Wellington RC 21 January 2017 – R 8 – Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
ID: JCA12566
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Wellington RC - 21 January 2017
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2017/01/21
Race Number:
R 8
Decision:
Accordingly we found the charge of careless riding proved.
Penalty:
Accordingly Mr Parkes is suspended from riding from the close of racing on Saturday January 28th up to and including racing on February 10th.
This will encompass meetings on:
29/1/17 - Auckland
1/2/17 - Hastings
4/2/17 - Waikato
6/2/17 - Wairarapa
10/2/17 - Taranaki
Facts:
Following the running of Race 8, JR & N Berkett Telegraph, an Information was lodged by Mr J Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1) (d). The information alleged that J Parkes allowed his mount to shift in over the concluding stages when not sufficiently clear of REILLY LINCOLN causing interference to that runner.
Mr Parkes confirmed he understood the charge and that he did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Oatham asked Mr Goodwin to outline the incident by way of the films. He showed the final stages of the race with Mr Parke’s position in the middle of the track and Ms Myers closer to the fence racing free of any interference. Mr Goodwin highlighted the vigorous riding style of Mr Parkes as his mount drifted inwards into the line of Ms Myers mount. He used the side-on view to show where two strides short of the winning post Ms Myers was forced to ease, allegedly as a result of Mr Parke’s inward movement. Mr Goodwin said Ms Myers finished in a dead heat for fourth place. In response to a question from the Committee Mr Goodwin said Mr Parkes was only ¾ of a length clear of Ms Myers mount when he took her line.
Mr Parkes had no questions of Mr Goodwin.
Mr Oatham called Ms Myers, the rider of REILLY LINCOLN, as a witness for the Stewards. Ms Myers explained that over the final stages of the race she had a horse to her inside and Mr Parkes on her outside. Just short of the winning post she had to steady her mount slightly when Mr Parkes’ mount drifted in a little when only ¾ of a length clear. Prior to this she was racing free of interference. Ms Myers was unsure if the interference cost her mount the chance of finishing in fourth place in its own right.
Mr Parkes had no questions of Ms Myers.
The Committee requested Ms Myers to estimate, using the side on film, how far before the finish post she had to ease up on her mount. Upon viewing the film Ms Myers said it was two strides.
Mr Parkes played the head-on film and said although he had drifted inwards there was always a gap available for Ms Myers mount. He said that no contact had been made with her mount and even after the finish post there was still room for her. Mr Parkes maintained that Ms Myers anticipated him coming across and eased up of her own accord. He said in his opinion the interference was only one stride before the post and was very minor.
Mr Oatham summed up saying that prior to the incident Ms Myers was in clear racing room and entitled to a straight line of racing. Mr Parkes was at least two horse widths outside of her when his mount started to shift ground inwards. He made no attempt to straighten his mount up and continued to shift in until Ms Myers was forced to take a hold. The fact that there might still have been room for Ms Myers was largely irrelevant as she was entitled to remain on a straight line and it was not her obligation to shift ground for Mr Parkes. It was the view of the Stewards that Ms Myer’s mount lost ground as a result of the interference and had the incident not occurred Ms Myers would have held fourth place on her own.
Mr Parkes admitted shifting in but said, in his opinion, this did not affect Ms Myers at all as there was always room available to her.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee looked very carefully at all the films and had regard to all of the submissions. We found that Mr Parkes drifted inwards while his mount was under a hard ride. He moved in front of Ms Myers mount when not the required distance clear and made no attempt to straighten his line of running. Ms Myers was forced to ease with the films showing her turning her horses’ head away from the heels of Mr Parkes’ mount. There was some discussion about where the interference occurred but after viewing the side-on film we were satisfied that it took place approximately two strides prior to the winning post.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham advised the hearing that Mr Parkes had two suspensions for careless riding in the last 12 months. These were in March and April of last year so some time ago. Mr Oatham considered Mr Parkes to have a relatively good record. The Stewards viewed todays breach as sitting at the lower end of the scale but an aggravating factor was the Group 1 status of the race. He highlighted the difference in prize money to the owners and punters of Ms Myer’s mount dead heating for fourth place. The Stewards submission for penalty was a suspension in the vicinity of five to six days.
Mr Parkes asked the Committee to consider his very good record and said he was one of the busiest riders in the country. He advised of riding commitments next Saturday at Wellington.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Judicial Committee Penalty Guide provides that the starting point for penalties imposed for careless riding is a five day suspension. We could not be certain that the interference suffered by Ms Myers affected the dead heat for fourth therefore it was our opinion that the only aggravating factor in today’s breach was the Group 1 Status of the race for which we applied an uplift of one day.
It is nine months since Mr Parkes was last suspended for careless riding. Taking into account his good record and the low level of the incident we have reduced the suspension to one of five days. There was some discussion with Mr Parkes, his agent Mr Bevan Sweeney, and the RIU as to where his upcoming race days were.
