IIN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000 C. 20;
AND IN THE MATTER IN THE APPEAL OF
THOROUGHBRED JOCKEY CONSTANT MONTPELLIER
AND IN THE MATTER IN THE APPEAL OF
THOROUGHBRED OWNER/TRAINER DAVID COTEY
Thoroughbred Jockey Constant Montpellier appealed Ruling Number TB 3327/2005 by the Stewards issued August 14th, 2005 with respect to his ride on “Wewakiwoowho” during the running of the 8th race at Woodbine on August 13th, 2005. Owner/Trainer David Cotey also appealed the decision of the Stewards to disqualify the horse from first place and place it last. Jockey Montpellier was suspended for three days for coming in with his mount in the vicinity of the three-eighths pole, causing interference on several horses during the running of the race.
The appeals were dismissed by the thoroughbred division of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal and the appeal was carried forward to this Commission.
On April 19th, 2006, a panel of the Ontario Racing Commission consisting of Chair Lynda Tanaka, Commissioners David Gorman and George Kelly convened to hear the appeal.
Luisa Ritacca appeared at the hearing for the Administration and Dan McMahon appeared for Mr. Montpellier and Mr. Cotey.
On hearing the evidence of the appellants, Steward Gunner Lindberg, Jockeys Corey Fraser, Jonathan Jones and Patrick Husbands, and on reading and reviewing the exhibits filed, and on hearing the submissions of counsel, the panel dismissed the appeals, upheld the violations of Rule 11.07 and 11.09.01, upheld the three-day riding suspension of Constant Montpellier, and upheld the placing of the horse from first position to last place.
The Commission’s reasons for decision are attached to this Ruling.
DATED at Toronto this 1st day of May 2006.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
John L. Blakney
Executive Director
REASONS FOR DECISION
Thoroughbred Jockey Constant Montpellier appealed Ruling number TB 3327/2005 by the Stewards issued August 14, 2005 with respect to his ride on “Wewakiwoowho” during the running of the eighth race at Woodbine on August 13, 2005. Owner Trainer David Cotey also appealed the decision of the Stewards to disqualify the horse from first position and place it last. Jockey Montpellier was suspended for three days for coming in with his mount Wewakiwoowho in the vicinity of the three-eighths pole, causing interference on several horses during the running of the race. The appeals were dismissed by the Thoroughbred Division of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal and the appeal was carried forward to this Commission.
The Administration called to testify Steward Gunner Lindberg who was one of the Stewards on duty that day, jockeys Corey Fraser who rode the #3 horse Go Go Neigh and Jono Jones who rode the #6 horse Prettyatclosintime. The jockey Patrick Husbands also testified. He had claimed foul because of interference with his horse, the #4 Regal Mission.
Rule 11.07 provides as follows:
When clear, a horse may be taken to any part of the track but if the horse swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate or impede any other horse, such horse may be disqualified.
Rule 11.09.01 provides as follows:
If a horse or jockey bothers another horse or jockey, the aggressor may be disqualified provided that the bothered horse or jockey or an additional horse or any jockey/s was/were not a major contributor to the incident.
The interference complained of occurred in the first turn. The race was six furlongs starting on the backstretch. The jockeys are agreed that Montpellier was in the lead for most of the backstretch run to the turn and that he was gradually moving from the 5th lane where he started to the third lane from the rail in front of the field. During the backstretch run, Fraser’s horse the #3 was inside and just behind Montpellier’s horse. Husband’s horse, the #4 horse, was in the beginning behind but by the time the field approached the first turn, his horse had moved ahead of Fraser’s and his horse’s head was even with and moving forward of Montpellier’s horse’s left flank.
Montpellier moved his horse inside to take the lane across the path of Husbands and Fraser. Husbands had to take hold severely and in the process bumped sideways into the horse ridden by Jones who never recovered the pace due to being knocked by Husbands horse and being taken hold of by Jones to avoid a crash.
Montpellier blamed Husbands on the basis that there is an unwritten rule of the jockeys that you don’t “drive up into a turn”, that you are either “in there” or you stay back on the turn. To be “in there” means to have more of an overlap with the horse on the outside and in front than being up to his flank. His view was that Husbands had not made enough progress in coming up on his horse to be “in there” and that therefore he should have taken hold and waited back until Montpellier moved across the field. Jones testified that in his view Husbands was “in there”.
In essence Husbands was in a spot where it was difficult for Montpellier to see him and the position also made him vulnerable to a potential clipping of heels if the front horse moves too far inside on the turn. All the horses changed leads according to their riders appropriately at the turn. Most horses will lean on changing leads and moving into a turn, and will move inside unless their riders correct them on the turn to stay out and in their lanes.
