Southland RC 16 February 2019 – R 1 – Chair, Mr T Utikere
ID: JCA15058
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Southland RC - 16 February 2019
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
MConway
Race Date:
2019/02/16
Race Number:
R1
Decision:
Based on the evidence presented, the Committee found the charge proved.
Penalty:
Mr Bradley’s Licence is suspended from the conclusion of racing on Saturday 23 February until the conclusion of racing on Wednesday 6 March 2019.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 1 (SOUTHERN INSULATION MAIDEN 1200m), Information A9072 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) by Licensed Rider Mr D Bradley. The Information alleged that: ”D Bradley (CHOWDER) permitted his mount to shift inwards passing the 300m dictating TAP TAP (R Mudhoo) inwards causing MARMADUKE (K Selvan) to be checked”.
Rule 638(1)(d) states:
“A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be: … (d) careless.”
Mr Bradley confirmed to the committee that he understood Rule 638(1)(d), and that he did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Davidson advised that the RIU would be calling three witnesses. The Committee determined that the witnesses would give evidence before the available films were played to the hearing.
Mr K Selvan confirmed that he had ridden MARMADUKE which had led for the majority of the race. At the 300 metres, it had got tight and he described that pressure had been received from his outside and his horse’s legs had got the wobbles. He had tried to keep his horse going at the time and had received direct pressure from Mr R Mudhoo’s mount, which had resulted in him having to check.
In response to questions from Mr Bradley, he said that he had enough racing room and that his horse had come to the end of its run. He also responded that he did not believe it got “too tight”.
Under re-examination from Mr Davidson, Mr Selvan agreed that while he had room before receiving the pressure, he did have to check after he received the pressure from his outside.
Mr R Mudhoo confirmed he had ridden TAP TAP, which was racing one-off outside of MARMADUKE. He described that the winning horse, which was Mr Bradley’s, had lay in around the bend and that he had to shift inwards as a result. This meant he had to apply pressure to Mr Selvan racing to his inside. He also stated that there was not enough room for two runners to Mr Bradley’s inside.
Mr Bradley had no questions for Mr Mudhoo and acknowledged that Mr Mudhoo’s evidence was therefore unchallenged.
Stipendiary Steward Mr McLaughlin used the side-on film to identify Mr Bradley racing in the four-wide position approaching the final bend. To his inside was MISSING HAZARD (K Chowdhoory), with TAP TAP (R Mudhoo) in the one-off and MARMADUKE (K Selvan) closest to the rail. Rounding the bend, Mr Bradley had cleared Mr Chawdhoory, with which the stewards had no issue. In Mr Bradley’s attempt to move from the four wide to one-off position, Mr McLaughlin believed he had moved inwards. In doing so, he submitted that Mr Bradley had not been clear, stating that he had been ¾ length clear on Mr Mudhoo who had ½ length on Mr Selvan.
Mr Bradley had no questions for Mr McLaughlin regarding his interpretation of the films, and in doing so acknowledged that Mr McLaughlin’s evidence was therefore unchallenged.
In response to a question from the Committee, regarding how TAP TAP had been racing immediately prior to the incident, Mr McLaughlin pointed out on the film that TAP TAP’s head had only turned inwards due to the pressure it had received. He also believed that the horse appeared to be taking the turn very well up until that point.
Mr Davidson had no questions on re-examination.
Mr Bradley used the film to explain that he had moved around the field, and while he had been in a wide position, he had moved in gradually. He said that Mr Selvan’s horse had been a first starter and that there had been genuine racing room for that runner at the time. He also believed that MARMADUKE had got a fright and blundered as a result. He described that he had been a ‘victim of circumstances’ and that the lack of a side-on or rear-view of the incident meant there was insufficient film evidence for the charge. While he had moved inwards, he did not believe he had caused the interference to both horses. He said that it was a known fact that the Invercargill racetrack’s camber meant it was easy for runners to roll in around the turn. He sought to call former rider Mr David Walsh as an expert witness to verify this.
Mr Davidson objected to the calling of Mr Walsh as a defence witness. The Committee noted the objection and determined that it was permissible for Mr Bradley to call a witness if their evidence was relevant to the defence he was presenting before the Committee. It would be for the Committee to determine the weighting and credibility it would apply to such evidence.
Mr Walsh confirmed that he had observed the race as it was run, and that it appeared there were a lot of inexperienced horses in the race. He said that what he observed to have happened, occurred often at the Invercargill track. Mr Bradley had been on a horse going forward, he had turned the bend, and that there was always crowding at that point. This was because it gets a little bit tight at the turn, and often the inside horses don’t take the turn well as a result. Mr Walsh confirmed his views that the films were also inconclusive.
For clarification purposes, Mr Davidson advised Mr Walsh that the stewards’ contention was that Mr Bradley had come around the field, and shifted in, as evidenced by the pulling on his left rein at that point. As a result, Mr Mudhoo had run out of room and checked Mr Selvan.
Mr Bradley confirmed that Mr Walsh was an ‘Expert Witness’ who could confirm that the nature of the corner at Ascot Park meant it was hard for the horse adjacent to the running rail to take it cleanly and smoothly.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Walsh agreed that Mr Bradley had gone from a four wide to two wide position and that Mr Mudhoo seemed to be handling the bend well prior to the incident.
In summary, Mr Davidson submitted that the films were clear enough for the charge. The credibility of Mr Selvan was not an issue. He described him as a well-established, long-time rider whose horse may have been under pressure, but he was entitled to racing room. His evidence was clear in that he said he ran out of room at the 300 metres because of the pressure he received from the outside. Mr Mudhoo’s evidence also indicated that he could not relieve the pressure due to Mr Bradley shifting in. Mr Davidson also submitted that the films clearly showed the respondent moving from a four wide to two wide position, and that it was clear that Mr Selvan ran out of room and had to check as a result.
Mr Bradley confirmed that he had seen the available films, but maintained that they were inconclusive. He had nothing further to add.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee considered all of the evidence provided to the hearing. Mr Selvan confirmed that he was riding MARMADUKE and that at the 300 metres it got tight when he received pressure from Mr Mudhoo’s mount to his outside, resulting in a check. Yet in response to Mr Bradley’s questions he also indicated that it did not get too tight. To clarify, Mr Selvan had confirmed that he had room before receiving pressure from his outside, after which he had to check.
Mr Mudhoo confirmed that TAP TAP was positioned one-off outside MARMADUKE. The horse in front of him (CHOWDER) had lay in and as a result he had to shift inwards, putting pressure on Mr Selvan’s mount. He did not believe there was much room for two runners to Mr Bradley’s inside and we note that evidence is not challenged by the respondent.
Mr McLaughlin initially identified Mr Bradley as racing four wide, and had no issue with him clearing Mr Chowdhoory who was in the three wide position. The issue that stewards had was with the respondent’s movement to the one-off position. Mr McLaughlin indicated Mr Bradley had ¾ length on Mr Mudhoo, who in turn had ½ length on Mr Selvan. We note that assessment is also unchallenged by Mr Bradley and we accept that those quantums are accurate.
Mr Bradley’s defence is that he was a ‘victim of circumstance’ and cites the lack of a range of film angles. He also referred to the racing manners of MARMADUKE as a first starter. He cites the camber of the Invercargill track as a factor, and believes that he did not cause the interference to Mr Selvan. In essence, Mr Bradley does not believe there was sufficient evidence to prove the charge.
Mr Walsh, whilst an experienced former raceday rider, also gave his interpretation of the films. He also touched in general terms on the difficulty that some horses, particularly inexperienced horses, can have in taking the last bend on the Invercargill track.
