Auckland RC 5 September 2015 – R 5 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr N McCutcheon
ID: JCA12015
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 5 September 2015
Meet Chair:
NMcCutcheon
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2015/09/05
Race Number:
R 5
Decision:
In accordance with the committee’s determination the protest 4th against 3rd was dismissed, with authorisation being given for the payment of dividends and prize money on the Judge’s placings.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5 (Schweppes Great Northern Hurdle) Information No. A7556 was filed with the Judicial Committee under the provisions of Rule 642(1). The Information alleged that WEE BISKIT placed 3rd by the Judge interfered with the chances of SUPERTURF placed 4th by the Judge. It alleged interference at the second to last fence.
The provisional placings were:
1st (4) Gagarin
2nd (5) Mahanadi
3rd (2) Wee Biskit
4th (6) Superturf
5th (3) Thenamesbond
The margin between 3rd and 4th was a nose.
Submissions for Decision:
Stipendiary Steward Mr Coles identified the two horses concerned on the films. Mr Walsh said that at the second to last fence his horse (SUPERTURF) was the widest on the track and in the approach to the last fence Isaac’s mount (WEE BISKIT) shifted out into his line and that his horse lost half a length and lost valuable running. He said that in his opinion it was a legitimate protest.
Mr Lambert said it was self evident. SUPERTURF was behind the other horse and came back to be beaten a nose. He added that he (SUPERTURF) probably lost more than a nose during the interference.
Mr Lupton said that it was obvious that his horse did run the fence down a bit and that horses often do that in jumping races. He said he felt SUPERTURF had had the opportunity to beat his horse, in that it got up level with his horse at the last fence and then made a poor jump and probably lost a length. He concluded by saying the poor jump at the last fence cost him (SUPERTURF) and not the incident at the second to last fence as it was only slight interference.
Mr Duncan said that on the point of the turn SUPERTURF had angled in slightly, that his horse was angled out and only drifted across SUPERTURF when it was in the air and that that made it look slightly worse. He then said that at the last fence SUPERTURF had actually headed his horse as you could see on the film that SUPERTURF left the ground to jump the fence slightly ahead of WEE BISKIT. He added that SUPERTURF, on landing, slipped a bit, screwed and lost about a length.
Mr Oatham was invited to comment on the incident but not on the merits of the protest. Mr Oatham said that from the 800m SUPERTURF was two lengths behind WEE BISKIT but then made up that ground quickly prior to the second to last fence. He said that at the second to last fence SUPERTURF jumped the fence approximately one length behind WEE BISKIT; he said that WEE BISKIT did run the fence down and did cause some interference to SUPERTURF. He said that SUPERTURF recovered relatively quickly and ranged up outside WEE BISKIT and appeared to jump the final fence on terms, after which SUPERTURF blundered quite badly and lost approximately one length. He said that SUPERTURF again made up ground over the final 150m.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee carefully considered all submissions and reviewed the films of the run over the final 700m of the race. The committee found that in the approach to the second to last fence WEE BISKIT commenced to shift out and then ran the fence down. This resulted in SUPERTURF who was racing a length back and to the outside of WEE BISKIT being forced out wider. The committee noted that after landing over the fence until the approach to the last fence, SUPERTURF had levelled up with WEE BISKIT. However on landing SUPERTURF did so awkwardly, screwed, lost momentum and was approximately one length behind WEE BISKIT at that stage. SUPERTURF then regained momentum to finish the race a nose behind WEE BISKIT.
For the protest to be successful the committee needed to be satisfied that if interference had not occurred that SUPERTURF would have beaten WEE BISKIT.
After carefully considering what occurred over the final 700m of the race, the committee was not convinced that the incident at the second to last fence cost SUPERTURF third placing.
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: 30164226e03cf8ad22423b8e3e9e3347
informantnumber: A7556
horsename: WEE BISKIT
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 08/09/2015
hearing_title: Auckland RC 5 September 2015 - R 5 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr N McCutcheon
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 5 (Schweppes Great Northern Hurdle) Information No. A7556 was filed with the Judicial Committee under the provisions of Rule 642(1). The Information alleged that WEE BISKIT placed 3rd by the Judge interfered with the chances of SUPERTURF placed 4th by the Judge. It alleged interference at the second to last fence.
The provisional placings were:
1st (4) Gagarin
2nd (5) Mahanadi
3rd (2) Wee Biskit
4th (6) Superturf
5th (3) Thenamesbond
The margin between 3rd and 4th was a nose.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Stipendiary Steward Mr Coles identified the two horses concerned on the films. Mr Walsh said that at the second to last fence his horse (SUPERTURF) was the widest on the track and in the approach to the last fence Isaac’s mount (WEE BISKIT) shifted out into his line and that his horse lost half a length and lost valuable running. He said that in his opinion it was a legitimate protest.
Mr Lambert said it was self evident. SUPERTURF was behind the other horse and came back to be beaten a nose. He added that he (SUPERTURF) probably lost more than a nose during the interference.
Mr Lupton said that it was obvious that his horse did run the fence down a bit and that horses often do that in jumping races. He said he felt SUPERTURF had had the opportunity to beat his horse, in that it got up level with his horse at the last fence and then made a poor jump and probably lost a length. He concluded by saying the poor jump at the last fence cost him (SUPERTURF) and not the incident at the second to last fence as it was only slight interference.
Mr Duncan said that on the point of the turn SUPERTURF had angled in slightly, that his horse was angled out and only drifted across SUPERTURF when it was in the air and that that made it look slightly worse. He then said that at the last fence SUPERTURF had actually headed his horse as you could see on the film that SUPERTURF left the ground to jump the fence slightly ahead of WEE BISKIT. He added that SUPERTURF, on landing, slipped a bit, screwed and lost about a length.
Mr Oatham was invited to comment on the incident but not on the merits of the protest. Mr Oatham said that from the 800m SUPERTURF was two lengths behind WEE BISKIT but then made up that ground quickly prior to the second to last fence. He said that at the second to last fence SUPERTURF jumped the fence approximately one length behind WEE BISKIT; he said that WEE BISKIT did run the fence down and did cause some interference to SUPERTURF. He said that SUPERTURF recovered relatively quickly and ranged up outside WEE BISKIT and appeared to jump the final fence on terms, after which SUPERTURF blundered quite badly and lost approximately one length. He said that SUPERTURF again made up ground over the final 150m.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee carefully considered all submissions and reviewed the films of the run over the final 700m of the race. The committee found that in the approach to the second to last fence WEE BISKIT commenced to shift out and then ran the fence down. This resulted in SUPERTURF who was racing a length back and to the outside of WEE BISKIT being forced out wider. The committee noted that after landing over the fence until the approach to the last fence, SUPERTURF had levelled up with WEE BISKIT. However on landing SUPERTURF did so awkwardly, screwed, lost momentum and was approximately one length behind WEE BISKIT at that stage. SUPERTURF then regained momentum to finish the race a nose behind WEE BISKIT.
For the protest to be successful the committee needed to be satisfied that if interference had not occurred that SUPERTURF would have beaten WEE BISKIT.
After carefully considering what occurred over the final 700m of the race, the committee was not convinced that the incident at the second to last fence cost SUPERTURF third placing.
Decision:
In accordance with the committee’s determination the protest 4th against 3rd was dismissed, with authorisation being given for the payment of dividends and prize money on the Judge’s placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr G Walsh - Rider of SUPERTURF
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr G Lambert - Trainer of SUPERTURF, Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr I Lupton - Rider of WEE BISKIT, Mr K Duncan - Trainer of WEE BISKIT
StipendSteward:
raceid: e3872bc37465d0711fd284ba8b86391d
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 7f72c8662929f9bbfb52a3ebb1a5ac41
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 05/09/2015
meet_title: Auckland RC - 5 September 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMcCutcheon
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC