Whangarei RC 16 May 2012 – R 6
ID: JCA18046
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Whangarei RC - 16 May 2012
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
RSeabrook
Race Date:
2012/05/16
Race Number:
R 6
Decision:
Because Mr Nolan was not the required distance clear of Mrs Satherley when moving in, we find the charge proved.
Penalty:
Mr Nolan’s request to seek a deferment to his suspension as per rule 1106(2) was granted.
Accordingly, we impose a suspension on Mr Nolan which will commence after racing on 21 May 2012 and conclude after racing on 28 May 2012 (5 days).
Charge:
Careless riding.
Facts:
Following race 6, an information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The informant, Mr J Oatham alleged that Mr DB Nolan permitted his mount UNO FIVE to shift inwards near the 1100 metres when not sufficiently clear, dictating FORTY TWENTY (L Satherley) inwards crowding THE TIDY EXPRESS (J Waddell) which was checked.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Robinson demonstrated the incident by using all the available films. He pointed out to the committee on the head on films that Mr Nolan shifted in from a 5 wide position to a position of 3 off the rail. However, in doing so, Mr Nolan placed pressure onto Mrs Satherley’s mount which was racing on his inside. This resulted in Mr Waddell’s mount, which was racing to her inside, receiving a severe check. Mr Robinson demonstrated on the side on film that Mr Nolan was only a bare neck clear of Mrs Satherley when shifting in.
Mr Nolan did not have questions of Mr Robinson’s interpretation of the incident.
Mr Oatham called Mr Waddell as a witness. Mr Waddell explained to the committee that he was racing in a position with 1 horse on his inside and 3 horses on his outside. He observed that the outside horses were moving into his running line and as a result he had to take evasive action to avoid putting the horse on his inside over the running rail. He said the interference he received meant his mount was “spat out the back”.
Mr Nolan did not have any questions of Mr Waddell’s interpretation of the incident.
Mrs Satherley was called by Mr Oatham as a witness. She told the committee that she received pressure from Mr Nolan’s mount which was racing on her outside. This pressure she believed went on for a while when Mr Nolan was only ½ a length clear of her, the end result being that she was “spat out of a position”.
Mr Nolan did not have any questions of Mrs Satherley’s interpretation of the incident.
Mr Nolan said he firmly believed he hadn’t caused Mrs Satherley to move in, he said that she had over reacted. He demonstrated on the head on film that he was following Ms Spratt who was racing directly in front of him in a 3 wide position.
In response to a question from the committee, Mr Nolan acknowledged that Ms Spratt whom he was following had 2 horses on her inside. However, Mr Nolan conceded in his situation the films showed that there were 3 horses racing in tight quarters on his inside.
Mr Oatham in summing up said that the films are very clear, Mr Nolan applied pressure to runners on his inner. He said the films showed that Mrs Satherley did not have any option to move out and relieve the pressure as Mr Nolan was not the required distance clear when shifting in. However, Mr Oatham did concede that the final movement by Mrs Satherley made the check to Mr Waddell’s mount look worse.
Mr Nolan when given the opportunity to sum up had nothing further to say.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee carefully considered all of the evidence as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times we established that Mr Nolan has erred in shifting in when only half a length clear of Mrs Satherley. This inward movement resulted in tightening to 3 runners on his inner with THE TIDY EXPRESS receiving a severe check and losing valuable ground. The angle in which Mr Nolan moved in was the reason for the crowding and the following interference.
We looked at the defendant’s evidence, however the video films did not support his interpretation of the incident. We did however, note that Mrs Satherley contributed to the final part of the interference.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham produced Mr Nolan's record which showed 5 previous breaches of this rule in the last 12 months. He submitted that Mr Nolan’s carelessness was ‘mid range’ and Mr Waddell's mount received a severe check. He believed an appropriate penalty was a 5 to 6 day suspension.
Mr Nolan informed the committee that he had firm commitments at Te Aroha on 21 May 2012. He requested a deferment to his suspension. He advised the committee that he rode all over the country.
Mr Nolan when questioned admitted to the committee that he was not intending to ride at Gore on 22 May 2012.
Reasons for Penalty:
The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The mitigating factor in our view was that Mrs Satherley did contribute to the final part of the interference which resulted in Mr Waddell receiving a severe check. We assess the level of carelessness to be ‘mid range’. We believe Mr Nolan's record can only be described as fair. The appropriate period of suspension for this breach was assessed at 6 days, however, we reduced the suspension by 1 day because of the mitigating factor.
We note that Mr Nolan was not intending to ride at Gore on the 22nd May 2012, so therefore this date is not included in his suspension.