Based on our assessment of the films and the evidence, we have been able to form some conclusions. Firstly, all parties agree that Mr Bradley was in a four wide position prior to the incident. What is in contention is whether he moved from a three wide position to a one-off position in accordance with the rules. We have considered the evidence of all witnesses, but we also reach the view that the film provides clear footage that immediately prior to, and during the incident (of the respondent moving inwards), the actions of MARMADUKE and TAP TAP are not contributing factors. This is highlighted by Mr Bradley applying pressure to the left rein some three strides prior.
We accept Mr Davidson’s submission that while MARMADUKE was under pressure, he was also entitled to his own racing room at the time. It is clear to us, based on our review of the film, and Mr Bradley accepts via unchallenged evidence from Mr McLaughlin, that he was not the required distance clear when moving to the one-off position, dictating TAP TAP as a result and causing MARMADUKE to be checked.
Therefore, the charge against the respondent is proved.
Submissions for Penalty:
In presenting the respondent’s record, Mr Davidson identified three breaches within the previous 12 month period (Marton, 5 January - 5 Days; Waipukurau, 27 September - 6 Days; Taranaki, 21 July - 8 Days). He said that three previous charges for a busy rider was not a good record, nor was it a poor record. He submitted that the carelessness sat at the low range as this was a maiden race and that MARMADUKE had been tightened, but it had also overreacted when racing in restricted room.
Mr Bradley said that Mr Davidson had summed up the situation well, and that he sought a one week deferral of any period of suspension so he could ride at Otaki on 23 February.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee considered all of the submissions placed before it. The reasons for the Committee’s findings were given in some detail during the hearing. It is clear that Mr Bradley’s movement from a wider position on the track to an eventual position of being one-off was at the expense of two other runners. We accept the submission that the carelessness falls at the low-end and as identified in the JCA Penalty Guidelines adopt a starting point of a six day period of suspension. There were consequences to two other runners, which is balanced by Mr Bradley’s record, which we consider as neutral. Considering all factors we consider a six day period of suspension as appropriate.
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: a0f494551700f955f5427a1f3d0d2b9b
informantnumber: A9072
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 18/02/2019
hearing_title: Southland RC 16 February 2019 - R 1 - Chair, Mr T Utikere
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 1 (SOUTHERN INSULATION MAIDEN 1200m), Information A9072 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) by Licensed Rider Mr D Bradley. The Information alleged that: ”D Bradley (CHOWDER) permitted his mount to shift inwards passing the 300m dictating TAP TAP (R Mudhoo) inwards causing MARMADUKE (K Selvan) to be checked”.
Rule 638(1)(d) states:
“A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be: … (d) careless.”
Mr Bradley confirmed to the committee that he understood Rule 638(1)(d), and that he did not admit the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Davidson advised that the RIU would be calling three witnesses. The Committee determined that the witnesses would give evidence before the available films were played to the hearing.
Mr K Selvan confirmed that he had ridden MARMADUKE which had led for the majority of the race. At the 300 metres, it had got tight and he described that pressure had been received from his outside and his horse’s legs had got the wobbles. He had tried to keep his horse going at the time and had received direct pressure from Mr R Mudhoo’s mount, which had resulted in him having to check.
In response to questions from Mr Bradley, he said that he had enough racing room and that his horse had come to the end of its run. He also responded that he did not believe it got “too tight”.
Under re-examination from Mr Davidson, Mr Selvan agreed that while he had room before receiving the pressure, he did have to check after he received the pressure from his outside.
Mr R Mudhoo confirmed he had ridden TAP TAP, which was racing one-off outside of MARMADUKE. He described that the winning horse, which was Mr Bradley’s, had lay in around the bend and that he had to shift inwards as a result. This meant he had to apply pressure to Mr Selvan racing to his inside. He also stated that there was not enough room for two runners to Mr Bradley’s inside.
Mr Bradley had no questions for Mr Mudhoo and acknowledged that Mr Mudhoo’s evidence was therefore unchallenged.