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: 387729d2b5cf662a9995999aecb887a6
informantnumber: A8663
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 23/01/2017
hearing_title: Wellington RC 21 January 2017 - R 8 - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 8, JR & N Berkett Telegraph, an Information was lodged by Mr J Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1) (d). The information alleged that J Parkes allowed his mount to shift in over the concluding stages when not sufficiently clear of REILLY LINCOLN causing interference to that runner.
Mr Parkes confirmed he understood the charge and that he did not admit the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Oatham asked Mr Goodwin to outline the incident by way of the films. He showed the final stages of the race with Mr Parke’s position in the middle of the track and Ms Myers closer to the fence racing free of any interference. Mr Goodwin highlighted the vigorous riding style of Mr Parkes as his mount drifted inwards into the line of Ms Myers mount. He used the side-on view to show where two strides short of the winning post Ms Myers was forced to ease, allegedly as a result of Mr Parke’s inward movement. Mr Goodwin said Ms Myers finished in a dead heat for fourth place. In response to a question from the Committee Mr Goodwin said Mr Parkes was only ¾ of a length clear of Ms Myers mount when he took her line.
Mr Parkes had no questions of Mr Goodwin.
Mr Oatham called Ms Myers, the rider of REILLY LINCOLN, as a witness for the Stewards. Ms Myers explained that over the final stages of the race she had a horse to her inside and Mr Parkes on her outside. Just short of the winning post she had to steady her mount slightly when Mr Parkes’ mount drifted in a little when only ¾ of a length clear. Prior to this she was racing free of interference. Ms Myers was unsure if the interference cost her mount the chance of finishing in fourth place in its own right.
Mr Parkes had no questions of Ms Myers.
The Committee requested Ms Myers to estimate, using the side on film, how far before the finish post she had to ease up on her mount. Upon viewing the film Ms Myers said it was two strides.
Mr Parkes played the head-on film and said although he had drifted inwards there was always a gap available for Ms Myers mount. He said that no contact had been made with her mount and even after the finish post there was still room for her. Mr Parkes maintained that Ms Myers anticipated him coming across and eased up of her own accord. He said in his opinion the interference was only one stride before the post and was very minor.
Mr Oatham summed up saying that prior to the incident Ms Myers was in clear racing room and entitled to a straight line of racing. Mr Parkes was at least two horse widths outside of her when his mount started to shift ground inwards. He made no attempt to straighten his mount up and continued to shift in until Ms Myers was forced to take a hold. The fact that there might still have been room for Ms Myers was largely irrelevant as she was entitled to remain on a straight line and it was not her obligation to shift ground for Mr Parkes. It was the view of the Stewards that Ms Myer’s mount lost ground as a result of the interference and had the incident not occurred Ms Myers would have held fourth place on her own.
Mr Parkes admitted shifting in but said, in his opinion, this did not affect Ms Myers at all as there was always room available to her.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee looked very carefully at all the films and had regard to all of the submissions. We found that Mr Parkes drifted inwards while his mount was under a hard ride. He moved in front of Ms Myers mount when not the required distance clear and made no attempt to straighten his line of running. Ms Myers was forced to ease with the films showing her turning her horses’ head away from the heels of Mr Parkes’ mount. There was some discussion about where the interference occurred but after viewing the side-on film we were satisfied that it took place approximately two strides prior to the winning post.
Decision:
Accordingly we found the charge of careless riding proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham advised the hearing that Mr Parkes had two suspensions for careless riding in the last 12 months. These were in March and April of last year so some time ago. Mr Oatham considered Mr Parkes to have a relatively good record. The Stewards viewed todays breach as sitting at the lower end of the scale but an aggravating factor was the Group 1 status of the race. He highlighted the difference in prize money to the owners and punters of Ms Myer’s mount dead heating for fourth place. The Stewards submission for penalty was a suspension in the vicinity of five to six days.
Mr Parkes asked the Committee to consider his very good record and said he was one of the busiest riders in the country. He advised of riding commitments next Saturday at Wellington.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Judicial Committee Penalty Guide provides that the starting point for penalties imposed for careless riding is a five day suspension. We could not be certain that the interference suffered by Ms Myers affected the dead heat for fourth therefore it was our opinion that the only aggravating factor in today’s breach was the Group 1 Status of the race for which we applied an uplift of one day.
It is nine months since Mr Parkes was last suspended for careless riding. Taking into account his good record and the low level of the incident we have reduced the suspension to one of five days. There was some discussion with Mr Parkes, his agent Mr Bevan Sweeney, and the RIU as to where his upcoming race days were.
penalty:
Accordingly Mr Parkes is suspended from riding from the close of racing on Saturday January 28th up to and including racing on February 10th.
This will encompass meetings on:
29/1/17 - Auckland
1/2/17 - Hastings
4/2/17 - Waikato
6/2/17 - Wairarapa
10/2/17 - Taranaki
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr J Parkes - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: b6bba5f21f077189fc4b9cf25d06792e
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 75247843ca9fe69948b6a150d91b73c1
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 21/01/2017
meet_title: Wellington RC - 21 January 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wellington-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: RMcKenzie
meet_pm2: none
name: Wellington RC