Waikato RC 17 April 2021 – R 1 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr N McCutcheon
ID: JCA11926
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waikato RC - 17 April 2021
Meet Chair:
NMcCutcheon
Meet Committee Member 1:
GJones
Race Date:
2021/04/17
Race Number:
R 1
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings stand.
The Committee authorised the payment of dividends and prize money in accordance with our decision.
Facts:
Following the running of Race No 1, the SVS Starting Gates 2100 metres, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant Mr Bell, alleged that horse number 5 (SHE’S A MANEATER) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 2 (PEECEE PUSSYCAT) placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's ‘provisional placing were as follows:
1st No. 5 SHE’S A MANEATER
2nd No. 2 PEECEE PUSSYCAT
3rd No. 4 HONESTY
4th No. 7 RUSALKA
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was short head.
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 parties, the Committee requested that Stewards show available video footage of the alleged interference. Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones showed side, head and rear on films and identified the horses involved.
Mr Bell said that Rider Ms Spratt had had to put her whip away as she hit the fence 3 or 4 times. He said momentum was lost and his horse “was not given a fair go”. He also pointed out that the margin was a short head at the finish.
Ms Spratt submitted that she was initially racing off the fence and crowded by SHE’S A MANEATER. As a result, she said that she was bounced into and off the running 3 or 4 times. She said that she “lost a lot of ground”. She added that she had to put her whip away whereas Mr Innes had a clear run to the finish line. In response to a question from the Committee Chair she used the race films to point out that she connected with the running rail on at least three occasions.
Mr Innes submitted that his mount was knocked over early in the home straight and that Ms Spratt had put his horse in a pocket. He said that Ms Spratt has shifted off the rail. He also said the running rail has come out at the point where Ms Spratt’s mount has made contact. He said that the running rail is not straight. He added that at no point did Ms Spratt stop riding her mount out to the finish and his horse came from behind, made up significant ground and should have won by more.
Mr Lock submitted that his horse came from behind and made up ground on PEECEE PUSSYCAT. He said that the interference occurred close to the winning post and “can’t see how his horse could lose the race”.
Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Williamson said that PEECEE PUSSYCAT did receive interference from SHE’S A MANEATER, but that horse was 2 lengths behind at the 200 metres and made up considerable ground. He said that at the 30 metres SHE’S A MANEATER shifted in and placed PEECEE PUSSYCAT in restricted room for 3 to 4 strides from the finish. He said that in his opinion there is insufficient evidence that PEECEE PUSSYCAT would have beaten SHE’S A MANEATER.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions presented and reviewed the available video footage several times in real-time and slow motion, and frame by frame.
In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule the Committee must firstly establish that interference occurred; and second, 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 Mr Innes permitted his mount, SHE’S A MANEATER to shift in over the concluding stages and did brush PEECEE PUSSYCAT who did bump into the running rail. On that basis the Committee is satisfied interference did occur.
The films showed that near the 200 metres SHE’S A MANEATER was 2 lengths in arrears of PEECEE PUSSYCAT and from thereon made up ground to be almost on terms with PEECEE PUSSYCAT with 30 metres to travel. Although we establish that interference occurred the Committee is not satisfied that but for the interference PEECEE PUSSYCAT would have beaten SHE’S A MANEATER.
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: 2c1877cb944f6f64cff9ca017076c9f2
informantnumber: A14409
horsename: SHE'S A MANEATER
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 19/04/2021
hearing_title: Waikato RC 17 April 2021 - R 1 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr N McCutcheon
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race No 1, the SVS Starting Gates 2100 metres, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant Mr Bell, alleged that horse number 5 (SHE’S A MANEATER) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 2 (PEECEE PUSSYCAT) placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's ‘provisional placing were as follows:
1st No. 5 SHE’S A MANEATER
2nd No. 2 PEECEE PUSSYCAT
3rd No. 4 HONESTY
4th No. 7 RUSALKA
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was short head.
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 parties, the Committee requested that Stewards show available video footage of the alleged interference. Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones showed side, head and rear on films and identified the horses involved.
Mr Bell said that Rider Ms Spratt had had to put her whip away as she hit the fence 3 or 4 times. He said momentum was lost and his horse “was not given a fair go”. He also pointed out that the margin was a short head at the finish.
Ms Spratt submitted that she was initially racing off the fence and crowded by SHE’S A MANEATER. As a result, she said that she was bounced into and off the running 3 or 4 times. She said that she “lost a lot of ground”. She added that she had to put her whip away whereas Mr Innes had a clear run to the finish line. In response to a question from the Committee Chair she used the race films to point out that she connected with the running rail on at least three occasions.
Mr Innes submitted that his mount was knocked over early in the home straight and that Ms Spratt had put his horse in a pocket. He said that Ms Spratt has shifted off the rail. He also said the running rail has come out at the point where Ms Spratt’s mount has made contact. He said that the running rail is not straight. He added that at no point did Ms Spratt stop riding her mount out to the finish and his horse came from behind, made up significant ground and should have won by more.
Mr Lock submitted that his horse came from behind and made up ground on PEECEE PUSSYCAT. He said that the interference occurred close to the winning post and “can’t see how his horse could lose the race”.
Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Williamson said that PEECEE PUSSYCAT did receive interference from SHE’S A MANEATER, but that horse was 2 lengths behind at the 200 metres and made up considerable ground. He said that at the 30 metres SHE’S A MANEATER shifted in and placed PEECEE PUSSYCAT in restricted room for 3 to 4 strides from the finish. He said that in his opinion there is insufficient evidence that PEECEE PUSSYCAT would have beaten SHE’S A MANEATER.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions presented and reviewed the available video footage several times in real-time and slow motion, and frame by frame.
In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule the Committee must firstly establish that interference occurred; and second, 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 Mr Innes permitted his mount, SHE’S A MANEATER to shift in over the concluding stages and did brush PEECEE PUSSYCAT who did bump into the running rail. On that basis the Committee is satisfied interference did occur.
The films showed that near the 200 metres SHE’S A MANEATER was 2 lengths in arrears of PEECEE PUSSYCAT and from thereon made up ground to be almost on terms with PEECEE PUSSYCAT with 30 metres to travel. Although we establish that interference occurred the Committee is not satisfied that but for the interference PEECEE PUSSYCAT would have beaten SHE’S A MANEATER.
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings stand.
The Committee authorised the payment of dividends and prize money in accordance with our decision.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr J Bell - Trainer of PEECEE PUSSYCAT
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr J Bell - Trainer of PEECEE PUSSYCAT, Ms S Spratt - Rider of PEECEE PUSSYCAT, Mr P Lock - Trainer of SHE'S A MANEATER, Mr L Innes - Rider of SHE'S A MANEATER, Mr B Jones - Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr P Lock - Trainer of SHE'S A MANEATER
StipendSteward:
raceid: 1b0bfde0bd9ef3dac68fec6a54947c16
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 12dd3197f7e313d635fdc8e2dbbcee3b
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 17/04/2021
meet_title: Waikato RC - 17 April 2021
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikato-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMcCutcheon
meet_pm1: GJones
meet_pm2: none
name: Waikato RC