Stipendiary Steward Mr McLaughlin used the side-on film to identify Mr Bradley racing in the four-wide position approaching the final bend. To his inside was MISSING HAZARD (K Chowdhoory), with TAP TAP (R Mudhoo) in the one-off and MARMADUKE (K Selvan) closest to the rail. Rounding the bend, Mr Bradley had cleared Mr Chawdhoory, with which the stewards had no issue. In Mr Bradley’s attempt to move from the four wide to one-off position, Mr McLaughlin believed he had moved inwards. In doing so, he submitted that Mr Bradley had not been clear, stating that he had been ¾ length clear on Mr Mudhoo who had ½ length on Mr Selvan.
Mr Bradley had no questions for Mr McLaughlin regarding his interpretation of the films, and in doing so acknowledged that Mr McLaughlin’s evidence was therefore unchallenged.
In response to a question from the Committee, regarding how TAP TAP had been racing immediately prior to the incident, Mr McLaughlin pointed out on the film that TAP TAP’s head had only turned inwards due to the pressure it had received. He also believed that the horse appeared to be taking the turn very well up until that point.
Mr Davidson had no questions on re-examination.
Mr Bradley used the film to explain that he had moved around the field, and while he had been in a wide position, he had moved in gradually. He said that Mr Selvan’s horse had been a first starter and that there had been genuine racing room for that runner at the time. He also believed that MARMADUKE had got a fright and blundered as a result. He described that he had been a ‘victim of circumstances’ and that the lack of a side-on or rear-view of the incident meant there was insufficient film evidence for the charge. While he had moved inwards, he did not believe he had caused the interference to both horses. He said that it was a known fact that the Invercargill racetrack’s camber meant it was easy for runners to roll in around the turn. He sought to call former rider Mr David Walsh as an expert witness to verify this.
Mr Davidson objected to the calling of Mr Walsh as a defence witness. The Committee noted the objection and determined that it was permissible for Mr Bradley to call a witness if their evidence was relevant to the defence he was presenting before the Committee. It would be for the Committee to determine the weighting and credibility it would apply to such evidence.
Mr Walsh confirmed that he had observed the race as it was run, and that it appeared there were a lot of inexperienced horses in the race. He said that what he observed to have happened, occurred often at the Invercargill track. Mr Bradley had been on a horse going forward, he had turned the bend, and that there was always crowding at that point. This was because it gets a little bit tight at the turn, and often the inside horses don’t take the turn well as a result. Mr Walsh confirmed his views that the films were also inconclusive.
For clarification purposes, Mr Davidson advised Mr Walsh that the stewards’ contention was that Mr Bradley had come around the field, and shifted in, as evidenced by the pulling on his left rein at that point. As a result, Mr Mudhoo had run out of room and checked Mr Selvan.
Mr Bradley confirmed that Mr Walsh was an ‘Expert Witness’ who could confirm that the nature of the corner at Ascot Park meant it was hard for the horse adjacent to the running rail to take it cleanly and smoothly.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Walsh agreed that Mr Bradley had gone from a four wide to two wide position and that Mr Mudhoo seemed to be handling the bend well prior to the incident.
In summary, Mr Davidson submitted that the films were clear enough for the charge. The credibility of Mr Selvan was not an issue. He described him as a well-established, long-time rider whose horse may have been under pressure, but he was entitled to racing room. His evidence was clear in that he said he ran out of room at the 300 metres because of the pressure he received from the outside. Mr Mudhoo’s evidence also indicated that he could not relieve the pressure due to Mr Bradley shifting in. Mr Davidson also submitted that the films clearly showed the respondent moving from a four wide to two wide position, and that it was clear that Mr Selvan ran out of room and had to check as a result.
Mr Bradley confirmed that he had seen the available films, but maintained that they were inconclusive. He had nothing further to add.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee considered all of the evidence provided to the hearing. Mr Selvan confirmed that he was riding MARMADUKE and that at the 300 metres it got tight when he received pressure from Mr Mudhoo’s mount to his outside, resulting in a check. Yet in response to Mr Bradley’s questions he also indicated that it did not get too tight. To clarify, Mr Selvan had confirmed that he had room before receiving pressure from his outside, after which he had to check.