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: e6cc9da814baebf40f404a07309e7f35
informantnumber: A4505
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 06/05/2012
hearing_title: Whangarei RC 16 May 2012 - R 6
charge:
Careless riding.
facts:
Following race 6, an information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The informant, Mr J Oatham alleged that Mr DB Nolan permitted his mount UNO FIVE to shift inwards near the 1100 metres when not sufficiently clear, dictating FORTY TWENTY (L Satherley) inwards crowding THE TIDY EXPRESS (J Waddell) which was checked.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Robinson demonstrated the incident by using all the available films. He pointed out to the committee on the head on films that Mr Nolan shifted in from a 5 wide position to a position of 3 off the rail. However, in doing so, Mr Nolan placed pressure onto Mrs Satherley’s mount which was racing on his inside. This resulted in Mr Waddell’s mount, which was racing to her inside, receiving a severe check. Mr Robinson demonstrated on the side on film that Mr Nolan was only a bare neck clear of Mrs Satherley when shifting in.
Mr Nolan did not have questions of Mr Robinson’s interpretation of the incident.
Mr Oatham called Mr Waddell as a witness. Mr Waddell explained to the committee that he was racing in a position with 1 horse on his inside and 3 horses on his outside. He observed that the outside horses were moving into his running line and as a result he had to take evasive action to avoid putting the horse on his inside over the running rail. He said the interference he received meant his mount was “spat out the back”.
Mr Nolan did not have any questions of Mr Waddell’s interpretation of the incident.
Mrs Satherley was called by Mr Oatham as a witness. She told the committee that she received pressure from Mr Nolan’s mount which was racing on her outside. This pressure she believed went on for a while when Mr Nolan was only ½ a length clear of her, the end result being that she was “spat out of a position”.
Mr Nolan did not have any questions of Mrs Satherley’s interpretation of the incident.
Mr Nolan said he firmly believed he hadn’t caused Mrs Satherley to move in, he said that she had over reacted. He demonstrated on the head on film that he was following Ms Spratt who was racing directly in front of him in a 3 wide position.
In response to a question from the committee, Mr Nolan acknowledged that Ms Spratt whom he was following had 2 horses on her inside. However, Mr Nolan conceded in his situation the films showed that there were 3 horses racing in tight quarters on his inside.
Mr Oatham in summing up said that the films are very clear, Mr Nolan applied pressure to runners on his inner. He said the films showed that Mrs Satherley did not have any option to move out and relieve the pressure as Mr Nolan was not the required distance clear when shifting in. However, Mr Oatham did concede that the final movement by Mrs Satherley made the check to Mr Waddell’s mount look worse.
Mr Nolan when given the opportunity to sum up had nothing further to say.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee carefully considered all of the evidence as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times we established that Mr Nolan has erred in shifting in when only half a length clear of Mrs Satherley. This inward movement resulted in tightening to 3 runners on his inner with THE TIDY EXPRESS receiving a severe check and losing valuable ground. The angle in which Mr Nolan moved in was the reason for the crowding and the following interference.
We looked at the defendant’s evidence, however the video films did not support his interpretation of the incident. We did however, note that Mrs Satherley contributed to the final part of the interference.
Decision:
Because Mr Nolan was not the required distance clear of Mrs Satherley when moving in, we find the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham produced Mr Nolan's record which showed 5 previous breaches of this rule in the last 12 months. He submitted that Mr Nolan’s carelessness was ‘mid range’ and Mr Waddell's mount received a severe check. He believed an appropriate penalty was a 5 to 6 day suspension.
Mr Nolan informed the committee that he had firm commitments at Te Aroha on 21 May 2012. He requested a deferment to his suspension. He advised the committee that he rode all over the country.
Mr Nolan when questioned admitted to the committee that he was not intending to ride at Gore on 22 May 2012.
reasonsforpenalty:
The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The mitigating factor in our view was that Mrs Satherley did contribute to the final part of the interference which resulted in Mr Waddell receiving a severe check. We assess the level of carelessness to be ‘mid range’. We believe Mr Nolan's record can only be described as fair. The appropriate period of suspension for this breach was assessed at 6 days, however, we reduced the suspension by 1 day because of the mitigating factor.
We note that Mr Nolan was not intending to ride at Gore on the 22nd May 2012, so therefore this date is not included in his suspension.
penalty:
Mr Nolan’s request to seek a deferment to his suspension as per rule 1106(2) was granted.
Accordingly, we impose a suspension on Mr Nolan which will commence after racing on 21 May 2012 and conclude after racing on 28 May 2012 (5 days).
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr DB Nolan - Licensed Rider
Otherperson: Mr W Robinson - Stipendiary Steward, Mrs L Slatherley - Rider of FORTY TWENTY, Mr J Waddell - Rider of THE TIDY EXPRESS
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 10d38831a9b063b31231de74c6eca254
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: e829fcf7b1f95d2e616df7b6b697578f
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 16/05/2012
meet_title: Whangarei RC - 16 May 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: whangarei-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: RSeabrook
meet_pm2: none
name: Whangarei RC