Montpellier said that Husbands did not shout out or warn him that he was there. He was frank that he could have done something if he had known that Husbands was there. He said he knew Fraser was inside him and he knew there was a horse at his flank, which he assumed was Fraser’s. He did not know that both Fraser and Husbands were inside. He said he heard nothing by way of shouting or warning and all the jockeys agreed that there is a lot of communication out there between them to let each other know where there are hazards. Montpellier was in the lane third from the rail. He assumed that one other horse was inside his and therefore he could safely move inside by one lane, letting his horse naturally lean and move to the inside, without causing any danger since he was in the lead and only one other horse needed room between his horse and the rail. What caused the problem was that he did not check and did not know there were two horses to be accommodated inside his turn.
The questioning by counsel for the appellants indicated clearly that the interference call by the Stewards had generated considerable discussion among the jockeys, perhaps because it is often through the unwritten rules as to what constitutes safe riding that they look after their own and each other’s safety. The unwritten rule not to drive up into a turn or to either “be in” or to hold back is based on an appreciation of the hazards of the turns. In essence the unwritten rule is one of the ways that the jockey community removes potential hazards which arise when a rider wants to move out of his lane on the turn does not check behind that the way is clear. The unwritten rule recognizes that the extent to which the horse will move inside on changing leads and going into the turn is not always clear to the jockey before it happens. This unwritten Rule is not however in the Rules of Racing and there are frequently fields of horses that move around the turn with each one staying in their lane, rather than crossing in front of each other, and riders who check behind and decide not to move over because the way is not clear.
Husbands testified that his horse moved up but not as a result of his “scooting” or “driving” up into a tight spot at Montpellier’s flank. He contrasted his calm arms with Fraser’s obvious efforts to race ride his horse as it went into the turn. Husbands’ horse clearly was strong and had a lot of speed. The characterizing of Husbands as “scooting” up the inside to a tight position is an attempt to shift the responsibility under the Rules. There is nothing in the Rules which forces Husbands to hold back his horse to allow another rider to move across in front of the field. Indeed the rules are designed to encourage aggressive riding. The ability of jockeys to have unwritten rules that require a rider to hold back his horse so another can move to the inside for a shorter run around the turns is not consistent with the policy of requiring each rider to try to win and to obtain the best placement he can.
It is clear that much of the controversy is fed by the perception that Husbands was “driving up into the turn”, almost like sneaking up on an unsuspecting Montpellier. This raises the issue as to whether Husbands was a “major contributor to the incident”. If he was not a major contributor then Montpellier maybe disqualified.
Husbands was riding his horse but not race riding. He is not required by the Rules to be “in there” or to hold back. His horse had speed. He testified that he was not in a tight spot but had room on either side of him and the video head on shot supports that view. Husbands is not required by the Rules to shout out a warning. Montpellier should have been more aware and watchful.
The unsafe situation could have been avoided if Montpellier had checked behind more carefully and if he had stayed in his lane in the turn. There was ample room between the three horses of Montpellier, Husbands and Fraser to safely go around the turn if all had stayed in their lanes. Montpellier made an assumption that no other horse but Fraser’s had, in the course of the backstretch run, caught up to him on the inside even though such a run would have been totally behind him. He took the chance that if he moved inside of the third lane, there would be enough room to accommodate his horse and the other horse he knew to be on his flank. As a result he interfered with and impeded the forward movement of a number of other horses.
We therefore dismiss the appeals.
We have determined this case solely on the evidence before us as a hearing de novo, despite the efforts by counsel for the appellants to have us take into account the various discussions that occurred after the Stewards’ ruling among, and views of, individuals not called to testify. But we wish to note that this hearing is held several months after the events in question and that it appeared to us that some of the riders’ testimony was influenced by the passage of time. Certainly the Stewards, in conducting their hearings, have the advantage of hearing from the riders at a point much closer to the events in question, as well as having the opportunity to view the events live as they happened, with the assistance of the videotape thereafter, rather than through the videotape alone.
Counsel indicated that there was a view among some very experienced riders that the Stewards in this call had “blown it”. The Stewards are expected to do their best to make the right call under what are often difficult circumstances and time limits. Many of the calls they are asked to make are judgment calls. In that respect they are entitled to the respect of the participants, much as a baseball umpire or hockey referee, who must make dozens of judgment calls every game, is entitled to the respect of the players. By their very nature, judgment calls will satisfy some, and anger others. Reasonable people may well differ in a judgment call on any set of facts. The Stewards are entitled to the respect of all the members of the racing community.
DATED this 1st day of May 2006.
___________________________
Lynda Tanaka
Chair