HR Waikato 31 October 2013 – R 4 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA13549
Meet Title:
Cambridge HRC - 31 October 2013
Meet Chair:
BScott
Meet Committee Member 1:
AGodsalve
Race Date:
2013/10/31
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
Mr Muirhead also drew the Committee’s attention to Passing Lane Regulation Clause 7 and said that Mr Ferguson should have maintained a straight line and that there was plenty of room for him to do so.
The Protest is accordingly upheld and IDEAL PARTY is relegated from 2nd place to 4th place and as a consequence JAZZ LOVER is promoted to 3rd place.
The amended placings are:
1st - 9 KILKEEL LADY
2nd - 2 PONDEROSE
3rd - 1 JAZZ LOVER
4tg - 4 IDEAL PARTY
5th - 8 BETTOR PACK A PISTOL
The Committee orders that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the amended placings.
Facts:
An Information instigating a protest was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr JM Muirhead against the 2nd placing of horse number (4) IDEAL PARTY in the Fairview Motors Cambridge Fillies/Mares Mobile Pace on the grounds that after being the lead horse on the marker line at the entrance to the Passing Lane it failed to maintain access to Passing Lane throughout the run home and impeded the progress of JAZZ LOVER (Driver P Butcher).
Messrs Ferguson and Butcher advised the Committee that they represented the connections of their horses.
Mr Ferguson advised that the protest was contested.
Rule 869(4) provides as follows:
No horse shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with any other horse or its progress.
Rule 869(8) provides as follows:
The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses,-
immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.
Passing Lane Regulation Clause 4 provides:
“in the last lap of any race the leading horse on the running line shall, upon entering the home straight, maintain as straight a course as possible parallel to the running line and allow the trailing horses full access to expanded inside lane”.
The appropriate Rule and Regulation were read out at the Hearing.
Mr Muirhead demonstrated the incident by use of the video films and these showed that at about the 400 metre mark Mr Herlihy was in front driving PONDEROSE followed by Mr Ferguson in the trail driving IDEAL PARTY and Mr Butcher behind him driving JAZZ LOVER. He showed that prior to the home turn PONDEROSE began to drift outwards and by the time the horses had straightened for the run in it had drifted out at least a sulky width and left ample room for IDEAL PARTY to come through. Mr Muirhead said that at that stage IDEAL PARTY was the lead horse on the running line. He said that this was 30 or 40 metres before the Passing Lane.
Mr Muirhead then said that JAZZ LOVER then became the trailing horse and it was the horse that had rights to the Passing Lane.
Mr Muirhead then pointed out where IDEAL PARTY moved into the Passing Lane and cut off JAZZ LOVER’S access to it. He said that at one stage Mr Butcher had to stop driving because Mr Ferguson had moved inwards.
Mr Herlihy whilst acknowledging that his horse had run wide, said that “this type of thing happens in many races” and he thought that Mr Ferguson was entitled to the Passing Lane.
Mr Butcher said that it got a bit tight when he moved into the Passing Lane and he didn’t know whether his horse was affected or not.
Mr Ferguson stated that he thought that his horse had the trail and that therefore he was entitled to move into the Passing Lane. He was not aware that with the outwards movement of Mr Herlihy’s horse that his horse then became the lead horse on the running line. He thought that Mr Herlihy’s horse was still the leader.
Mr Muirhead by way of summary confirmed that the outward movement of Mr Herlihy’s horse meant that Mr Ferguson’s horse was the lead horse on the running line and that this was clearly demonstrated by the video film. He acknowledged that Mr Ferguson may not have realised that his horse was the lead horse on the running line but that he it was and as such he was not entitled to move into the Passing Lane.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Muirhead said that because Mr Herlihy had moved wide on the bend that Mr Ferguson's horse had become the lead horse on the running line and accordingly Mr Ferguson was not entitled to take the Passing Lane. Mr Muirhead said that as a result Mr Ferguson was in breach of not only the Rule but also the Passing Lane Regulations.
Mr Ferguson believed that he was still driving the trailing horse at the appropriate time.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee has listened to evidence presented to it and has viewed the race films again several times. The films are very clear and they show the outwards movement of Mr Herlihy’s horse and showed that Mr Ferguson’s horse as a result became the lead horse on the running line. The head on film is particularly helpful because in the Committee’s view Mr Herlihy’s horse has moved at least a sulky and a half outwards and Mr Ferguson’s horse has a clear run to the finishing line. The films also show Mr Ferguson moving into the Passing Lane and as a result this impeded the progress of JAZZ LOVER and Mr Butcher had to stop driving for part of the time down the home straight. The Committee believes this affected the chances of Mr Butcher’s horse.
The Committee also believes that Passing Lane Regulations Clauses 6 and 7 apply and these are as follows:
Clause 6 states:
"subject to Clause 4 hereof, in the last lap of any race no horse shall move inwards into the expanded inside lane (or any part thereof) when it has an un impeded run to the finish line.
Clause 7 states:
“except where a horseman is making a move to pursuant to Rule 869(7) and subject to the proceeding provisions of this Regulation where applicable, every horse shall upon entering the home straight prior to the finish maintain as straight a course as possible to the finish line”.
The Committee is clearly of the view that not only was Mr Ferguson’s horse the lead horse on the running line prior to the Passing Lane but as a result of him having an unimpeded run to the finish line, he was not entitled to move into the Passing Lane. In doing so he not only impeded the progress of JAZZ LOVER but affected its chances.
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: 44472fb505c7e8bb13c7d6a3b94aab51
informantnumber: A3956
horsename: IDEAL PARTY
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 18/11/2013
hearing_title: HR Waikato 31 October 2013 - R 4 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
An Information instigating a protest was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr JM Muirhead against the 2nd placing of horse number (4) IDEAL PARTY in the Fairview Motors Cambridge Fillies/Mares Mobile Pace on the grounds that after being the lead horse on the marker line at the entrance to the Passing Lane it failed to maintain access to Passing Lane throughout the run home and impeded the progress of JAZZ LOVER (Driver P Butcher).
Messrs Ferguson and Butcher advised the Committee that they represented the connections of their horses.
Mr Ferguson advised that the protest was contested.
Rule 869(4) provides as follows:
No horse shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with any other horse or its progress.
Rule 869(8) provides as follows:
The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses,-
immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.
Passing Lane Regulation Clause 4 provides:
“in the last lap of any race the leading horse on the running line shall, upon entering the home straight, maintain as straight a course as possible parallel to the running line and allow the trailing horses full access to expanded inside lane”.
The appropriate Rule and Regulation were read out at the Hearing.
Mr Muirhead demonstrated the incident by use of the video films and these showed that at about the 400 metre mark Mr Herlihy was in front driving PONDEROSE followed by Mr Ferguson in the trail driving IDEAL PARTY and Mr Butcher behind him driving JAZZ LOVER. He showed that prior to the home turn PONDEROSE began to drift outwards and by the time the horses had straightened for the run in it had drifted out at least a sulky width and left ample room for IDEAL PARTY to come through. Mr Muirhead said that at that stage IDEAL PARTY was the lead horse on the running line. He said that this was 30 or 40 metres before the Passing Lane.
Mr Muirhead then said that JAZZ LOVER then became the trailing horse and it was the horse that had rights to the Passing Lane.
Mr Muirhead then pointed out where IDEAL PARTY moved into the Passing Lane and cut off JAZZ LOVER’S access to it. He said that at one stage Mr Butcher had to stop driving because Mr Ferguson had moved inwards.
Mr Herlihy whilst acknowledging that his horse had run wide, said that “this type of thing happens in many races” and he thought that Mr Ferguson was entitled to the Passing Lane.
Mr Butcher said that it got a bit tight when he moved into the Passing Lane and he didn’t know whether his horse was affected or not.
Mr Ferguson stated that he thought that his horse had the trail and that therefore he was entitled to move into the Passing Lane. He was not aware that with the outwards movement of Mr Herlihy’s horse that his horse then became the lead horse on the running line. He thought that Mr Herlihy’s horse was still the leader.
Mr Muirhead by way of summary confirmed that the outward movement of Mr Herlihy’s horse meant that Mr Ferguson’s horse was the lead horse on the running line and that this was clearly demonstrated by the video film. He acknowledged that Mr Ferguson may not have realised that his horse was the lead horse on the running line but that he it was and as such he was not entitled to move into the Passing Lane.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Muirhead said that because Mr Herlihy had moved wide on the bend that Mr Ferguson's horse had become the lead horse on the running line and accordingly Mr Ferguson was not entitled to take the Passing Lane. Mr Muirhead said that as a result Mr Ferguson was in breach of not only the Rule but also the Passing Lane Regulations.
Mr Ferguson believed that he was still driving the trailing horse at the appropriate time.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee has listened to evidence presented to it and has viewed the race films again several times. The films are very clear and they show the outwards movement of Mr Herlihy’s horse and showed that Mr Ferguson’s horse as a result became the lead horse on the running line. The head on film is particularly helpful because in the Committee’s view Mr Herlihy’s horse has moved at least a sulky and a half outwards and Mr Ferguson’s horse has a clear run to the finishing line. The films also show Mr Ferguson moving into the Passing Lane and as a result this impeded the progress of JAZZ LOVER and Mr Butcher had to stop driving for part of the time down the home straight. The Committee believes this affected the chances of Mr Butcher’s horse.
The Committee also believes that Passing Lane Regulations Clauses 6 and 7 apply and these are as follows:
Clause 6 states:
"subject to Clause 4 hereof, in the last lap of any race no horse shall move inwards into the expanded inside lane (or any part thereof) when it has an un impeded run to the finish line.
Clause 7 states:
“except where a horseman is making a move to pursuant to Rule 869(7) and subject to the proceeding provisions of this Regulation where applicable, every horse shall upon entering the home straight prior to the finish maintain as straight a course as possible to the finish line”.
The Committee is clearly of the view that not only was Mr Ferguson’s horse the lead horse on the running line prior to the Passing Lane but as a result of him having an unimpeded run to the finish line, he was not entitled to move into the Passing Lane. In doing so he not only impeded the progress of JAZZ LOVER but affected its chances.
Decision:
Mr Muirhead also drew the Committee’s attention to Passing Lane Regulation Clause 7 and said that Mr Ferguson should have maintained a straight line and that there was plenty of room for him to do so.
The Protest is accordingly upheld and IDEAL PARTY is relegated from 2nd place to 4th place and as a consequence JAZZ LOVER is promoted to 3rd place.
The amended placings are:
1st - 9 KILKEEL LADY
2nd - 2 PONDEROSE
3rd - 1 JAZZ LOVER
4tg - 4 IDEAL PARTY
5th - 8 BETTOR PACK A PISTOL
The Committee orders that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the amended placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: Rule 869(4), 869(8) Passing Lane Regulation Clause 4
Informant: Mr JM Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr P Butcher - Driver of JAZZ LOVER representing connections, Mr AG Herlihy - Driver of PONDEROSE
Respondent: Mr P Ferguson - Driver of IDEAL PARTY representing connections
StipendSteward:
raceid: b09e9c23367c35d7e657be68ca87d6ec
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 25d0198ffd02b8b1ece29ecfa05d5623
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 31/10/2013
meet_title: Cambridge HRC - 31 October 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: cambridge-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: BScott
meet_pm1: AGodsalve
meet_pm2: none
name: Cambridge HRC