You are here: Home / Race Days / Wanganui JC - 30 November 2019 / Wanganui JC 30 November 2019 - R7 - Chair, Mr T Utikere

Wanganui JC 30 November 2019 - R7 - Chair, Mr T Utikere

Created on 02 December 2019

Committee:
TUtikere (chair)
NMoffatt
Name(s):
Mr D Bradley - Licensed Jockey
Mr D Balcombe - Stipendiary Steward
Mr R Hannam - Licensed Jockey - PLATINUM INVADOR
Miss Z Moki - Licensed Jockey - OVERTHERIVER
Informant
Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
Information Number
A11664
Plea:
Denied
Charge:
Careless Riding
Evidence:

Following the running of Race 7 (Steelform Roofing Group Wanganui Cup), Information A11664 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It alleged a breach of Rule 638(1)(d), in that : “...D Bradley allowed his mount YATIMA to shift in shortly after the start tightening and checking OVERTHERIVER and PLATINUM INVADOR”.

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 that he understood the Rule and admitted the breach.

Using the head-on film Mr D Balcolmbe identified that shortly after the start YATIMA (D Bradley) was positioned wide on the track, with OVERTHERIVER (Miss Z Moki) further in and PLATINUM INVADOR (R Hannam) one off the rail. Mr Bradley was improving and had angled his mount inwards on a “steep” angle and in doing so had tightened up both of those runners, causing both to check. He also used the side-on film to point out that Mr Bradley had made an attempt to pull his horse off. Whilst the rear-view was being played to the hearing, Mr Bradley indicated that he had not seen this view and now did not believe that he had made contact with Miss Moki’s horse and that his own horse’s head had in fact been turned very slightly outwards. In light of this, the Committee decided to adjourn the hearing so that Mr Bradley could review the necessary films and confirm his plea after he had the opportunity to do so.

When the Committee reconvened, Mr Bradley advised that he now wished to change his plea to one of not admitting the breach. The Committee permitted the change of plea and advised that matters would proceed as a Defended Hearing.

Submission For Decision:

Mr Goodwin called Mr Hannam as a witness. He confirmed that soon after the start he received pressure from his outside, which made matters tight for him until he was pushed over the heels of the horse inside of him ridden by Miss C Burdan. He confirmed that he had “got hammered” as his horse ran up the hind of Miss Burdan’s due to the contact he received from Miss Moki. He did not know who was on the outside of Miss Moki, and he originally thought that Miss Moki was responsible at the time.

Mr Bradley had no issues with Mr Hannam’s evidence.

Miss Moki then gave evidence. She confirmed that shortly after the start Mr Bradley had come over quite quickly and that she had felt a ‘bump’. This in turn caused her to bump into Mr Hannam. She said that her horse had blinkers on, but the bump had come from YATIMA’s back-end. She was unable to see another horse to the outside of Mr Bradley but was satisfied that he had caused the bump. Whilst the bump was not ‘hard’ it was enough to shift her. She had called to Mr Bradley and he had relieved the pressure after that.

Mr Bradley asked her to point out on the available films when the bump had occurred. Using the side-on film she conceded that it was “hard to see”. He used the films to point out that Mr Hannam and Miss Moki were brushing and touching prior to the alleged incident. He did not believe that Miss Moki’s horse had left her running line and that his defence was boosted by Mr Hannam’s view that he thought it was Miss Moki who was causing the problem. Mr Bradley could not see where he had made contact with Miss Moki and that he also had relieved any pressure he may have applied in time. He confirmed that he did come across abruptly after coming off the heels of MAUNA KEA but that his degree of care on this occasion did not warrant him being blamed for this incident.

In summary, Mr Goodwin said it was remiss of him to have not shown Mr Bradley the rear-view, and that whilst the visibility of the bump may have been obscured by SAMPSON, the evidence of Mr Hannam and Miss Moki had been compelling. He did not believe there had been any interference between Mr Hannam and Miss Moki, that Mr Hannam was simply trying to maintain his position and that it had been established, by way of the evidence, that contact was made between Mr Bradley and Miss Moki.

Mr Bradley had nothing new to add.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee considered all evidence and submissions and reviewed the available films in some detail. We concluded that the films were helpful to some degree. Our observations indicate that Mr Hannam and Miss Moki got very close immediately prior to Mr Bradley’s inwards movement. We accept that he came across quite quickly and believe the movement on his part to be abrupt in nature, which is evidenced by the extent of horse widths that he moved inwards from his original position wider on the track. Mr Hannam’s evidence is of limited assistance as it confirms the position of the runners and the nature of the contact between himself and Miss Moki; which is not in dispute. The point of contention is whether Mr Bradley in choosing to move inwards, made contact with Miss Moki as a result. The side-on film clearly demonstrates that Miss Moki called to him, and this supports the evidence she gave. Her evidence was clear in that she stated YATIMA’s rear bumped her horse which had the effect of sending her horse inwards, in what was limited space. There is nothing before us to indicate that her evidence in that regard should be rejected. As such, we form the view that contact following Mr Bradley’s inwards movement did occur and that led to tightening and the requirement for the riders of OVERTHERIVER and PLATINUM INVADOR to check their mounts.

Decision:

The Committee finds the charge proved. 

Submission For Penalty:

Mr Goodwin identified three suspensions within the last 12 months with the most recent two being at Invercargill in February. He believed Mr Bradley had a very good record in light of this. The RIU submitted the carelessness to be within the low range and that a term of suspension was appropriate.

Mr Bradley said he had made his submissions clear earlier in the hearing and wished for any period of suspension to commence immediately.

Reasons For Penalty:

The Committee considered all of the submissions placed before us. We place the level of carelessness at the low end. There was clearly a lot going on at the time of the incident, which we have described in our Reasons for Decision. Mr Bradley’s change in plea during the hearing had merit, and as such we understand why he wished to follow that course of action. He did take some corrective action, albeit a little too late on this occasion. We adopt the six day starting point for low-end carelessness as identified in the JCA Penalty Guidelines. In mitigation we consider his very good record under the Rule. On balance we consider a five days period of suspension as appropriate.

Penalty:

Mr Bradley is suspended from the close of racing on Saturday 30 November until the close of racing on Sunday 8 December 2019.

Document Actions