Wellington RC 18 March 2023 (heard 22 March 2023 at Pukekohe) – R8 – Joe Doyle

Introduction

Following the running of Race 8, the Group 1 New Zealand Oaks ($450,000), Class A Rider Joe Doyle was charged with careless riding pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Information alleged that as the Rider of FABULOUS GAL, he permitted his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of SAVACAT which was crowded onto PENNYWEKA which made contact with the running rail for a distance near the 1900 metres.

Due to Mr Doyle having left the course, the Steward’s investigation into the incident was opened and adjourned. As a result, the Respondent and other Riders involved were interviewed at the Auckland TR meeting at Pukekohe on 22 March 2023.

The charge was heard following the last race at Pukekohe.

The Rule

Rule 638(1)(d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Adjudicative Committee considers to be careless.

Plea

The Respondent acknowledged he understood the Rule and endorsed the Information I do not admit the breach of the rule.

Objection raised by Respondent

The procedure for the conduct of a defended hearing was explained to Mr Doyle. He was advised that he was permitted to ask questions (cross examine) the Applicant’s witnesses and that he would be given the opportunity the present his defence following the Applicant’s case. Also, both the Applicant and the Respondent were advised that they would be given the opportunity to sum up their respective cases.

Shortly after Mr Jones commenced to outline who he intended to call as witnesses, Mr Doyle raised an objection to the Stewards presenting the race films. He said that he would prefer the films to be demonstrated by the Stewards who were on-duty on the day of the incident at the Wellington RC. He said this was because they would have a better appreciation of the track conditions on that raceday. For that reason alone, he sought an adjournment of the hearing until the race meeting at Awapuni on 1 April 2023.

When probed by the Adjudicative Committee about this, Mr Doyle conceded that he had no objections concerning the Stewards’ competency or their ability to present the race films. He also agreed that he was not disadvantaged in his defence by having the case dealt with immediately.

Having considered the Respondent’s request for an adjournment, it was denied for the following reasons:

1. All available witnesses were present and were waiting outside the Steward’s room to give their evidence.
2. There was no guarantee that those witnesses would necessarily be available at the Awapuni meeting on 1 April 2023.
3. The Respondent’s grounds for objecting to the Stewards presenting the films were not compelling and not a sufficient enough reason to adjourn the hearing. It is for the stewards to decide who presents their interpretation of a racing incident – not the Respondent unless there is a credible basis for such an objection.
4. The Respondent accepted that he was not disadvantaged in his defence by having the matter dealt with immediately.
5. Adjudicative Committees should not only follow natural justice and fairness principles but also, they have an obligation to ensure that hearings are dealt with expeditiously. Therefore, on this occasion, in the absence of any sound reasons, the Respondent’s request for an adjournment was denied.

Evidence

Mr Jones advised that he proposed to call three witnesses to prove the charge, namely: Stipendiary Steward Mrs Selvakumaran, to present the race films of the alleged incident, the Rider of SAVACAT Mr Cameron Lammas, and the Rider of PENNYWEKA Mr Ryan Elliot.

Witness – Mrs Selvakumaran

Using the available race films, Mrs Selvakumaran demonstrated the incident and identified the horses and Riders concerned, namely FABULOUS GAL, SAVACAT and PENNYWEKA. The available films/cameras included turn camera (rear-on), back straight camera and overhead drone footage.

Mrs Selvakumaran pointed out that as the field approached the 1900-metre mark, FABULOUS GAL was racing four off the fence and Mr Doyle was looking to angle in. She said that in doing so, Mr Doyle has allowed his mount to dictate SAVACAT inwards on to PENNYWEKA who was forced onto the running rail.

Mrs Selvakumaran demonstrated that when Mr Doyle shifted in he was barely a length clear of SAVACAT. Mrs Selvakumaran showed the various camera angles of the incident.

Mr Doyle did not ask Mrs Selvakumaran any questions concerning her interpretation of the incident.

Witness – Mr Elliot

Mr Elliot confirmed that he was the Rider of PENNYWEKA. He stated that near the 1900-metres, he was racing on the fence and commenced to receive pressure from the horse on his outer (SAVACAT). As a result, he said that his mount hit the running rail for a few strides. At the time, he did not know which horse caused the pressure.

Mr Doyle did not ask Mr Elliot any questions arising from his evidence.

Witness – Mr Lammas

Mr Lammas confirmed that he was the Rider of SAVACAT. He stated that as he approached the first bend out of the home straight, he was racing one off on the outer of PENNYWEKA and “things got tight” going into the bend. He said that he had to put pressure on Mr Ryan’s mount because he was receiving pressure from the horse on his outer. He identified that horse as being Mr Doyle’s mount, FABULOUS GAL. He said the pressure received was the result of Mr Doyle “trying to slot in”.

Mr Doyle did not ask Mr Lammas any questions arising from his evidence.

