Auckland RC 28 November 2020 – R 3 (Instigating a Protest) – Chair, G Jones
ID: JCA11835
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 28 November 2020
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
ASmith
Race Date:
2020/11/28
Race Number:
R3
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings stand.
The Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with our decision.
Facts:
Following the running of Race, No 3, the Dunstan Feeds Stayers Championship Qualifier 2200 metres, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant Ms Fawcett, alleged that horse number 12 (ISKANDER) placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 10 (RISING ROAD) placed 4th by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's provisional placings were as follows:
1st No. 5 YOURE WELCOME
2nd No. 12 ISKANDER
3rd No. 2 VEDO ROSSO
4th No. 10 RISING ROAD
The official margin between 2nd and 4th 2 ¼ L and a nose
Rule 642(1) provides:
“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”.
For the purposes of Rule 642 “interference” is defined as:
(i) 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;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
Submissions for Decision:
Prior to hearing submissions from the respective connections of the horses concerned, the Committee requested that Stewards show available video footage of the alleged interference. In doing so Stewards made no comments about the merits of the protest.
The essence of the ‘Protest Rule’ - Rule 642(1) was explained to all parties.
Ms Fawcett submitted that on entering the home straight her mount RISING ROAD was “travelling beautifully” and the horse has a “massive stride”. Using the race films, she pointed out that RISING ROAD was bumped by ISKANDER, put off stride and lost between 2.5 to 3 lengths.
Mr J Carter submitted that he agreed it was a massive bump and his horse was shifted sideways and then finished well. He said the interference cost his horse more than 2 lengths.
Mr Yanagida submitted that his mount, ISKANDER, did shift in and that Ms Fawcett’s mount also shifted out. He said that the interference did not make any difference to the result.
Mr Ruddell, using the race films, pointed out that in the run up the straight Ms Fawcett’s mount shifted outwards before the interference occurred. He said that had she maintained a straight line there would not have been any interference. He added that after the interference RISING ROAD did not make up any ground on ISKANDER.
Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Williamson stated that the official margin between 2nd and 4th was 2 1/4 lengths and a nose. He said that at the 150-metre mark ISKANDER has shifted in and caused interference to RISING ROAD, but given the margin Stewards cannot support the protest.
Reasons for Decision:
In accordance with the requirements of the protest Rule the Committee must firstly establish that interference occurred; and secondly, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.
After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage the Committee established that RISING ROAD led into the home straight. ISKANDER was slightly behind and on its outer. From the straight entrance to just past the 200-metre mark RISING ROAD drifted outward several horse widths but without causing any interference to any runner. Near the 150-mark Mr Yanagida permitted his mount to shift in when racing under pressure and in doing so made solid contact with RISING ROAD. ISKANDER continued to dictate RISING ROAD inward for several strides. Interference is therefore established.
Following the interference, we observed that RISING ROAD was hampered and checked and there was a loss of momentum near the 150 metres. However, leading up to the interreference it was apparent that ISKANDER was gaining ascendency and over the concluding stages of the race, once rebalanced RISING ROAD took no ground off ISKANDER.
The Committee is satisfied that ISKANDER did interfere with the chances of RISING ROAD. However, given there was more than a 2 1/4 length margin between the 2 horses at the finish, and the manner in which both horses finished the race off, we cannot be comfortably satisfied that RISING ROAD would have beaten ISKANDER had interference not occurred. On that basis we dismiss the protest.
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: 2e0effa07c87b03ff98a216b9eaf586f
informantnumber: A13430
horsename: RISING ROAD
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 29/11/2020
hearing_title: Auckland RC 28 November 2020 – R 3 (Instigating a Protest) – Chair, G Jones
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race, No 3, the Dunstan Feeds Stayers Championship Qualifier 2200 metres, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant Ms Fawcett, alleged that horse number 12 (ISKANDER) placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 10 (RISING ROAD) placed 4th by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's provisional placings were as follows:
1st No. 5 YOURE WELCOME
2nd No. 12 ISKANDER
3rd No. 2 VEDO ROSSO
4th No. 10 RISING ROAD
The official margin between 2nd and 4th 2 ¼ L and a nose
Rule 642(1) provides:
“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”.
For the purposes of Rule 642 “interference” is defined as:
(i) 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;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Prior to hearing submissions from the respective connections of the horses concerned, the Committee requested that Stewards show available video footage of the alleged interference. In doing so Stewards made no comments about the merits of the protest.
The essence of the ‘Protest Rule’ - Rule 642(1) was explained to all parties.
Ms Fawcett submitted that on entering the home straight her mount RISING ROAD was “travelling beautifully” and the horse has a “massive stride”. Using the race films, she pointed out that RISING ROAD was bumped by ISKANDER, put off stride and lost between 2.5 to 3 lengths.
Mr J Carter submitted that he agreed it was a massive bump and his horse was shifted sideways and then finished well. He said the interference cost his horse more than 2 lengths.
Mr Yanagida submitted that his mount, ISKANDER, did shift in and that Ms Fawcett’s mount also shifted out. He said that the interference did not make any difference to the result.
Mr Ruddell, using the race films, pointed out that in the run up the straight Ms Fawcett’s mount shifted outwards before the interference occurred. He said that had she maintained a straight line there would not have been any interference. He added that after the interference RISING ROAD did not make up any ground on ISKANDER.
Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Williamson stated that the official margin between 2nd and 4th was 2 1/4 lengths and a nose. He said that at the 150-metre mark ISKANDER has shifted in and caused interference to RISING ROAD, but given the margin Stewards cannot support the protest.
reasonsfordecision:
In accordance with the requirements of the protest Rule the Committee must firstly establish that interference occurred; and secondly, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.
After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage the Committee established that RISING ROAD led into the home straight. ISKANDER was slightly behind and on its outer. From the straight entrance to just past the 200-metre mark RISING ROAD drifted outward several horse widths but without causing any interference to any runner. Near the 150-mark Mr Yanagida permitted his mount to shift in when racing under pressure and in doing so made solid contact with RISING ROAD. ISKANDER continued to dictate RISING ROAD inward for several strides. Interference is therefore established.
Following the interference, we observed that RISING ROAD was hampered and checked and there was a loss of momentum near the 150 metres. However, leading up to the interreference it was apparent that ISKANDER was gaining ascendency and over the concluding stages of the race, once rebalanced RISING ROAD took no ground off ISKANDER.
The Committee is satisfied that ISKANDER did interfere with the chances of RISING ROAD. However, given there was more than a 2 1/4 length margin between the 2 horses at the finish, and the manner in which both horses finished the race off, we cannot be comfortably satisfied that RISING ROAD would have beaten ISKANDER had interference not occurred. On that basis we dismiss the protest.
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings stand.
The Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with our decision.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: Rule 642(1).
Informant: Ms J Fawcett (Rider of RISING ROAD)
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr J Carter (representing the owners of RISING ROAD), Ms J Fawcett (rider of RISING ROAD), Mr J Ruddell (trainer of ISKANDER), Mr T Yanagida (rider of ISKANDER)
Respondent: Mr J Ruddell (trainer of ISKANDER)
StipendSteward:
raceid: 71b6062985d14280f75428262868e087
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 4f1bfcd09a81363a72ffd80f3668ec6a
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 28/11/2020
meet_title: Auckland RC - 28 November 2020
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: ASmith
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC