Wellington RC 12 April 2014 – R 9 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA12211
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Wellington RC - 12 April 2014
Meet Chair:
PWilliams
Meet Committee Member 1:
GBuchanan
Race Date:
2014/04/12
Race Number:
R 9
Decision:
The protest is dismissed and the placings as called by the Judge (and detailed above) are confirmed. Authorisation is given to the payment of dividends and stakes.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 9, The Silent Achiever Cup over 2200m, a protest (Information A3303) was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Licensed Jockey Mr S Doyle. Mr Doyle, the rider of “Ought To Be Bad” who was placed 3rd in the race alleged that “Jack’s Boy”, ridden by Licensed Jockey Mr D Walker who had won the race, interfered with his chances of winning - specifically that “the interference occurred 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 Judge’s placings were:-
1st Jack’s Boy (9)
2nd The Beaut (4)
3rd Ought To Be Bad (7)
4th Lord Of The Stars (2)
5th The Big Opal (5)
6th Edensong (10)
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was 3/4 of a length and 1 and 3/4 lengths between 2nd and 3rd.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Doyle used the head-on film from the top of the straight to highlight the relative positions of “Ought To Be Bad” and “Jack’s Boy”. He said “Jack’s Boy” was to his outside as he was commencing to make his run. He said “Jack’s Boy” moved in as the two horses raced down the straight and whilst there was plenty of room for “Ought To Be Bad” up to around the 200m mark he then received interference form “Jack’s Boy” which caused him to lose momentum. Mr Doyle said his horse was a big strider and the further interference he received around the 100m point caused him to drop his hands which made it difficult for him to ride his horse out to the best of his ability to the line. He said in his view the interference received had clearly cost him the race. Mr Doyle also used the side-on and rear view films to emphasise the points he was making.
Ms Cookson said her horse was “holding its ground really good” up to the 200m mark and because she was a long striding mare when she received the interference she could not get going again before reaching the finishing line. She said her horse was hitting the line well until the last 50m and had not shifted ground at all in the run to the line and would have finished closer but for the interference received.
Mr Walker said it was quite apparent that his horse had hung in down the straight and that it had “got tight”. He said “whilst he had possibly shaved the other horse” very close to the line he did not think “Ought To Be Bad” was ever going to beat “Jack’s Boy”, nor possibly even run second. He also reminded the Committee that the distance between him and “Ought To Be Bad” at the line was two and a half lengths.
Mr McGregor said his horse had won by ¾ of a length going away, agreed with Mr Walker that there had been some minor contact with “Ought To Be Bad” but not enough to justify him losing the race.
Mr Neal said rather than shaving “Ought To Be Bad” near the 100m mark he thought it was more of a tightening to that horse. He said, whilst it was a possibility that “Ought To Be Bad” may have beaten “Jack’s Boy”, in the view of the Stewards it was by no means certain. He also pointed out that at the time of the tightening “Jack’s Boy” was in front of “Ought To Be Bad” and there was no discernible progress being made at that time by “Ought To Be Bad”. He agreed that Mr Doyle did have to take a hold but said the Stewards had doubt that “Ought To Be Bad” would have beaten “Jack’s Boy”.
Reasons for Decision:
In coming to a decision the Committee has carefully reviewed all the available films and the evidence presented. At the top of the straight “Ought To Be Bad” was approximately 8 horse widths off the fence. “Jack’s Boy” was approximately 6 horse widths off the fence and racing approximately one length behind “Ought To Be Bad”. At around the 350m mark “Jack’s Boy” commenced to move inwards but was clear of other horses until approximately the 200m mark when he made slight contact with “Ought To Be Bad”. The side on film shows “Ought To Be Bad” was behind “Jack’s Boy” at that moment. Significantly, the head on film shows Mr Walker took immediate action to straighten his mount and in doing so created a gap of at least one horse width in front of Mr Doyle who did not have to stop riding. The films also show Mr Doyle was then unable to make any significant ground into that gap. At approximately 100m from the finish “Jack’s Boy” again moved in causing tightening to “Ought To Be Bad” and as a result that horse lost momentum and could not be fully ridden out to the line. The Committee notes that at no stage in the run from the top of the straight was “Ought To Be Bad” closer than half to three quarters of a length to “Jack’s Boy”.
Having agreed that tightening did occur to “Ought To Be Bad” at the 100m mark we must now consider whether, had it not occurred, that horse would have beaten “Jack’s Boy”. The margin between 1st and 3rd at the finish was two and a half lengths and given that “Ought To Be Bad” was never closer than half to three quarters of a length to “Jack’s Boy” prior to the 100m mark the Committee cannot be certain “Ought to Be Bad” would have beaten “Jack’s Boy”.
