Manawatu RC 26 December 2013 – R 7 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA12339
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Manawatu RC - 26 December 2013
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
TCastles
Race Date:
2013/12/26
Race Number:
Race 7
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and placings were confirmed as:
1st - (8) AUTHENTIC PADDY
2nd - (7) PERO
3rd - (3) IAMISHWARA
4th - (4) L’AMOUR
5th - (5) LIKEAPINS
6th - (6) MCLAREN
The committee authorised the immediate payment of dividends and stakes in accordance with its decision.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 7 (Manawatu Standard Summer Cup) M Dravitski (Rider of L’AMOUR) who finished 4th filed Information A4010 instigating a protest against the connections of IAMISHWARA who finished 3rd, alleging interference in the home straight.
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 and all parties confirmed they understood Rule 642(1).
The provisional placings were:
1st - (8) AUTHENTIC PADDY
2nd - (7) PERO
3rd - (3) IAMISHWARA
4th - (4) L’AMOUR
5th - (5) LIKEAPINS
6th - (6) MCLAREN
The margin between 3rd and 4th was a short neck.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Goodwin identified both horses on the film. Using the head-on film, Miss Dravitski pointed out that Ms Shackleton was insufficiently clear at approximately the 250m mark when moving out and that IAMISHWARA had taken L’AMOUR’s rightful path as a result. Miss Dravitski said the track was “quite off” on the rail and that she did not want to be there during the running. After the interference, her horse had become re-balanced and went on to finish strongly at the line. Miss Dravitski estimated that she had been pushed in approximately three horse widths. As a result of the interference she had to stop using her whip momentarily, but had lost a lot of momentum as a result of having to keep her horse balanced for a couple of strides.
Ms Frith advised that the riding instructions were to stay away from the rail. Her major concern was that L’AMOUR was forced into the worst of the footing by IAMISHWARA, which required the mare to be straightened and re-balanced to get going again. She believed that L’AMOUR was making ground after it was able to re-balance and move back into a gap.
Ms Shackleton submitted that at the top of the straight she sought a run to the inside of AUTHENTIC PADDY, but at the same time he started to roll inwards and consequently dictated her line. As a result she had to check her ride and stop riding for approximately five strides and change ground considerably to go outside of him again. Although there was a gap, Ms Shackleton accepted that she was not sufficiently clear when she angled into it.
Mr Kaye believed that AUTHENTIC PADDY had taken IAMISHWARA’s line, which resulted in his horse being pushed on to L’AMOUR. He also believed that even after both horses had obtained a clear run to the line, IAMISHWARA was still full of running in comparison to L’ARMOUR.
For the Stipendiary Stewards, Mr Goodwin believed that Ms Shackleton had made the decision to take an inward run, and that once that decision had been made, AUTHENTIC PADDY had shifted inwards making it appear a little more awkward than it was. He did not believe AUTHENTIC PADDY had any influence on Ms Shackleton’s decision to seek an inward run. Referring to the side-on film, Mr Goodwin commented that nonetheless; it did appear that IAMISHWARA was holding L’ARMOUR until the end of the race. On this basis, the stipendiary stewards believed there was some doubt that IAMISHWARA had cost L’ARMOUR third placing.
Those present did not wish to add anything further.
Reasons for Decision:
After hearing all the evidence and reviewing the relevant films, the committee considered the submissions relating to the alleged interference over the final stages. It was clear, based on the films, and in particular the head-on and rear films, that interference did occur at approximately the 250m mark. While AUTHENTIC PADDY had made some inwards movement over the final 250m, this did not have any bearing on Ms Shackleton’s initial decision to seek a run to the inside of AUTHENTIC PADDY. The committee must be satisfied that had the interference not occurred, L’AMOUR would have beaten IAMISHWARA. The head-on and side-on films were particularly helpful as they clearly established that even though L’ARMOUR had been dictated inwards for some distance, there remained an opportunity for L’ARMOUR to pass IAMISHWARA over the concluding stages. It was clear that IAMISHWARA was holding its own in the run to the line.
Consequently, it follows that had the interference not occurred we could not be satisfied that L’AMOUR would have beaten IAMISHWARA.
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: 4ffec5a47256e19419e5c4dacff017db
informantnumber: A4010
horsename: IAMISHWARA
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 17/12/2013
hearing_title: Manawatu RC 26 December 2013 - R 7 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 7 (Manawatu Standard Summer Cup) M Dravitski (Rider of L’AMOUR) who finished 4th filed Information A4010 instigating a protest against the connections of IAMISHWARA who finished 3rd, alleging interference in the home straight.
