R Te Aroha 12 November 2024 – R7 (heard 19 November 2024 at Rotorua) – Kevin Stott

Background:

Following the running of Race 7 at Te Aroha on Tuesday 12 November, Class A Rider Mr K Stott (ALAVISTO), elected to defend a charge of Careless Riding. Due to travel commitments, the hearing was adjourned by the Adjudicator.

The hearing was reconvened and was heard before the first race at Rotorua Racecourse on Tuesday 19 November 2024.

Evidence:

Mr A Dooley Senior Stipendiary Steward, Racing Integrity Board produced Information No. A18789 relating to race 7 at the Racing Te Aroha meeting on Tuesday 12 November 2024.

Mr K Stott defended the charge of careless riding in that he permitted his mount ALAVISTO to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of STAPHEE which clipped a heel and fell dislodging its rider, near the 350 metres. 

Mr Stott acknowledged that he understood the Rule, the nature of the charge and confirmed that he would defend the charge.

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

At the start of the hearing, as Mr Stott had only been riding in New Zealand for a short time (since 28 October 2024) and this was his first appearance at a Raceday Hearing, the Adjudicative Committee took time to explain the process that is followed for a defended hearing.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Dooley advised the Adjudicative Committee that he intended to call three witnesses to prove the charge: namely Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones, the Rider of STAPHEE – Mr S Weatherley, and the Rider of FIRA – Ms J Fawcett.

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, being ALAVISTO – K Stott, STAPHEE – S Weatherley and FIRA – Ms J Fawcett.

Mr Jones identified two instances where ALAVISTO shifted ground inwards in the home straight.  The first incident, Mr Stott took corrective action to straighten ALAVISTO. However, on the second occasion, he continued to ride his horse out with vigour, when insufficiently clear of STAPHEE, ultimately causing that horse to clip heels and fall. Mr Jones said it was the Stewards’ contention that when ALAVISTO shifted into the line of STAPHEE, it was never any more than a length clear of that runner, and that Mr Stott should have stopped riding his horse out and taken action to straighten his horse.

Mr Jones also stated that Ms Fawcett’s mount (FIRA), which raced on the outside of ALAVISTO, was not a contributor to the incident. There was always daylight between ALAVISTO and FIRA, as illustrated on the front and back on cameras.

In answer to questions from Mr Stott, Mr Jones restated that in the Stewards’ view, Mr Stott should have stopped riding forward and taken action to straighten his mount. There was sufficient room between his horse and Ms Fawcett’s horse FIRA, on his outside, for him to have taken such action.

Witness S Weatherley

Mr Weatherley, confirmed that he was the Rider of STAPHEE. He stated that he had a clear run on the inside of ALAVISTO, when that horse moved one out, rounding the home bend. ALAVISTO then moved inwards and Mr Weatherley said he was hesitant, but Mr Stott straightened his mount, and the gap again became available. Mr Weatherley had established himself into the gap, when ALAVISTO again moved inwards, with the result that STAPHEE clipped heels and fell.

In answer to questions from Mr Dooley, Mr Weatherley confirmed that there was a gap inside ALAVISTO. He also confirmed that ALAVISTO was never a full length clear of his mount, STAPHEE.

Mr Stott asked Mr Weatherley whether his horse was going well enough to go through the gap? Mr Weatherley said he thought it was, but it ran out of room when ALAVISTO moved inwards, resulting in the fall.

Mr Stott raised a question about a comment Mr Weatherley made at Te Aroha immediately after the race, about coming across the heels of ALAVISTO. Mr Dooley advised that it was a comment from a Jockey who had just fallen. The Stewards had viewed the footage, and it was clear that STAPHEE had run straight and never attempted to come across the heels of ALAVISTO.

Witness Ms Fawcett

Ms Fawcett was confirmed as the Rider of FIRA, which was on the outside of ALAVISTO during the incident. In answer to questions from Mr Dooley, Ms Fawcett advised that her horse was weakening. She further advised that at no time during the running, had FIRA made contact with ALAVISTO, and her horse had not dictated ALAVISTO inwards. She noted that the films showed there was always a gap between the two runners.

In answer to questions from Mr Stott, she reiterated that her horse was not hanging, but was weakening. When asked why she had her whip in her right hand, she said it was because she was right-handed.

For the record, Ms Fawcett was thanked for coming to the hearing, as she was currently suspended and had no rides on the day.

Respondent Mr K Stott

Mr Stott said that his mount was inexperienced, having only its third start and was a very big horse with a long stride, which had difficulty negotiating the bend. He considered Te Aroha to be a tight track, which did not help. When his mount first shifted in, he took corrective action, pointing to his raised left arm, as he corrected his horse. His whip was in his left hand, which was appropriate when riding on a right-handed track.

He considered that Ms Fawcett’s mount FIRA, was pressuring his mount and did bump it around the bend. This pressure continued and it forced his horse inwards a second time, which took ALAVISTO into STAPHEE’s line. He did not have room to move out, because of this pressure. The result was that STAPHEE clipped heels and fell.