Mr Mudhoo confirmed that TAP TAP was positioned one-off outside MARMADUKE. The horse in front of him (CHOWDER) had lay in and as a result he had to shift inwards, putting pressure on Mr Selvan’s mount. He did not believe there was much room for two runners to Mr Bradley’s inside and we note that evidence is not challenged by the respondent.
Mr McLaughlin initially identified Mr Bradley as racing four wide, and had no issue with him clearing Mr Chowdhoory who was in the three wide position. The issue that stewards had was with the respondent’s movement to the one-off position. Mr McLaughlin indicated Mr Bradley had ¾ length on Mr Mudhoo, who in turn had ½ length on Mr Selvan. We note that assessment is also unchallenged by Mr Bradley and we accept that those quantums are accurate.
Mr Bradley’s defence is that he was a ‘victim of circumstance’ and cites the lack of a range of film angles. He also referred to the racing manners of MARMADUKE as a first starter. He cites the camber of the Invercargill track as a factor, and believes that he did not cause the interference to Mr Selvan. In essence, Mr Bradley does not believe there was sufficient evidence to prove the charge.
Mr Walsh, whilst an experienced former raceday rider, also gave his interpretation of the films. He also touched in general terms on the difficulty that some horses, particularly inexperienced horses, can have in taking the last bend on the Invercargill track.
Based on our assessment of the films and the evidence, we have been able to form some conclusions. Firstly, all parties agree that Mr Bradley was in a four wide position prior to the incident. What is in contention is whether he moved from a three wide position to a one-off position in accordance with the rules. We have considered the evidence of all witnesses, but we also reach the view that the film provides clear footage that immediately prior to, and during the incident (of the respondent moving inwards), the actions of MARMADUKE and TAP TAP are not contributing factors. This is highlighted by Mr Bradley applying pressure to the left rein some three strides prior.
We accept Mr Davidson’s submission that while MARMADUKE was under pressure, he was also entitled to his own racing room at the time. It is clear to us, based on our review of the film, and Mr Bradley accepts via unchallenged evidence from Mr McLaughlin, that he was not the required distance clear when moving to the one-off position, dictating TAP TAP as a result and causing MARMADUKE to be checked.
Therefore, the charge against the respondent is proved.
Decision:
Based on the evidence presented, the Committee found the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
In presenting the respondent’s record, Mr Davidson identified three breaches within the previous 12 month period (Marton, 5 January - 5 Days; Waipukurau, 27 September - 6 Days; Taranaki, 21 July - 8 Days). He said that three previous charges for a busy rider was not a good record, nor was it a poor record. He submitted that the carelessness sat at the low range as this was a maiden race and that MARMADUKE had been tightened, but it had also overreacted when racing in restricted room.
Mr Bradley said that Mr Davidson had summed up the situation well, and that he sought a one week deferral of any period of suspension so he could ride at Otaki on 23 February.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee considered all of the submissions placed before it. The reasons for the Committee’s findings were given in some detail during the hearing. It is clear that Mr Bradley’s movement from a wider position on the track to an eventual position of being one-off was at the expense of two other runners. We accept the submission that the carelessness falls at the low-end and as identified in the JCA Penalty Guidelines adopt a starting point of a six day period of suspension. There were consequences to two other runners, which is balanced by Mr Bradley’s record, which we consider as neutral. Considering all factors we consider a six day period of suspension as appropriate.
penalty:
Mr Bradley’s Licence is suspended from the conclusion of racing on Saturday 23 February until the conclusion of racing on Wednesday 6 March 2019.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr M Davidson - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr D Bradley - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mr R Mudhoo - Rider of TAP TAP, Mr K Selvan - Rider of MARMADUKE, Mr J M McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward, Mr D Walsh
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: ac0022cb50764f2e05b0c43b9ce5517b
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: a1aeafd5af8ac9bf4e17b389152b4210
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 16/02/2019
meet_title: Southland RC - 16 February 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: southland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: MConway
meet_pm2: none
name: Southland RC