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 and all parties confirmed they understood Rule 642(1).
The provisional placings were:
1st - (8) AUTHENTIC PADDY
2nd - (7) PERO
3rd - (3) IAMISHWARA
4th - (4) L’AMOUR
5th - (5) LIKEAPINS
6th - (6) MCLAREN
The margin between 3rd and 4th was a short neck.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Goodwin identified both horses on the film. Using the head-on film, Miss Dravitski pointed out that Ms Shackleton was insufficiently clear at approximately the 250m mark when moving out and that IAMISHWARA had taken L’AMOUR’s rightful path as a result. Miss Dravitski said the track was “quite off” on the rail and that she did not want to be there during the running. After the interference, her horse had become re-balanced and went on to finish strongly at the line. Miss Dravitski estimated that she had been pushed in approximately three horse widths. As a result of the interference she had to stop using her whip momentarily, but had lost a lot of momentum as a result of having to keep her horse balanced for a couple of strides.
Ms Frith advised that the riding instructions were to stay away from the rail. Her major concern was that L’AMOUR was forced into the worst of the footing by IAMISHWARA, which required the mare to be straightened and re-balanced to get going again. She believed that L’AMOUR was making ground after it was able to re-balance and move back into a gap.
Ms Shackleton submitted that at the top of the straight she sought a run to the inside of AUTHENTIC PADDY, but at the same time he started to roll inwards and consequently dictated her line. As a result she had to check her ride and stop riding for approximately five strides and change ground considerably to go outside of him again. Although there was a gap, Ms Shackleton accepted that she was not sufficiently clear when she angled into it.
Mr Kaye believed that AUTHENTIC PADDY had taken IAMISHWARA’s line, which resulted in his horse being pushed on to L’AMOUR. He also believed that even after both horses had obtained a clear run to the line, IAMISHWARA was still full of running in comparison to L’ARMOUR.
For the Stipendiary Stewards, Mr Goodwin believed that Ms Shackleton had made the decision to take an inward run, and that once that decision had been made, AUTHENTIC PADDY had shifted inwards making it appear a little more awkward than it was. He did not believe AUTHENTIC PADDY had any influence on Ms Shackleton’s decision to seek an inward run. Referring to the side-on film, Mr Goodwin commented that nonetheless; it did appear that IAMISHWARA was holding L’ARMOUR until the end of the race. On this basis, the stipendiary stewards believed there was some doubt that IAMISHWARA had cost L’ARMOUR third placing.
Those present did not wish to add anything further.
reasonsfordecision:
After hearing all the evidence and reviewing the relevant films, the committee considered the submissions relating to the alleged interference over the final stages. It was clear, based on the films, and in particular the head-on and rear films, that interference did occur at approximately the 250m mark. While AUTHENTIC PADDY had made some inwards movement over the final 250m, this did not have any bearing on Ms Shackleton’s initial decision to seek a run to the inside of AUTHENTIC PADDY. The committee must be satisfied that had the interference not occurred, L’AMOUR would have beaten IAMISHWARA. The head-on and side-on films were particularly helpful as they clearly established that even though L’ARMOUR had been dictated inwards for some distance, there remained an opportunity for L’ARMOUR to pass IAMISHWARA over the concluding stages. It was clear that IAMISHWARA was holding its own in the run to the line.
Consequently, it follows that had the interference not occurred we could not be satisfied that L’AMOUR would have beaten IAMISHWARA.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and placings were confirmed as:
1st - (8) AUTHENTIC PADDY
2nd - (7) PERO
3rd - (3) IAMISHWARA
4th - (4) L’AMOUR
5th - (5) LIKEAPINS
6th - (6) MCLAREN
The committee authorised the immediate payment of dividends and stakes in accordance with its decision.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: Rule 642(1)
Informant: M Dravitski - Licensed Jockey (L'AMOUR)
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: J Shackleton - Licensed Jockey (IAMISHWARA), Ms Frith - Stable Representative (L'AMOUR), Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: A Kaye - Licensed Trainer (IAMISHWARA)
StipendSteward:
raceid: 33b4906f40535c112d4865ef01864d16
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 69c57cb773c0cf7ba6efd1f20cf1449d
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/12/2013
meet_title: Manawatu RC - 26 December 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: manawatu-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: TCastles
meet_pm2: none
name: Manawatu RC