Assisted by Mr Booth, he argued that other factors involved that needed to be considered, included the front on film, which he contended showed the front straight fence was not absolutely straight, which made the inside gap variable. He also contended that when viewing the back on film, it showed that there was insufficient room for Mr Weatherley’s horse to come through on the inside.

Summing up

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

1.  That Mr Stott had moved one off the rail allowing Mr Weatherley to move forward and take the run in that gap.

2.  The Stewards accepted that Mr Stott did initially straighten his horse when it first commenced to move inwards. The mistake Mr Stott made was that he then continued to vigorously ride out his mount and did not correct it when it moved in again.

3.  When ALAVISTO shifted in the second time, it was never more than a length clear of STAPHEE, as evidenced by the fact that STAPHEE clipped heels and fell. Riders have an obligation to be at least their own and one other length clear, when shifting ground.

4.  In the Stewards’ view, Ms Fawcett’s mount did not make any contact with Mr Stott’s mount and was not exerting outside pressure. There was always daylight between ALAVISTO and FIRA. Ms Fawcett was not a contributing factor to the fall.

5.  There was always sufficient room for STAPHEE to come through inside ALAVISTO, until that horse moved into its line.

6.  Mr Dooley advised that Te Aroha was not a tight track and was considered a larger track in New Zealand standards.

In summing up his case, Mr Stott submitted:

1.  That he believed he took all the necessary action to straighten his mount.

2.  His mount was inexperienced and had difficulty negotiating around the Te Aroha bend.

3.  That the back on camera indicated that there was not always sufficient room for Mr Weatherley to come through inside ALAVISTO.

4.  In terms of the second inwards movement, this was caused by Ms Fawcett’s mount (FIRA) dictating his mount inwards and was the major contributor to the incident.

Decision and Reasons

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 Riders cross, they must be their own length and one other clear, as is indicated in clause (i) of the definition.

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 Mr Stott 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 misjudgment 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 Stott did not exercise the necessary care required of him under the circumstances.

The films clearly establish that ALAVISTO moved to race one out rounding the bend into the home straight. Mr Weatherley on STAPHEE, commenced to improve into the gap inside ALAVISTO, which he was entitled to do.  ALAVISTO then moved inwards, and Mr Weatherley stopped riding momentarily. Mr Stott initially corrected this movement and straightened STAPHEE to again, being one out. Mr Weatherley, as he was entitled to do, then continued to ride STAPHEE into the gap inside ALAVISTO.

ALAVISTO then moved inwards again into STAPHEE’s line. On this occasion, Mr Stott continued to vigorously ride the horse out and did not take corrective action as he was required to do, as he was not his own length plus one length clear of STAPHEE.

The Adjudicative Committee did not accept Mr Stott’s contention that he was dictated inwards by Ms Fawcett’s mount FIRA and his mount was bumped and intimidated by FIRA. The front on and rear films both clearly showed there was always daylight between ALAVISTO and FIRA. The films also clearly showed that there was a gap for STAPHEE to take.

The charge is therefore proved.

Penalty Submissions

Mr Dooley explained that the starting point from the Penalty Guide for careless riding causing a fall, was a 4 week suspension. He provided a copy of more recent Decisions and penalties.

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

Mr Dooley submitted that Mr Stott had a very good record. While he had had only 45 rides in New Zealand, it was established that this was his first breach of the Careless Riding Rule since February 2022.

In response, Mr Stott asked the Adjudicative Committee to take into account his good record and as a mitigating circumstance, the pressure his horse was under from the outside.

Reasons for Penalty

Falls arising from Careless Riding are relatively rare.  The following cases from 2022 onwards, were provided as examples by the Stewards:

C Barnes – 19/3/22 – 4 weeks

O Bosson – 15/10/2022 – 6 weeks (Group 3 Race)

K Williams – 24/02/2023 – 4 weeks

N Hailey – 15/6/2024 – 4 weeks

W Pinn – 7/7/2024 – 4 weeks

Each case turns on its own facts, these cases were useful to the extent, they enabled a framework for ensuring consistency in penalty decision-making.

Mr Stott was entitled to defend the charge, but he cannot be given any credit that he may otherwise have received, had he admitted the breach.

The Adjudicative Committee has assessed the level of carelessness to be in the low to mid-range. Mr Stott’s riding history is treated as a mitigating factor, his record is extremely good. The Adjudicative Committee determined a reduction of one week from the 4 week starting point was appropriate, in recognition of Mr Stott’s excellent record.

To summarise, after considering all the circumstances, the Adjudicative Committee determined a 3 week suspension to be an appropriate penalty.

The Adjudicative Committee agreed to Mr Stott’s request for a deferment of the penalty until the conclusion of racing this Saturday (23 November), as he has riding engagements at Pukekohe.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Mr Stott’s License to ride in races is suspended for a period of 3 weeks. This will commence on Sunday 24 November 2024 and will conclude after racing on Saturday 14 December 2024.