Manawatu RC 26 July 2012 – R 2 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA13107
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Manawatu RC - 26 July 2012
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMoffatt
Race Date:
2012/07/26
Race Number:
Race 2 - Instigating a Protest
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and placings were confirmed as:
1st (1) GOLDMIST
2nd (9) HOW TRUE
3rd (8) HOOVER BOY
4th (2) AINTREE
5th (10) ROSETOWN JOE
6th (5) TARIQ
The committee authorised the immediate payment of dividends and stakes in accordance with its decision.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 2 (‘Norwood Farm Machinery Maiden Hurdle) K Veenendaal (Rider of HOW TRUE) who finished 2nd filed Information A3026 instigating a protest against the connections of GOLDMIST who finished 1st, alleging interference in the final 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 (1) GOLDMIST
2nd (9) HOW TRUE
3rd (8) HOOVER BOY
4th (2) AINTREE
5th (10) ROSETOWN JOE
6th (5) TARIQ
The margin between 1st and 2nd was a length.
Submissions for Decision:
Using the head-on film, Miss Veenendaal stated that she was pushed out a length or two wider whilst coming down the straight by GOLDMIST. She also pointed out that contact was also made prior to jumping the last fence, almost forcing her feet out of her irons on a couple of occasions. It was her belief that HOW TRUE would have won if it had been permitted to travel in a straight fashion as he was travelling well. Miss Veenendaal believed the head-on film indicated HOW TRUE being pushed out wider just prior to the winning post.
Mr Oulaghan pointed out that prior to the second to last fence, GOLDMIST had been ridden up, indicating that HOW TRUE was travelling sweet. He did, however, admit that a gap was available for GOLDMIST to move into. He submitted that at this point in the running, HOW TRUE was travelling better than GOLDMIST, which appeared to be under more pressure than his own horse. Further, he believed HOW TRUE had gone from two off the rail to about 12 off the rail as a result of GOLDMIST’s outwards movement. Commenting on the rear-view film, Mr Oulaghan pointed out that no contact had been made after the final hurdle, but that his horse’s line had been dictated.
Mr Mitchell felt that GOLDMIST was always travelling well, and when approaching the straight on the final occasion, his mount did veer to the right. Mr Mitchell indicated he took a hold and corrected his mount for the jump. He submitted that the films clearly showed that his horse always had plenty of running.
Mr Connors concurred with Mr Mitchell, and emphasised that his horse had come from behind, and believed, with respect, that the inexperience of HOW TRUE’s jockey could be a factor for consideration. While he accepted that HOW TRUE was travelling, it was his view that GOLDMIST should not be penalised for the inability of Miss Veenendaal to ride her horse out fully, due to her relative inexperience. He submitted that the films showed Mr Mitchell straightening and that both horses jumped the last fence together. It was also clear in his view that GOLDMIST was pulling away from HOW TRUE towards the line.
For the Stipendiary Stewards, Mr Goodwin believed that HOW TRUE did not get a trouble-free run to the line. Outward movement from GOLDMIST under pressure caused HOW TRUE to be put off-stride, forcing it over a little extra ground, causing Miss Veenendaal to stop riding momentarily. Over the final stages he stated that GOLDMIST appeared to shift outwards, but Mr Goodwin believed GOLDMIST did come from behind and appeared to be holding at the end of the race.
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, prior to the final hurdle. It was also clear that both GOLDMIST and HOW TRUE jumped the final fence together. The issue that the committee needed to consider was whether the outwards movement from GOLDMIST was so prohibitive to HOW TRUE that it cost it the race. The committee was satisfied that outwards movement did take place after the final fence had been jumped, however, there still remained an opportunity for Miss Veenendaal to ride with consistent vigour over the concluding stages. The committee also found the side-on film particularly helpful as it clearly established that HOW TRUE was not gaining or taking any ground off GOLDMIST in the run to the line.
Consequently, it follows that had the interference not occurred we could not be satisfied that HOW TRUE would have beaten GOLDMIST.
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: 42daf231d6d858a390196c8864c04ca1
informantnumber: A3026
horsename: GOLD MIST
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 24/07/2012
hearing_title: Manawatu RC 26 July 2012 - R 2 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 2 (‘Norwood Farm Machinery Maiden Hurdle) K Veenendaal (Rider of HOW TRUE) who finished 2nd filed Information A3026 instigating a protest against the connections of GOLDMIST who finished 1st, alleging interference in the final 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 (1) GOLDMIST
2nd (9) HOW TRUE
3rd (8) HOOVER BOY
4th (2) AINTREE
5th (10) ROSETOWN JOE
6th (5) TARIQ
The margin between 1st and 2nd was a length.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Using the head-on film, Miss Veenendaal stated that she was pushed out a length or two wider whilst coming down the straight by GOLDMIST. She also pointed out that contact was also made prior to jumping the last fence, almost forcing her feet out of her irons on a couple of occasions. It was her belief that HOW TRUE would have won if it had been permitted to travel in a straight fashion as he was travelling well. Miss Veenendaal believed the head-on film indicated HOW TRUE being pushed out wider just prior to the winning post.
Mr Oulaghan pointed out that prior to the second to last fence, GOLDMIST had been ridden up, indicating that HOW TRUE was travelling sweet. He did, however, admit that a gap was available for GOLDMIST to move into. He submitted that at this point in the running, HOW TRUE was travelling better than GOLDMIST, which appeared to be under more pressure than his own horse. Further, he believed HOW TRUE had gone from two off the rail to about 12 off the rail as a result of GOLDMIST’s outwards movement. Commenting on the rear-view film, Mr Oulaghan pointed out that no contact had been made after the final hurdle, but that his horse’s line had been dictated.
Mr Mitchell felt that GOLDMIST was always travelling well, and when approaching the straight on the final occasion, his mount did veer to the right. Mr Mitchell indicated he took a hold and corrected his mount for the jump. He submitted that the films clearly showed that his horse always had plenty of running.
Mr Connors concurred with Mr Mitchell, and emphasised that his horse had come from behind, and believed, with respect, that the inexperience of HOW TRUE’s jockey could be a factor for consideration. While he accepted that HOW TRUE was travelling, it was his view that GOLDMIST should not be penalised for the inability of Miss Veenendaal to ride her horse out fully, due to her relative inexperience. He submitted that the films showed Mr Mitchell straightening and that both horses jumped the last fence together. It was also clear in his view that GOLDMIST was pulling away from HOW TRUE towards the line.
For the Stipendiary Stewards, Mr Goodwin believed that HOW TRUE did not get a trouble-free run to the line. Outward movement from GOLDMIST under pressure caused HOW TRUE to be put off-stride, forcing it over a little extra ground, causing Miss Veenendaal to stop riding momentarily. Over the final stages he stated that GOLDMIST appeared to shift outwards, but Mr Goodwin believed GOLDMIST did come from behind and appeared to be holding at the end of the race.
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, prior to the final hurdle. It was also clear that both GOLDMIST and HOW TRUE jumped the final fence together. The issue that the committee needed to consider was whether the outwards movement from GOLDMIST was so prohibitive to HOW TRUE that it cost it the race. The committee was satisfied that outwards movement did take place after the final fence had been jumped, however, there still remained an opportunity for Miss Veenendaal to ride with consistent vigour over the concluding stages. The committee also found the side-on film particularly helpful as it clearly established that HOW TRUE was not gaining or taking any ground off GOLDMIST in the run to the line.
Consequently, it follows that had the interference not occurred we could not be satisfied that HOW TRUE would have beaten GOLDMIST.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and placings were confirmed as:
1st (1) GOLDMIST
2nd (9) HOW TRUE
3rd (8) HOOVER BOY
4th (2) AINTREE
5th (10) ROSETOWN JOE
6th (5) TARIQ
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: K Veenendaal - Rider of HOW TRUE
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: K Veenendaal - Rider of HOW TRUE, M Oulaghan - Trainer of HOW TRUE, M Mitchell - Rider of GOLDMIST, R Connors - Trainer of GOLDMIST, N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward, B Sweeney - Trackside Presenter
Respondent: R Connors - Trainer of GOLDMIST
StipendSteward:
raceid: 76345dc8fb2c3ed7a9c0eed269078669
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 2 - Instigating a Protest
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 0ae738ef8717d5f1bd440d598b56934b
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/07/2012
meet_title: Manawatu RC - 26 July 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "kmprice": 0.0, "MemberID": "TUtikere", "Member": "", "KMs": "0", "OtherExpenses": "0", "Total": 0.0, "MemberRole": "Chair ", "Approved": []}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: manawatu-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: NMoffatt
meet_pm2: none
name: Manawatu RC