Respondent – Mr Doyle

It was Mr Doyle’s evidence that he was not trying to “slot in”. He said that a gap appeared on his inside and he shifted into it. He said that there was no pressure on Mr Ryan’s mount when it made contact with the running rail. He said that it was relevant that the race was for 3-year-old fillies and there were 17 horses racing into the first bend out of the straight. He accepted that things got a “bit tight” but he reiterated that Mr Ryan had hit the running rail before being placed under pressure.

In his evidence Mr Doyle stated that “my filly has taken half a step in, and I may have added slightly to the perceived interference…but I was not the cause of it …it was happening before I got involved”.

Summing up – Mr Jones

Mr Jones submitted that the films demonstrate the incident and at the point of where SAVACAT and PENNYWEKA were tightened, Mr Doyle was not sufficiently clear. Mr Jones said that the witnesses Mr Elliot and Mr Lammas were clear in their evidence as to what had occurred.

Summing up – Mr Doyle

Mr Doyle submitted that he did not believe his actions amounted to careless riding.

Decision and Reasons

After reviewing the race films and evaluating the evidence, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved to the requisite standard.

A Rider is deemed to be careless when he or she fails to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference or causes interference by misjudgement or mistake. The test being whether the Rider exercised the degree of care and attention that a Rider would exercise if placed in the same circumstances. On this occasion, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that Mr Doyle did not exercise the necessary care required of him under the circumstances.

The evidence of Mrs Selvakumaran with the support of the race films, clearly showed that Mr Doyle shifted inwards near the 1900 metres, dictating SAVACAT on to PENNYWEKA. Mr Lammas, the Rider of SAVACAT identified FABULOUS GAL ridden by Mr Doyle as being the horse on his outer, who placed pressure on his mount. Mr Elliot said that his horse was forced onto the running rail.

Mr Doyle argued that interference suffered by PENNYWEKA occurred prior to any movement inwards on his part. He said that he never intended to shift in. However, he did not offer any alternative explanation as to what his intentions were. If he was not intending to seek cover, his mount would have ended up four-wide without cover. His only other option may have been to press forward but that too would have kept his mount out wide down the back straight. On that basis, it does seem logical that he would have been looking to ease in, as was suggested by Mrs Selvakumaran. Furthermore, Mr Doyle did not question (cross examine) any of the three witnesses. Their evidence was therefore uncontested. It is also compelling that Mr Doyle accepted that his “filly has taken a step in” and that he “may have added slightly to the perceived interference”.

Guidance can be taken from Rule 642(2)(b) which relates to ‘interference’ for the purpose of Rules 637 and 642:

(b) interference is defined as:
(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;

In conclusion, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that Mr Doyle did permit his mount to shift in slightly, which resulted in pressure being placed on SAVACAT and PENNYWEKA, who hit the running rail.

Penalty Submissions

Mr Jones produced the Respondent’s riding record which indicated two previous breaches under the Careless Riding Rule in the last 12 months, namely:

18/1/23 at Waikato – 5 days suspension
21/01/23 at Auckland TR (Karaka Million) – 10 days suspension

The Respondent has had 260 mounts in the past 12 months. He commenced race riding in New Zealand in early November 2022.

Mr Jones said Stewards assessed the level of carelessness to be low range. He added this was New Zealand’s premier Group 1, 3-year-old fillies’ race and that this should be considered when assessing penalty.

The Respondent sought a deferment until after racing on 1 April 2023 to any proposed suspension. In terms of penalty, he submitted that he is a busy Rider and is doing his best to adapt to New Zealand Racing. He said that it was a 17-horse field of 3-year-old fillies who all raced into an acute bend out of the home straight.

Reasons for Penalty

After considering all submissions, the Adjudicative Committee determined the Respondent’s carelessness to be low-range and adopted a 5 day (suspension) as the starting point.

The available films clearly demonstrate that the Respondent did shift in, but the shift was not abrupt and although SAVACAT was dictated inward as a consequence, there was no direct contact between FABULOUS GAL and SAVACAT. PENNYWEKA did hit the running rail, but ultimately that had little bearing on the outcome of the race, because PENNYWEKA won the race by a significant margin, albeit that does not absolve Mr Doyle from culpability.

This being the Respondent’s third breach within the 12-month reset period, his record is treated as a neutral factor. Although Mr Doyle defended the charge, which he is entitled to do, no credit can be given for a guilty plea.

Pursuant to Rule 920(2) a 3-day uplift is applied to the 5-day starting point, due to the race status, a Group 1 with $450,000 stake money.

After consideration of the above factors, an 8-day suspension was imposed.

Conclusion

The Respondent is granted a deferment and his licence to ride in races is suspended for a period of 8 days, commencing after racing on 1 April 2023 and concluding after racing on 15 April 2023.