Avondale JC 17 September 2014 – R 9 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA11790
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Avondale JC - 17 September 2014
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Race Date:
2014/09/17
Race Number:
R9
Decision:
The protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings shall stand. In conclusion the Committee order the payment of stakes and dividends.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 9, Avondale Appliance Centre 1400, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Hutchings, alleged that BLUE STREAK placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his mount DRAW THE LINE placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 2 BLUE STREAK
2nd No. 5 DRAW THE LINE
3rd No. 14 ISTIMAGIC
4th No. 3 BULLDOZER
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a nose.
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 aloud and all connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Hutchings submitted that BLUE STREAK had shifted ground out in the final straight and in doing so took the running line of DRAW THE LINE. He said this meant he had to put his whip away. Mr Hutchings added that DRAW THE LINE was taking ground off BLUE STREAK over the closing stages of the race and in his opinion if the interference had not occurred DRAW THE LINE would have beaten BLUE STREAK.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Hutchings said the 2 horses brushed in the final straight.
Mr Lock submitted that he agreed with the submissions of Mr Hutchings.
Ms Tanner submitted that on the available video films BLUE STREAK did not move off his running line. She said this was supported by the tyre marks on the track where the horses were racing. She added that the 2 horses did not touch and in her view DRAW THE LINE was hanging inwards in the final straight.
Ms Smyth submitted that over the final 150 metres BLUE STREAK stayed in a straight line. Ms Smyth agreed with Ms Tanner that DRAW THE LINE was hanging inwards in the home straight. She added that DRAW THE LINE had its chance to beat BLUE STREAK but was unable to do so.
Mr Coles on behalf of the Stewards submitted that both horses were racing wide out on the track and the films were inconclusive in determining which horse was too blame for the supposed interference. He said the Stewards did not support the protest.
Mr Hutchings in summing up said his mount was not laying in and he was forced to shift out from behind BLUE STREAK to obtain clear running. He noted the margin at the finish was a nose.
Ms Tanner in summing up submitted it was really hard to say BLUE STREAK had interfered with DRAW THE LINE and reiterated the tyre marks on the track supported her claims.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video films several times. The back on film showed that near the 300 metres Mr Hutchings was attempting to angle his mount off the heels of BLUE STREAK. However, his mount was inclined to lay in and was reluctant to move to the outside of BLUE STREAK. The films do not support Mr Hutchings' submission that he had to stop riding his mount forward. The films show Mr Hutchings rode his mount out strongly with the whip over the final 300 metres. The films also show there was no contact between the 2 horses in the final straight.
It is the opinion of this Committee the outward shift by BLUE STREAK was very minimal and did not have a bearing on the outcome of the race. Accordingly there was insufficient grounds to justify an alteration to the placings.
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: 26bc8f76a93a606f8d25004a0790309c
informantnumber: A6595
horsename: BLUE STREAK
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 13/09/2014
hearing_title: Avondale JC 17 September 2014 - R 9 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 9, Avondale Appliance Centre 1400, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Hutchings, alleged that BLUE STREAK placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his mount DRAW THE LINE placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 2 BLUE STREAK
2nd No. 5 DRAW THE LINE
3rd No. 14 ISTIMAGIC
4th No. 3 BULLDOZER
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a nose.
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 aloud and all connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Hutchings submitted that BLUE STREAK had shifted ground out in the final straight and in doing so took the running line of DRAW THE LINE. He said this meant he had to put his whip away. Mr Hutchings added that DRAW THE LINE was taking ground off BLUE STREAK over the closing stages of the race and in his opinion if the interference had not occurred DRAW THE LINE would have beaten BLUE STREAK.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Hutchings said the 2 horses brushed in the final straight.
Mr Lock submitted that he agreed with the submissions of Mr Hutchings.
Ms Tanner submitted that on the available video films BLUE STREAK did not move off his running line. She said this was supported by the tyre marks on the track where the horses were racing. She added that the 2 horses did not touch and in her view DRAW THE LINE was hanging inwards in the final straight.
Ms Smyth submitted that over the final 150 metres BLUE STREAK stayed in a straight line. Ms Smyth agreed with Ms Tanner that DRAW THE LINE was hanging inwards in the home straight. She added that DRAW THE LINE had its chance to beat BLUE STREAK but was unable to do so.
Mr Coles on behalf of the Stewards submitted that both horses were racing wide out on the track and the films were inconclusive in determining which horse was too blame for the supposed interference. He said the Stewards did not support the protest.
Mr Hutchings in summing up said his mount was not laying in and he was forced to shift out from behind BLUE STREAK to obtain clear running. He noted the margin at the finish was a nose.
Ms Tanner in summing up submitted it was really hard to say BLUE STREAK had interfered with DRAW THE LINE and reiterated the tyre marks on the track supported her claims.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video films several times. The back on film showed that near the 300 metres Mr Hutchings was attempting to angle his mount off the heels of BLUE STREAK. However, his mount was inclined to lay in and was reluctant to move to the outside of BLUE STREAK. The films do not support Mr Hutchings' submission that he had to stop riding his mount forward. The films show Mr Hutchings rode his mount out strongly with the whip over the final 300 metres. The films also show there was no contact between the 2 horses in the final straight.
It is the opinion of this Committee the outward shift by BLUE STREAK was very minimal and did not have a bearing on the outcome of the race. Accordingly there was insufficient grounds to justify an alteration to the placings.
Decision:
The protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings shall stand. In conclusion the Committee order the payment of stakes and dividends.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr R Hutchings - Rider of DRAW THE LINE
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr P Lock - Trainer of DRAW THE LINE, Ms R Smyth - Rider of BLUE STREAK, Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Ms N Tanner - Trainer of BLUE STREAK
StipendSteward:
raceid: f6201a885029d3c01a7c22aa84a7d3a9
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 8a60d0e43b9a295e3c6e8e98c9f4dacf
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 17/09/2014
meet_title: Avondale JC - 17 September 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: avondale-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Avondale JC