Canterbury R 12 November 2016 – R 10 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr R McKenzie
ID: JCA11145
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 12 November 2016
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
SChing
Race Date:
2016/11/12
Race Number:
R10
Decision:
The protest was dismissed.
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the judge’s placings as above.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 10, Laming Racing Premier, an information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Jockey (Class A), Mr L G Innes, rider of PINZALOT, placed 3rd by the judge, against MULBERRY (R Cuneen), placed 2nd by the judge, on the ground of “interference inside the final 100 metres”.
Present at the hearing were Mr Innes, Mr Cuneen, Mr N F Ridley (trainer of MULBERRY) and Mr M G Forbes (trainer of PINZALOT).
Rule 642 provides as follows:
(1) If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 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
The judge’s placings were:
1st 15 Tiara Concerto
2nd 9 Mulberry
3rd 17 Pinzalot
4th 4 Bushido
5th 3 Moreira
The official margins were ¾ length and 1 length.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Innes said that he had suffered severe interference inside the final 150 metres which deprived his mount of the opportunity of finishing 2nd. He acknowledged that MULBERRY had come from behind him but submitted that his mount was not given the opportunity of fighting back in the finish. He expressed the view that he would have clearly beaten MULBERRY, given that opportunity. He alleged that MULBERRY’s movement had been a gradual one until the final sharp movement, approximately 50 metres from the finishing line. His mount had been “severely hampered” as it was coming back, and may have even beaten the winner, he said.
Head-on and side-on video replays of the final stages of the race were shown to the Committee.
Mr Innes did acknowledge that Mr Cuneen had tried to take action but the damage had already been done, he said. Mr Innes submitted that the margin of 1 length between 2nd and 3rd could be explained by his having to take a severe hold of his horse, as he thought that he may have fallen.
Mr Cuneen said that he was coming from behind and travelling really well when his mount started to lay out. He changed his whip over to try and stop the outwards movement but it happened so quickly. He also submitted that there had been pressure from the eventual winner, TIARA CONCERTO, on the outside of Mr Innes’ mount. He was clearly going to run 2nd, Mr Cuneen said, or even 1st.
Mr Ridley submitted that Mr Innes’ mount was only ever going to run 3rd. He acknowledged that MULBERRY had run out but submitted that TIARA CONCERTO had also shifted in. Had it not done so, there would have been clear room for Mr Innes’ mount, he submitted.
Mr Forbes said that, at the 50 metres mark when PINZALOT came up alongside MULBERRY it could clearly be seen that PINZALOT was going to fight back but was severely hampered and was thereby denied any opportunity to fight back. PINZALOT had put a neck on MULBERRY and had come back to within a head of that runner before being “severely hampered”, Mr Forbes submitted.
Mr Innes, in response to Mr Ridley’s submission that TIARA CONCERTO had shifted in, submitted that it appeared to have done so but it was as a result of pressure from the inside. Mr Innes said that MULBERRY had caused him to check off TIARA CONCERTO, otherwise his protest would have been against the winner also.
Mr Oatham, Chief Stipendiary Steward, was asked for his assessment of the incident. He said that it was clearly apparent from the video replays that entering the final straight, near the 400 metres, MULBERRY was “several lengths” behind PINZALOT and, thereafter, made up ground “very rapidly” in the straight. Interference was caused by an outward movement from MULBERRY near the 50 metres. At that point at which the interference started to occur, MULBERRY had made up several lengths and gone ahead of PINZALOT by approximately a head. It was clear that MULBERRY had come from behind PINZALOT, which had started to fight back. The interference was very severe, denying PINZALOT the opportunity of responding over the final 50 metres. The Committee had to be satisfied that, although MULBERRY had made up so much ground, if interference had not occurred, PINZALOT would have been able to fight back and regain that 2nd placing.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties and Mr Oatham and carefully viewed the available video replays of the incident, inside the final 100 metres of the race.
It was clear from the videos replays, and not disputed, that PINZALOT suffered quite significant interference from MULBERRY near the 50 metres when MULBERRY shifted out quite sharply, causing Mr Innes to check out of the gap and lose both ground and momentum.
The sole issue for the Committee then was to determine whether, but for that interference, PINZALOT would have beaten MULBERRY. In coming to that determination, the Committee noted that MULBERRY had come from several lengths behind PINZALOT from the home turn, where PINZALOT had led and MULBERRY was back in the field and had to obtain a run through the middle of runners. Inside the final 100 metres, MULBERRY had overtaken PINZALOT prior to shifting outwards, initially, by a gradual movement and then by a final sharper movement near the 50 metres. Mr Oatham submitted that the margin prior to the interference had been a head but, to the Committee, it appeared to be perhaps as much as a neck. This interference took place only some 7-8 strides short of the finishing line.
The Committee did not attach any great significance to the margin of 1 length between the two horses at the finish which, in many instances, would be decisive of the matter. However, the Committee accepted that the margin was misleading in this case because Mr Innes’ mount had been denied the opportunity of fighting on or fighting back and, but for the interference, the relevant margin at the finish would have been less than 1 length.
Having regard to the point of the race at which the interference took place (50 metres from the finishing line), the relative positions of the two horses at that point, the fact that MULBERRY had come from several lengths behind PINZALOT and was finishing the race out strongly and appeared to have PINZALOT covered, despite that PINZALOT may have been fighting back, the Committee was not satisfied that PINZALOT would have finished ahead of MULBERRY had the 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: 171ec369cf833d337e7c40e3587fb218
informantnumber: A6991
horsename: Mulberry
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 15/11/2016
hearing_title: Canterbury R 12 November 2016 - R 10 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr R McKenzie
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 10, Laming Racing Premier, an information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Jockey (Class A), Mr L G Innes, rider of PINZALOT, placed 3rd by the judge, against MULBERRY (R Cuneen), placed 2nd by the judge, on the ground of “interference inside the final 100 metres”.
Present at the hearing were Mr Innes, Mr Cuneen, Mr N F Ridley (trainer of MULBERRY) and Mr M G Forbes (trainer of PINZALOT).
Rule 642 provides as follows:
(1) If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 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
The judge’s placings were:
1st 15 Tiara Concerto
2nd 9 Mulberry
3rd 17 Pinzalot
4th 4 Bushido
5th 3 Moreira
The official margins were ¾ length and 1 length.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Innes said that he had suffered severe interference inside the final 150 metres which deprived his mount of the opportunity of finishing 2nd. He acknowledged that MULBERRY had come from behind him but submitted that his mount was not given the opportunity of fighting back in the finish. He expressed the view that he would have clearly beaten MULBERRY, given that opportunity. He alleged that MULBERRY’s movement had been a gradual one until the final sharp movement, approximately 50 metres from the finishing line. His mount had been “severely hampered” as it was coming back, and may have even beaten the winner, he said.
Head-on and side-on video replays of the final stages of the race were shown to the Committee.
Mr Innes did acknowledge that Mr Cuneen had tried to take action but the damage had already been done, he said. Mr Innes submitted that the margin of 1 length between 2nd and 3rd could be explained by his having to take a severe hold of his horse, as he thought that he may have fallen.
Mr Cuneen said that he was coming from behind and travelling really well when his mount started to lay out. He changed his whip over to try and stop the outwards movement but it happened so quickly. He also submitted that there had been pressure from the eventual winner, TIARA CONCERTO, on the outside of Mr Innes’ mount. He was clearly going to run 2nd, Mr Cuneen said, or even 1st.
Mr Ridley submitted that Mr Innes’ mount was only ever going to run 3rd. He acknowledged that MULBERRY had run out but submitted that TIARA CONCERTO had also shifted in. Had it not done so, there would have been clear room for Mr Innes’ mount, he submitted.
Mr Forbes said that, at the 50 metres mark when PINZALOT came up alongside MULBERRY it could clearly be seen that PINZALOT was going to fight back but was severely hampered and was thereby denied any opportunity to fight back. PINZALOT had put a neck on MULBERRY and had come back to within a head of that runner before being “severely hampered”, Mr Forbes submitted.
Mr Innes, in response to Mr Ridley’s submission that TIARA CONCERTO had shifted in, submitted that it appeared to have done so but it was as a result of pressure from the inside. Mr Innes said that MULBERRY had caused him to check off TIARA CONCERTO, otherwise his protest would have been against the winner also.
Mr Oatham, Chief Stipendiary Steward, was asked for his assessment of the incident. He said that it was clearly apparent from the video replays that entering the final straight, near the 400 metres, MULBERRY was “several lengths” behind PINZALOT and, thereafter, made up ground “very rapidly” in the straight. Interference was caused by an outward movement from MULBERRY near the 50 metres. At that point at which the interference started to occur, MULBERRY had made up several lengths and gone ahead of PINZALOT by approximately a head. It was clear that MULBERRY had come from behind PINZALOT, which had started to fight back. The interference was very severe, denying PINZALOT the opportunity of responding over the final 50 metres. The Committee had to be satisfied that, although MULBERRY had made up so much ground, if interference had not occurred, PINZALOT would have been able to fight back and regain that 2nd placing.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties and Mr Oatham and carefully viewed the available video replays of the incident, inside the final 100 metres of the race.
It was clear from the videos replays, and not disputed, that PINZALOT suffered quite significant interference from MULBERRY near the 50 metres when MULBERRY shifted out quite sharply, causing Mr Innes to check out of the gap and lose both ground and momentum.
The sole issue for the Committee then was to determine whether, but for that interference, PINZALOT would have beaten MULBERRY. In coming to that determination, the Committee noted that MULBERRY had come from several lengths behind PINZALOT from the home turn, where PINZALOT had led and MULBERRY was back in the field and had to obtain a run through the middle of runners. Inside the final 100 metres, MULBERRY had overtaken PINZALOT prior to shifting outwards, initially, by a gradual movement and then by a final sharper movement near the 50 metres. Mr Oatham submitted that the margin prior to the interference had been a head but, to the Committee, it appeared to be perhaps as much as a neck. This interference took place only some 7-8 strides short of the finishing line.
The Committee did not attach any great significance to the margin of 1 length between the two horses at the finish which, in many instances, would be decisive of the matter. However, the Committee accepted that the margin was misleading in this case because Mr Innes’ mount had been denied the opportunity of fighting on or fighting back and, but for the interference, the relevant margin at the finish would have been less than 1 length.
Having regard to the point of the race at which the interference took place (50 metres from the finishing line), the relative positions of the two horses at that point, the fact that MULBERRY had come from several lengths behind PINZALOT and was finishing the race out strongly and appeared to have PINZALOT covered, despite that PINZALOT may have been fighting back, the Committee was not satisfied that PINZALOT would have finished ahead of MULBERRY had the interference not occurred.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed.
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the judge’s placings as above.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: L G Innes (Licensed Jockey (Class A)
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: M G Forbes, Holder of Permit to Train (Class B), N F Ridley, Licensed Trainer (Class A), Mr Oatham - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: R Cuneen, Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class B)
StipendSteward:
raceid: 247dceaa71c1f5f3b05b1f46ac8fca7b
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 921c382c06f83a53bc1733a849f2dd5e
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 12/11/2016
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 12 November 2016
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: SChing
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury Racing