Auckland TR 7 November 2024 – R4 – Jasmine Fawcett

Introduction

Following the running of Race 4, Class A Rider Jasmine Fawcett, defended a careless riding charge which was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d).

Particulars of the charge

That (Rider J Fawcett) permitted her mount HORRIE to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of ROB’S MISTAKE (J Doyle), which was checked near the 150 metres. 

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.

Evidence

At the commencement of the hearing, Ms Fawcett confirmed that she wished to defend the charge. She endorsed the Information “I do not admit the breach of the rule.”

Stipendiary Steward Mr Dooley advised the Adjudicative Committee that he intended to call two witnesses to prove the charge: namely Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones and the Rider of ROB’S MISTAKE Mr J Doyle.

Witness Mr Jones

Using the available race films (head, side and rear-on), Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones demonstrated the alleged incident and identified the horses and Riders involved, namely HORRIE (Ms Fawcett), HARD ROCA (Mr Cartwright) and ROB’S MISTAKE (J Doyle).

Mr Jones firstly advised that there were two instances where HORRIE shifted ground in the home straight.  The first incident he referred to, occurred nearing the 250 metre mark where Ms Fawcett struck her mount, and it shifted in quite abruptly, making contact with HARD ROCA. Mr Jones said that she corrected her mount and after a further strike, it commenced to shift ground outwards, whilst being ridden forward.  Shortly thereafter, following another strike, HORRIE shifted inward abruptly, into the running line of ROB’S MISTAKE.

Mr Jones said it was the Stewards’ contention that when HORRIE shifted into the line of ROB’S MISTAKE, it was never any more than a length clear of that runner.  He said as a result, Mr Doyle had to check his mount off the heels of HORRIE.

Mr Jones also stated that given HORRIE’S wayward tendencies, particularly after making contact with HARD ROCA, a better option for Ms Fawcett would have been to stop riding forward with the whip.  He said that first incident involving HARD ROCA, should have been a warning signal to her, that her mount was not responding well when ridden forward with the whip. He said when she used her whip, her mount ran about, but despite this, she continued.

In response to questions from Ms Fawcett, Mr Jones reiterated that he believed her mount shifted when she used her whip.

Witness J Doyle

Mr Doyle, the Rider of ROB’S MISTAKE, said that he had a clear run on the inside of HORRIE, but it (HORRIE) “stepped out in front of …and on top of me”.  In response to questions from Ms Fawcett, he said he could see that HORRIE was wayward after it had checked HARD ROCA, but he believed there was a clear run that he was entitled to take.  When queried by Ms Fawcett, he accepted that HORRIE was a difficult ride for her. He also confirmed that when HORRIE took his line, it was not the required distance clear of his mount.

Respondent Ms Fawcett

Ms Fawcett said that her defence to the charge, was that she did not intend to shift ground, and her mount shifted on its own accord, due to its racing manners.  She also took issue with the charge suggesting that she “permitted” her mount to shift.

It was Ms Fawcett’s evidence that she did not permit HORRIE to shift.  She accepted that it did shift when she struck it with the whip, but said she could not have prevented the shift.  She said,  “I have done my best with a difficult ride”.  She pointed out that she had earlier struck her mount three times, and it continued to run straight.  She added that it was HORRIE’S first time racing in ‘blinkers’ and it veered away from other horses.

Summing up

In summing up the case for the Informant, Mr Dooley submitted:

1. That as a result of the first shift involving Mr Cartwright’s mount (HARD ROCA), Ms Fawcett should have been aware of her mount’s wayward tendencies.
2. That Ms Fawcett has failed to exercise the necessary level of care.
3. That Stewards are not suggesting that it was largely Ms Fawcett use of the whip when riding forward, that resulted in her mount to shift ground, but it was a contributing factor.
4. That Mr Doyle was entitled to take the run on the inside of HORRIE. He had a clear run, Ms Fawcett shifted when not clear and Mr Doyle had to take evasive action.

In summing up her case, Ms Fawcett submitted:

1. That she believed she took all the necessary action to straighten her mount.
2. That she straightened as soon as her mount shifted ground.
3. That Mr Doyle accepted her mount was a difficult ride.

Decision and Reasons

After reviewing the race films and evaluating the evidence, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved to the requisite standard, namely on the balance of probabilities.  This simply means it was more probable than not, that Ms Fawcett was in breach of the Careless Riding Rule.

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 Ms Fawcett did not exercise the necessary care required of her under the circumstances.

The films clearly establish that HORRIE was racing outside the leader into the home straight.  Near the 250 metres, HORRIE has shifted inward when weakening and after being struck with the whip.  HORRIE ‘ducked in’ and made contact with HARD ROCA.  HORRIE has then continued to weaken and drift outwards.  Again, after being struck with the whip, it shifted in abruptly, checking ROB’S MISTAKE.  Belated corrective action was taken. When shifting in, Ms Fawcett was never her own length and one other clear of ROB’S MISTAKE.

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;

(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or

(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.

The above definition of interference relates to Rules 637 and 642, but it is a well-established Rule of practice that when Rider’s cross, they must be their own length and one other clear as is indicated in clause (i) of the definition.

It was Ms Fawcett’s defence that her mount’s shifts onto HARD ROCA and ROB’S MISTAKE, were due to the horse’s greenness and because it was wearing blinkers for the first time.  It is the opinion of the Adjudicative Committee that, perhaps the first shift on to HARD ROCA could be excused, but from that point, Ms Fawcett should have been aware that her mount was wayward and not responding well, after being struck with the whip.  Despite this, she continued to ride forward and struck her mount on two further occasions, whilst it was drifting outward.  She did not exercise the level of care expected of a prudent Rider of her experience, under the circumstances.

The charge is therefore proved. It is accepted that HORRIE raced greenly when being placed under pressure, but that is a mitigating factor.

Penalty Submission and Reasons for Penalty

Mr Dooley submitted that this is Ms Fawcett’s third breach of the Careless Riding Rule within the past 12 months.  During that period, she has had 696 race rides.  Her most recent breach occurred on 5 November 2024 and Ms Fawcett is due to commence that suspension on 14/11/24 and it concludes after racing on 22/11/24.

Mr Dooley added that Stewards assessed this breach as being in the mid-range.

In response, Ms Fawcett asked the Adjudicative Committee to take into account her mount’s greenness.  She added that in hindsight, she accepted that she made a mistake.

Penalty and reasons

The Adjudicative Committee has assessed the level of carelessness to be in the low to mid-range, which has a starting point of 6 days suspension. Ms Fawcett’s riding history is treated as a neutral factor, but on a ratio of rides to breaches, her record remains relatively good. Ms Fawcett was entitled to defend the charge, but she cannot be given any credit that she may otherwise have received, had she admitted the breach.

After considering all the factors, the Adjudicative Committee determined a 6-day suspension to be an appropriate penalty.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Ms Fawcett’s License to ride in races is suspended for a period of 6 days. This will commence on 23 November 2024, being the day after her previous suspension expires, and will conclude after racing on 30 November 2024.