Auckland RC 28 March 2015 – R 8 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA11035
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 28 March 2015
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
BScott
Race Date:
2015/03/28
Race Number:
R8
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is upheld and the amended placing’s are now:
1st No. 10 VIBRANT MOSS
2nd No.3 SIR ANDREW
3rd No.7 PACIFIC CHOICE
4th No.1 BIGGIN HILL
In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 8, Celebrating Baker Racing @ Auckland Cup Week, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr K Shailer, alleged that SIR ANDREW placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his horse VIBRANT MOSS placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing's were as follows:
1st No. 3 SIR ANDREW
2nd No. 10 VIBRANT MOSS
3rd No. 7 PACIFIC CHOICE
4th No. 1 BIGGIN HILL
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a neck.
Rule 642(1) states: “If a placed horse or its rider causes interference within the meaning of this rule 642 to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with”.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
Submissions for Decision:
Prior to the commencement of the protest the Committee outlined the process of the hearing.
Mr Shailer identified on the available video footage that in the final straight SIR ANDREW rolled out and interfered with his horse VIBRANT MOSS. He said Mr Hutton did not stop riding SIR ANDREW forward and straighten his horse when he continued to roll out. He identified that the worst part of the interference happened at the 100 metres and after that point it was significant the amount of ground VIBRANT MOSS made on SIR ANDREW.
Mr McNab submitted that SIR ANDREW had rolled out over the final 200 metres and in doing so cost VIBRANT MOSS momentum and put his mount off balance. He said that SIR ANDREW bumped VIBRANT MOSS off stride and given the testing track momentum was everything. He noted that at no point did Mr Hutton stop riding his mount forward when it rolled out. He said the vital point was at the 100 metres when he had to stop using his whip when SIR ANDREW shifted out again. He observed when VIBRANT MOSS got balanced after the interference she really dashed home over the closing stages. He said given the margin at the finish was a neck the interference he received cost VIBRANT MOSS the win.
Mr Hutton submitted that SIR ANDREW was “lugging out from the get go” and he acknowledged that his horse did run out in the final straight. He said he straightened up SIR ANDREW and no contact occurred between the 2 horses. He added that VIBRANT MOSS over reacted to the incident and had its opportunity to win the race.
Mr Downs arrived part way through the hearing due to attending to SIR ANDREW down at the stables. He submitted that VIBRANT MOSS was not going to travel past SIR ANDREW.
Mr Buckingham submitted that SIR ANDREW did take the path of VIBRANT MOSS and there was a narrowing of the gap between the 2 horses. He said Mr McNab could have come to the inside of SIR ANDREW and noted there was no contact between the 2 horses. He added it was clear the best horse won the race.
Mr Williamson on behalf of the Stewards submitted that it was clear that SIR ANDREW shifted off its running line passing the 200 metres. He said this impeded VIBRANT MOSS who was pushed out further on the track. He identified on the video footage that SIR ANDREW did move out more abruptly near the 100 metres and again impede VIBRANT MOSS. He submitted after that point VIBRANT MOSS made up considerable ground on SIR ANDREW and the Stewards were of the view the protest had merit.
Mr Shailer was given the opportunity to add anything new and had nothing further to say.
Mr Downs was given the opportunity to add anything new and had nothing further to say.
All parties present were asked if they had a fair hearing and there were no issues or concerns raised at that point.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed the video films several times. The first part of rule 642(1) requires a Committee to determine if any interference occurred.
The Committee note that “interference” is defined as: 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.
It was clear on the head on film that over the final 200 metres SIR ANDREW did shift out and take the rightful running line of VIBRANT MOSS on more than one occasion. In our opinion SIR ANDREW was not the required distance clear of VIBRANT MOSS and this is a clear breach of the interference rule. The interference cost VIBRANT MOSS ground and momentum.
The Committee then had to be satisfied that, free of interference, VIBRANT MOSS would have beaten SIR ANDREW.
The most notable interference occurred just passing the final 100 metres when SIR ANDREW shifted out sharply when not the required distance clear of VIBRANT MOSS. This resulted in VIBRANT MOSS having her rightful running line taken which hampered her progress. After this incident the video footage was compelling that over the final 75 metres when VIBRANT MOSS had an uninterrupted run to the finish line she made up approximately 1 length on SIR ANDREW.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee is of the opinion that VIBRANT MOSS would have beaten SIR ANDREW had such interference not occurred.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 0b2f1cc3cb62783b5203a07932499265
informantnumber: A3578
horsename: SIR ANDREW
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 20/03/2015
hearing_title: Auckland RC 28 March 2015 - R 8 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 8, Celebrating Baker Racing @ Auckland Cup Week, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr K Shailer, alleged that SIR ANDREW placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his horse VIBRANT MOSS placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing's were as follows:
1st No. 3 SIR ANDREW
2nd No. 10 VIBRANT MOSS
3rd No. 7 PACIFIC CHOICE
4th No. 1 BIGGIN HILL
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a neck.
Rule 642(1) states: “If a placed horse or its rider causes interference within the meaning of this rule 642 to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with”.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Prior to the commencement of the protest the Committee outlined the process of the hearing.
Mr Shailer identified on the available video footage that in the final straight SIR ANDREW rolled out and interfered with his horse VIBRANT MOSS. He said Mr Hutton did not stop riding SIR ANDREW forward and straighten his horse when he continued to roll out. He identified that the worst part of the interference happened at the 100 metres and after that point it was significant the amount of ground VIBRANT MOSS made on SIR ANDREW.
Mr McNab submitted that SIR ANDREW had rolled out over the final 200 metres and in doing so cost VIBRANT MOSS momentum and put his mount off balance. He said that SIR ANDREW bumped VIBRANT MOSS off stride and given the testing track momentum was everything. He noted that at no point did Mr Hutton stop riding his mount forward when it rolled out. He said the vital point was at the 100 metres when he had to stop using his whip when SIR ANDREW shifted out again. He observed when VIBRANT MOSS got balanced after the interference she really dashed home over the closing stages. He said given the margin at the finish was a neck the interference he received cost VIBRANT MOSS the win.
Mr Hutton submitted that SIR ANDREW was “lugging out from the get go” and he acknowledged that his horse did run out in the final straight. He said he straightened up SIR ANDREW and no contact occurred between the 2 horses. He added that VIBRANT MOSS over reacted to the incident and had its opportunity to win the race.
Mr Downs arrived part way through the hearing due to attending to SIR ANDREW down at the stables. He submitted that VIBRANT MOSS was not going to travel past SIR ANDREW.
Mr Buckingham submitted that SIR ANDREW did take the path of VIBRANT MOSS and there was a narrowing of the gap between the 2 horses. He said Mr McNab could have come to the inside of SIR ANDREW and noted there was no contact between the 2 horses. He added it was clear the best horse won the race.
Mr Williamson on behalf of the Stewards submitted that it was clear that SIR ANDREW shifted off its running line passing the 200 metres. He said this impeded VIBRANT MOSS who was pushed out further on the track. He identified on the video footage that SIR ANDREW did move out more abruptly near the 100 metres and again impede VIBRANT MOSS. He submitted after that point VIBRANT MOSS made up considerable ground on SIR ANDREW and the Stewards were of the view the protest had merit.
Mr Shailer was given the opportunity to add anything new and had nothing further to say.
Mr Downs was given the opportunity to add anything new and had nothing further to say.
All parties present were asked if they had a fair hearing and there were no issues or concerns raised at that point.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed the video films several times. The first part of rule 642(1) requires a Committee to determine if any interference occurred.
The Committee note that “interference” is defined as: 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.
It was clear on the head on film that over the final 200 metres SIR ANDREW did shift out and take the rightful running line of VIBRANT MOSS on more than one occasion. In our opinion SIR ANDREW was not the required distance clear of VIBRANT MOSS and this is a clear breach of the interference rule. The interference cost VIBRANT MOSS ground and momentum.
The Committee then had to be satisfied that, free of interference, VIBRANT MOSS would have beaten SIR ANDREW.
The most notable interference occurred just passing the final 100 metres when SIR ANDREW shifted out sharply when not the required distance clear of VIBRANT MOSS. This resulted in VIBRANT MOSS having her rightful running line taken which hampered her progress. After this incident the video footage was compelling that over the final 75 metres when VIBRANT MOSS had an uninterrupted run to the finish line she made up approximately 1 length on SIR ANDREW.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee is of the opinion that VIBRANT MOSS would have beaten SIR ANDREW had such interference not occurred.
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is upheld and the amended placing’s are now:
1st No. 10 VIBRANT MOSS
2nd No.3 SIR ANDREW
3rd No.7 PACIFIC CHOICE
4th No.1 BIGGIN HILL
In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr K Shailer - Trainer of VIBRANT MOSS
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr N Downs - representing Mr D Cave, Mr C Buckingham - representing Mr Thompson - owner of SIR ANDREW, Mr B Hutton - Rider of SIR ANDREW, Mr M McNab -Rider of VIBRANT MOSS, Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward, Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr D Cave - Trainer of SIR ANDREW
StipendSteward:
raceid: 5f07cfffb2caff83a29bce7cad3054de
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: c8112eaf1c011faa872af15e89968a17
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 28/03/2015
meet_title: Auckland RC - 28 March 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: BScott
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC