Wairarapa RC 2 January 2012 – R 5 (Instigating a Protest)
ID: JCA11395
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Wairarapa RC - 2 January 2012
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMcCutcheon
Race Date:
2012/01/02
Race Number:
Race 5
Decision:
The protest was upheld and placings were confirmed as:
1st - (7) EKSTRA SPECIAL
2nd - (2) MUNGO JERRY
3rd - (4) PYCOK FLYER
4th - (1) SETTLE PETAL
5th - (6) MASK THE SHADOW
6th - (8) SUITABELLE
The committee authorised the immediate payment of dividends in accordance with its decision.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5 (‘Pope & Gray Contractors 1600’), B Lammas (EKSTRA SPECIAL), who finished 2nd, filed Information A3073, instigating a protest against the connections of MANGO JERRY, who finished 1st, alleging interference over the final stages.
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.
The rule was read and all parties confirmed that they understood Rule 642(1).
The official placings were:
1st - (2) MUNGO JERRY
2nd - (7) EKSTRA SPECIAL
3rd - (4) PYCOK FLYER
4th - (1) SETTLE PETAL
5th - (6) MASK THE SHADOW
6th - (8) SUITABELLE
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a nose.
Submissions for Decision:
Using the head-on and side-on films, Mr Lammas pointed out that he and Ms Myers were head for head for the most part of the home straight. Over the final 100 metres, he demonstrated that Ms Myers’ horse had rolled in slightly, touching EKSTRA SPECIAL, and in doing so, it had meant that he had to stop riding for a couple of strides. Mr Lammas stated that he believed the close margin of a nose, coupled with his inability to ride his mount out for those strides, had cost him the race and he believed that he would have definitely got up and won. Mr Lammas identified the point of contact and also stated that he had to wait until Ms Myers’ horse had got off his before he could resume riding with his whip.
Mr Mathews commented that it was noticeable to him that approaching the 50 metres, MUNGO JERRY was dictating the line of EKSTRA SPECIAL. Using the head-on film, he identified the significant distance that his horse had been carried inwards as a result of MUNGO JEERY’s movement; stating that such movement had impeded his horse’s galloping action and had put EKSTRA SPECIAL off stride momentarily. This required Mr Lammas to re-correct his whip action to counteract the closeness of Jockey Myers. He re-iterated the close margin of a nose, submitting that the interference had cost EKSTRA SPECIAL the race.
Ms Myers could not see, from the films, at any point where Mr Lammas had stopped riding his mount. She submitted that the two horses had touched for one brief stride and she believed that she had not inhibited Mr Lammas’ whip action. She did not think the contact had cost Mr Lammas’ horse any momentum as he had never stopped riding EKSTRA SPECIAL. She also commented, that over the last couple of strides, there was plenty of room for Mr Lammas to use his whip. She noted that the two horses ‘brushed’, but believed MUNGO JERRY became more off-balanced as a result of the contact. She did not believe that the interference had cost EKSTRA SPECIAL the race, and that her horse had won on its own merits.
Mr Bull submitted, that in his opinion, MUNGO JERRY had been dictated to and taken outwards by EKSTRA SPECIAL near the top of the straight, forcing MUNGO JERRY approximately a width or two wider on the bend. He could not see how any momentum had been lost by EKSTRA SPECIAL as a result of the alleged interference.
For the Stipendiary Stewards, Mr Goodwin stated that he did not believe EKSTRA SPECIAL had taken MUNGO JERRY over any extra ground. The contention of the protest rested upon the contact made within the final 100 metres of the race, and whether or not Mr Lammas had lost any momentum. Mr Goodwin stated that it was obvious that Mr Lammas was not able to use his whip in a fluent manner for at least two strides, however, the determination would be dependent upon whether the judicial committee believed Mr Lammas had lost any momentum. He also reminded the committee that the margin between both horses was a nose at the finish.
Reasons for Decision:
After hearing all the evidence and reviewing the relevant films, the committee considered the submissions relating to dictation at the top of the straight, and noted that this was irrelevant, as the crux of the protest was related to the alleged interference over the final 100 metres of the race. We were satisfied that there was inwards movement from MUNGO JERRY and that contact was made with EKSTRA SPECIAL with approximately 75 metres to run.
The committee then turned its attention to the effect, if any, of this contact upon Mr Lammas’ mount. Based on the films, it was clear that Mr Lammas was unable to ride EKSTRA SPECIAL in the manner that he had been riding prior to the contact being made. We formed the view, based on film footage, that Mr Lammas was unable to ride with the whip for approximately three strides at a crucial point in the race. Whilst the suggestion of a hands and heels ride by Mr Lammas post-contact may have some credibility, we believe that EKSTRA SPECIAL did lose some momentum as a result of the contact, as Mr Lammas was unable to continue riding with the whip as he had been doing prior to the interference taking place.
Just prior to the interference taking place, both MUNGO JERRY and EKSTRA SPECIAL were level pegging and neither horse appeared to have a marginal advantage over the other. The committee gave consideration to the very close margin at the line, with the Judge declaring the margin in his on-course call as the “barest of noses”. We formed the view that the interference that occurred to EKSTRA SPECIAL did result in the loss of its momentum, and that such interference equated to more than the nose margin between 1st and 2nd as expressed by the
Judge. Consequently, it follows that had the interference not occurred we believe EKSTRA SPECIAL would have beaten MUNGO JERRY. Therefore, the committee considered it appropriate to exercise its discretion to relegate MUNGO JERRY behind EKSTRA SPECIAL.
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: 197385f5d0ec954f66876db7dfd851b4
informantnumber: A3073
horsename: EKSTRA SPECIAL
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 20/12/2011
hearing_title: Wairarapa RC 2 January 2012 - R 5 (Instigating a Protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 5 (‘Pope & Gray Contractors 1600’), B Lammas (EKSTRA SPECIAL), who finished 2nd, filed Information A3073, instigating a protest against the connections of MANGO JERRY, who finished 1st, alleging interference over the final stages.
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.
The rule was read and all parties confirmed that they understood Rule 642(1).
The official placings were:
1st - (2) MUNGO JERRY
2nd - (7) EKSTRA SPECIAL
3rd - (4) PYCOK FLYER
4th - (1) SETTLE PETAL
5th - (6) MASK THE SHADOW
6th - (8) SUITABELLE
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a nose.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Using the head-on and side-on films, Mr Lammas pointed out that he and Ms Myers were head for head for the most part of the home straight. Over the final 100 metres, he demonstrated that Ms Myers’ horse had rolled in slightly, touching EKSTRA SPECIAL, and in doing so, it had meant that he had to stop riding for a couple of strides. Mr Lammas stated that he believed the close margin of a nose, coupled with his inability to ride his mount out for those strides, had cost him the race and he believed that he would have definitely got up and won. Mr Lammas identified the point of contact and also stated that he had to wait until Ms Myers’ horse had got off his before he could resume riding with his whip.
Mr Mathews commented that it was noticeable to him that approaching the 50 metres, MUNGO JERRY was dictating the line of EKSTRA SPECIAL. Using the head-on film, he identified the significant distance that his horse had been carried inwards as a result of MUNGO JEERY’s movement; stating that such movement had impeded his horse’s galloping action and had put EKSTRA SPECIAL off stride momentarily. This required Mr Lammas to re-correct his whip action to counteract the closeness of Jockey Myers. He re-iterated the close margin of a nose, submitting that the interference had cost EKSTRA SPECIAL the race.
Ms Myers could not see, from the films, at any point where Mr Lammas had stopped riding his mount. She submitted that the two horses had touched for one brief stride and she believed that she had not inhibited Mr Lammas’ whip action. She did not think the contact had cost Mr Lammas’ horse any momentum as he had never stopped riding EKSTRA SPECIAL. She also commented, that over the last couple of strides, there was plenty of room for Mr Lammas to use his whip. She noted that the two horses ‘brushed’, but believed MUNGO JERRY became more off-balanced as a result of the contact. She did not believe that the interference had cost EKSTRA SPECIAL the race, and that her horse had won on its own merits.
Mr Bull submitted, that in his opinion, MUNGO JERRY had been dictated to and taken outwards by EKSTRA SPECIAL near the top of the straight, forcing MUNGO JERRY approximately a width or two wider on the bend. He could not see how any momentum had been lost by EKSTRA SPECIAL as a result of the alleged interference.
For the Stipendiary Stewards, Mr Goodwin stated that he did not believe EKSTRA SPECIAL had taken MUNGO JERRY over any extra ground. The contention of the protest rested upon the contact made within the final 100 metres of the race, and whether or not Mr Lammas had lost any momentum. Mr Goodwin stated that it was obvious that Mr Lammas was not able to use his whip in a fluent manner for at least two strides, however, the determination would be dependent upon whether the judicial committee believed Mr Lammas had lost any momentum. He also reminded the committee that the margin between both horses was a nose at the finish.
reasonsfordecision:
After hearing all the evidence and reviewing the relevant films, the committee considered the submissions relating to dictation at the top of the straight, and noted that this was irrelevant, as the crux of the protest was related to the alleged interference over the final 100 metres of the race. We were satisfied that there was inwards movement from MUNGO JERRY and that contact was made with EKSTRA SPECIAL with approximately 75 metres to run.
The committee then turned its attention to the effect, if any, of this contact upon Mr Lammas’ mount. Based on the films, it was clear that Mr Lammas was unable to ride EKSTRA SPECIAL in the manner that he had been riding prior to the contact being made. We formed the view, based on film footage, that Mr Lammas was unable to ride with the whip for approximately three strides at a crucial point in the race. Whilst the suggestion of a hands and heels ride by Mr Lammas post-contact may have some credibility, we believe that EKSTRA SPECIAL did lose some momentum as a result of the contact, as Mr Lammas was unable to continue riding with the whip as he had been doing prior to the interference taking place.
Just prior to the interference taking place, both MUNGO JERRY and EKSTRA SPECIAL were level pegging and neither horse appeared to have a marginal advantage over the other. The committee gave consideration to the very close margin at the line, with the Judge declaring the margin in his on-course call as the “barest of noses”. We formed the view that the interference that occurred to EKSTRA SPECIAL did result in the loss of its momentum, and that such interference equated to more than the nose margin between 1st and 2nd as expressed by the
Judge. Consequently, it follows that had the interference not occurred we believe EKSTRA SPECIAL would have beaten MUNGO JERRY. Therefore, the committee considered it appropriate to exercise its discretion to relegate MUNGO JERRY behind EKSTRA SPECIAL.
Decision:
The protest was upheld and placings were confirmed as:
1st - (7) EKSTRA SPECIAL
2nd - (2) MUNGO JERRY
3rd - (4) PYCOK FLYER
4th - (1) SETTLE PETAL
5th - (6) MASK THE SHADOW
6th - (8) SUITABELLE
The committee authorised the immediate payment of dividends in accordance with its decision.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: Rule 642(1)
Informant: Mr B Lammas - Licensed Jockey
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Ms K Myers - Licensed Jockey of MUNGO JERRY, Mr H Mathews - Licensed Trainer of EKSTRA SPECIAL, Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr A Bull - Licensed Trainer of MUNGO JERRY
StipendSteward:
raceid: 58a6c50335ba724bc0e274fc1539ccd6
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: a0e5d8cd26cec4e3923ea411724af441
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 02/01/2012
meet_title: Wairarapa RC - 2 January 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wairarapa-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: NMcCutcheon
meet_pm2: none
name: Wairarapa RC