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: 40264aa1f1631ddf266d7cda93a5385d
informantnumber: A3303
horsename: JACK'S BOY
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 07/04/2014
hearing_title: Wellington RC 12 April 2014 - R 9 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 9, The Silent Achiever Cup over 2200m, a protest (Information A3303) was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Licensed Jockey Mr S Doyle. Mr Doyle, the rider of “Ought To Be Bad” who was placed 3rd in the race alleged that “Jack’s Boy”, ridden by Licensed Jockey Mr D Walker who had won the race, interfered with his chances of winning - specifically that “the interference occurred 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 Judge’s placings were:-
1st Jack’s Boy (9)
2nd The Beaut (4)
3rd Ought To Be Bad (7)
4th Lord Of The Stars (2)
5th The Big Opal (5)
6th Edensong (10)
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was 3/4 of a length and 1 and 3/4 lengths between 2nd and 3rd.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Doyle used the head-on film from the top of the straight to highlight the relative positions of “Ought To Be Bad” and “Jack’s Boy”. He said “Jack’s Boy” was to his outside as he was commencing to make his run. He said “Jack’s Boy” moved in as the two horses raced down the straight and whilst there was plenty of room for “Ought To Be Bad” up to around the 200m mark he then received interference form “Jack’s Boy” which caused him to lose momentum. Mr Doyle said his horse was a big strider and the further interference he received around the 100m point caused him to drop his hands which made it difficult for him to ride his horse out to the best of his ability to the line. He said in his view the interference received had clearly cost him the race. Mr Doyle also used the side-on and rear view films to emphasise the points he was making.
Ms Cookson said her horse was “holding its ground really good” up to the 200m mark and because she was a long striding mare when she received the interference she could not get going again before reaching the finishing line. She said her horse was hitting the line well until the last 50m and had not shifted ground at all in the run to the line and would have finished closer but for the interference received.
Mr Walker said it was quite apparent that his horse had hung in down the straight and that it had “got tight”. He said “whilst he had possibly shaved the other horse” very close to the line he did not think “Ought To Be Bad” was ever going to beat “Jack’s Boy”, nor possibly even run second. He also reminded the Committee that the distance between him and “Ought To Be Bad” at the line was two and a half lengths.
Mr McGregor said his horse had won by ¾ of a length going away, agreed with Mr Walker that there had been some minor contact with “Ought To Be Bad” but not enough to justify him losing the race.
Mr Neal said rather than shaving “Ought To Be Bad” near the 100m mark he thought it was more of a tightening to that horse. He said, whilst it was a possibility that “Ought To Be Bad” may have beaten “Jack’s Boy”, in the view of the Stewards it was by no means certain. He also pointed out that at the time of the tightening “Jack’s Boy” was in front of “Ought To Be Bad” and there was no discernible progress being made at that time by “Ought To Be Bad”. He agreed that Mr Doyle did have to take a hold but said the Stewards had doubt that “Ought To Be Bad” would have beaten “Jack’s Boy”.
reasonsfordecision:
In coming to a decision the Committee has carefully reviewed all the available films and the evidence presented. At the top of the straight “Ought To Be Bad” was approximately 8 horse widths off the fence. “Jack’s Boy” was approximately 6 horse widths off the fence and racing approximately one length behind “Ought To Be Bad”. At around the 350m mark “Jack’s Boy” commenced to move inwards but was clear of other horses until approximately the 200m mark when he made slight contact with “Ought To Be Bad”. The side on film shows “Ought To Be Bad” was behind “Jack’s Boy” at that moment. Significantly, the head on film shows Mr Walker took immediate action to straighten his mount and in doing so created a gap of at least one horse width in front of Mr Doyle who did not have to stop riding. The films also show Mr Doyle was then unable to make any significant ground into that gap. At approximately 100m from the finish “Jack’s Boy” again moved in causing tightening to “Ought To Be Bad” and as a result that horse lost momentum and could not be fully ridden out to the line. The Committee notes that at no stage in the run from the top of the straight was “Ought To Be Bad” closer than half to three quarters of a length to “Jack’s Boy”.
Having agreed that tightening did occur to “Ought To Be Bad” at the 100m mark we must now consider whether, had it not occurred, that horse would have beaten “Jack’s Boy”. The margin between 1st and 3rd at the finish was two and a half lengths and given that “Ought To Be Bad” was never closer than half to three quarters of a length to “Jack’s Boy” prior to the 100m mark the Committee cannot be certain “Ought to Be Bad” would have beaten “Jack’s Boy”.
Decision:
The protest is dismissed and the placings as called by the Judge (and detailed above) are confirmed. Authorisation is given to the payment of dividends and stakes.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr S Doyle - Licensed Jockey
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr R Neal - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward, Ms S Cookson - Licensed Trainer, Mr D Walker - Licensed Jockey
Respondent: Mr A McGregor - Licensed Trainer
StipendSteward:
raceid: 76ee6a8a18e3932e05087aba9171e379
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 729bc861e63e980064cbd32a000a4080
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 12/04/2014
meet_title: Wellington RC - 12 April 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wellington-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: PWilliams
meet_pm1: GBuchanan
meet_pm2: none
name: Wellington RC