence. He said that he was easing off as he was heading into the bend, but that the horse on the outside of him, namely “Woohoo” ridden by I Khairil, “shaved him” off his line. Mr Collett was quite clear in that he believed that he received pressure from the outside from Mr Khairil’s mount.
--As a consequence, he did not believe that the inwards movement of his mount was as the result of careless riding on his part.
--Mr Davidson summed up the Stipendiary Steward’s case. He said that Mr Muniandy was entitled to be where he was and that he was in no doubt that Ms Morris was dictated inwards. From the Stipendiary Steward’s point of view, he said that Mr Khairil on “Woohoo” played no part in the incident.
--Mr Collett summed up his case by saying that he was firmly of the view that Mr Khairil had dictated him inwards and that was the cause of the eventual check and clipping of heels to Mr Muniandy’s mount.
--INTERIM DECISION
--We delivered the following oral decision:
--“Having considered all of the evidence, we find as a fact that Mr Collett allowed his mount, “Citi de Lago”, to shift inwards when not his own length and another length clear. That constitutes careless riding in terms of the Rules of Racing and thus, the charge is found proved.”
--DETAILED DECISION ON THE FACTS
--We considered all of the evidence that was presented to us carefully. The fact situation that we have found is that Mr Muniandy was slow away from the starting barrier, but settled his horse in one off the fence in behind the eventual winner, “Heaven Sent”. There was at least one to two horse lengths between Mr Muniandy’s mount and “Heaven Sent”.
--However, on the bend, Ms Morris on “Missdaflight” was travelling with clear racing room two off the fence, and we prefer her explanation that she wanted to stay in that position.
--Mr Collett was approximately three to four horse widths off the fence, but as the bend approached, he moved across when not his own length and another length clear of Ms Morris. The consequences of his actions were that Ms Morris was then forced across to a position of one off the fence directly behind “Heaven Sent”, and as a consequence, Ms Morris found it necessary to ease her mount to prevent her clipping the heels of “Heaven Sent”. That was an appropriate action for her to take. However, Mr Collett, in our opinion, undoubtedly dictated Ms Morris’s racing line of which she had clear ownership.
--Mr Muniandy may well have been slow away, and may well have hunted his horse up as he described, but the fact of the matter is that he was entitled to do that in order to give himself a chance in the race. From our perspective, there can be no criticism of Mr Muniandy’s riding actions. However, because Ms Morris was taken across into his line when he was not reasonably expecting it, it was for him to have to check his mount off the heels of Ms Morris’s mount. Unfortunately, he clipped a heel in the process and it was fortuitous that his mount did not fall.
--Thus, having considered all of the evidence in detail, we are satisfied to the appropriate standard of proof in these matters, that Mr Collett was not his own length and another horse length clear when moving across Ms Morris’s line, and as a consequence of that, he rode carelessly and the charge is therefore proved.
--SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
--Mr Davidson told the hearing that the last suspension that Mr Collett received was for a period of four days and that he received that period of suspension on 30 October 2009 at Matamata. He told the hearing that Mr Collett had incurred two suspensions of four days in April, a six day suspension in February and a four day suspension in January 2009.
--However, Mr Davidson said that Mr Collett was one of the country’s busier riders and that essentially, Mr Collett, having a lot of rides, could be said to have a reasonable record and in particular, by virtue of the fact that he had only appeared once before a Judicial Panel in the last six months.
--He called for a suspension of between four and five days.
--Mr Davidson believed that the carelessness was mid range, even though a heel was clipped. He said that Mr Collett’s movement was not at the extreme end of the scale.
--Mr Collett told us that he is apprenticed to his father, Mr Richard Collett, and so far, has had in excess of 800 rides as an apprentice. Mr Collett did not believe that his carelessness was that serious. He said that if a suspension was to be imposed, he requested that it be deferred until Wednesday 2 December 2009.
--PENALTY DECISION
--We agree that a period of suspension is appropriate. That period will be for four days commencing from the conclusion of racing on Wednesday 2 December 2009 and finishing on Sunday 6 December 2009. That will encompass meetings at Matamata, Ashburton, Avondale and Waipukurau. Mr Collett will then be able to commence race riding on Wednesday 9 December 2009 at Ellerslie.
--Our reason for imposing a four days suspension is that we agree that the degree of carelessness was mid range only. Had it been more serious, then a longer period of suspension would have been considered.
--
KG Hales JS Millar
CHAIR Committee Member
7295
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: 944a571f8afc7990e42804aff5b0c894
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 26/11/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: South Canterbury RC - 26 November 2009 - Race 4
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
As a result of an incident near the 1,000 metre mark in Race 4 at the South Canterbury Racing Club’s meeting on Thursday 26th November 2009, Apprentice Jockey J Collett was charged with a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing (careless riding).
--
As a result of an incident near the 1,000 metre mark in Race 4 at the South Canterbury Racing Club’s meeting on Thursday 26th November 2009, Apprentice Jockey J Collett was charged with a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) of the Rules of Racing (careless riding).
--Mr Collett did not admit a breach of the Rule.
--It was alleged that Mr Collett allowed his mount “Citi de Lago” to shift in when not clear dictating “Missdaflight” (J Morris) onto “Sudders” (S Muniandy) causing that runner to clip a heel and check.
--Mr Davidson called Apprentice Jockey Shankar Muniandy to give evidence. Mr Muniandy told the hearing that about the 1,000 metre mark he was racing one off the rail. He said that “Missdaflight” ridden by Ms J Morris, crossed his path when not clear of him and that caused his mount, “Sudders”, to clip a heel of “Missdaflight” and as a consequence, Mr Muniandy had to check his mount.
--Mr Collett cross-examined Mr Muniandy on his evidence. He asked him was “Sudders” slow away, and as a consequence of that, did Mr Muniandy “hunt up” his mount, and as a consequence, did he find his horse racing fiercely? He asked him, did he, as a consequence, come in behind the quarters of Ms Morris’s mount, quite closely
--In response, Mr Muniandy said that he was slow away, but that he put himself into a position of being one off the fence and wanted to hold that position in order “to put his horse into the race”.
--Assistant Stipendiary Steward Mr J McLaughlin showed the video coverage to the hearing. He identified the horses, and showed how Mr Collett moved across on to the line of “Missdaflight” and as a consequence of that, Ms Morris had to take hold of her mount, with the consequence of that being that Mr Muniandy’s horse was checked, and clipped a heel in the process.
--Mr Davidson then called Apprentice Jockey Ms J Morris, the rider of “Missdaflight”. She told the hearing that she received pressure from the outside. She said that she was racing two off the fence and that is where she wanted to be. However, at around the 1,000 metre mark, she was forced over by Mr Collett's mount and at that point, Mr Collett was not his own length and another length clear. With the assistance of the video coverage, she demonstrated how the head of her mount was on the rump of Mr Collett’s horse. As a consequence of that, she had to ease her mount back.
--Mr Collett then presented his defence. He said that he was easing off as he was heading into the bend, but that the horse on the outside of him, namely “Woohoo” ridden by I Khairil, “shaved him” off his line. Mr Collett was quite clear in that he believed that he received pressure from the outside from Mr Khairil’s mount.
--As a consequence, he did not believe that the inwards movement of his mount was as the result of careless riding on his part.
--Mr Davidson summed up the Stipendiary Steward’s case. He said that Mr Muniandy was entitled to be where he was and that he was in no doubt that Ms Morris was dictated inwards. From the Stipendiary Steward’s point of view, he said that Mr Khairil on “Woohoo” played no part in the incident.
--Mr Collett summed up his case by saying that he was firmly of the view that Mr Khairil had dictated him inwards and that was the cause of the eventual check and clipping of heels to Mr Muniandy’s mount.
--INTERIM DECISION
--We delivered the following oral decision:
--“Having considered all of the evidence, we find as a fact that Mr Collett allowed his mount, “Citi de Lago”, to shift inwards when not his own length and another length clear. That constitutes careless riding in terms of the Rules of Racing and thus, the charge is found proved.”
--DETAILED DECISION ON THE FACTS
--We considered all of the evidence that was presented to us carefully. The fact situation that we have found is that Mr Muniandy was slow away from the starting barrier, but settled his horse in one off the fence in behind the eventual winner, “Heaven Sent”. There was at least one to two horse lengths between Mr Muniandy’s mount and “Heaven Sent”.
--However, on the bend, Ms Morris on “Missdaflight” was travelling with clear racing room two off the fence, and we prefer her explanation that she wanted to stay in that position.
--Mr Collett was approximately three to four horse widths off the fence, but as the bend approached, he moved across when not his own length and another length clear of Ms Morris. The consequences of his actions were that Ms Morris was then forced across to a position of one off the fence directly behind “Heaven Sent”, and as a consequence, Ms Morris found it necessary to ease her mount to prevent her clipping the heels of “Heaven Sent”. That was an appropriate action for her to take. However, Mr Collett, in our opinion, undoubtedly dictated Ms Morris’s racing line of which she had clear ownership.
--Mr Muniandy may well have been slow away, and may well have hunted his horse up as he described, but the fact of the matter is that he was entitled to do that in order to give himself a chance in the race. From our perspective, there can be no criticism of Mr Muniandy’s riding actions. However, because Ms Morris was taken across into his line when he was not reasonably expecting it, it was for him to have to check his mount off the heels of Ms Morris’s mount. Unfortunately, he clipped a heel in the process and it was fortuitous that his mount did not fall.
--Thus, having considered all of the evidence in detail, we are satisfied to the appropriate standard of proof in these matters, that Mr Collett was not his own length and another horse length clear when moving across Ms Morris’s line, and as a consequence of that, he rode carelessly and the charge is therefore proved.
--SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
--Mr Davidson told the hearing that the last suspension that Mr Collett received was for a period of four days and that he received that period of suspension on 30 October 2009 at Matamata. He told the hearing that Mr Collett had incurred two suspensions of four days in April, a six day suspension in February and a four day suspension in January 2009.
--However, Mr Davidson said that Mr Collett was one of the country’s busier riders and that essentially, Mr Collett, having a lot of rides, could be said to have a reasonable record and in particular, by virtue of the fact that he had only appeared once before a Judicial Panel in the last six months.
--He called for a suspension of between four and five days.
--Mr Davidson believed that the carelessness was mid range, even though a heel was clipped. He said that Mr Collett’s movement was not at the extreme end of the scale.
--Mr Collett told us that he is apprenticed to his father, Mr Richard Collett, and so far, has had in excess of 800 rides as an apprentice. Mr Collett did not believe that his carelessness was that serious. He said that if a suspension was to be imposed, he requested that it be deferred until Wednesday 2 December 2009.
--PENALTY DECISION
--We agree that a period of suspension is appropriate. That period will be for four days commencing from the conclusion of racing on Wednesday 2 December 2009 and finishing on Sunday 6 December 2009. That will encompass meetings at Matamata, Ashburton, Avondale and Waipukurau. Mr Collett will then be able to commence race riding on Wednesday 9 December 2009 at Ellerslie.
--Our reason for imposing a four days suspension is that we agree that the degree of carelessness was mid range only. Had it been more serious, then a longer period of suspension would have been considered.
--
KG Hales JS Millar
CHAIR Committee Member
7295
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 638.1.d
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 4a160f017f2af368de1158b02686ebf4
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 078b2e90ebf3d6bc0f0682a883254af9
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/11/2009
meet_title: South Canterbury RC - 26 November 2009
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: south-canterbury-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: South Canterbury RC