Woodville-Pahiatua RC 10 May 2017 – R 7 – Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
ID: JCA13691
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Woodville - Pahiatua RC - 10 May 2018
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
TCastles
Race Date:
2018/05/10
Race Number:
R 7
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was dismissed and dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
Facts:
Following Race 7 (Leo Mumford Memorial Mdn), a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr Parkes alleging that horse number 4 (NOT USUAL PRINCE) or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 2 (MAUNA KEA), placed 2nd by the Judge.
The information alleged interference at the straight entrance.
Judges placings were:
1st - NOT USUAL PRINCE (4)
2nd - MAUNA KEA (2)
3rd - LATER ON (5)
4th - HANDYMAN (1)
The official margin between first and second placed horses was half a head.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Parkes instigated the protest and played the videos to explain the incident to the Committee. He said Mr Riddell (NOT USUAL PRINCE) was on the fence at the turn and Ms Hemi (LATER ON) was to his outside. Ms Hemi rolled out and a gap presented for Mr Parkes to improve into to the outside of NOT USUAL PRINCE. Mr Parkes said “he copped a little bit of a bump” when Mr Riddell came wide and made contact with his mount, (He later corrected this to saying he received a “decent bump”). As a result he contacted Ms Hemi’s mount and the hindquarters of MAUNA KEA were pushed sideways. Mr Parkes said he lost a little of his momentum and the margin at the finish was only half a head between first and second.
Mr Parkes also made mention that after the interference both NOT USUAL PRINCE and MAUNA KEA continued on an outward movement over the length of the straight but, following clarification from the Committee, he confirmed the protest was only concerning the contact on the turn.
Ms Moseley said it was quite clear that MAUNA KEA lost momentum as a result of the interference and perhaps lost half a stride.
Mr Riddell said at no stage was he racing on the fence, but was in fact wider as per the pattern of racing all day. He said the interference occurred because Mr Parkes went for a marginal gap between his mount and Ms Hemi’s horse and the resultant contact put his own mount off balance. Mr Riddell said at no stage did Mr Parkes stop riding and the majority of the interference occurred between Mr Parke’s horse and Ms Hemi’s horse. He said both horses were affected equally and Mr Parkes had the length of the straight to get past him but failed to do so.
For the Stewards, Mr Balcombe said rounding the turn Mr Riddell bumped Mr Parkes mount which caused him to contact Ms Hemi’s mount. There was a loss of momentum however, Mr Parkes had the length of the straight to make up that ground. Mr Goodwin said there was a legitimate gap for Mr Parkes to take and he had every right to be where he was.
Reasons for Decision:
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.
Rule 641 requires us, in the first instance, to determine if interference occurred. The films quite clearly showed the bump received by Mr Parkes riding MAUNA KEA. This occurred as a result of Mr Riddell moving wider on the turn just as Mr Parkes was improving to his outside. Both horses were affected but Mr Parkes then made contact with Ms Hemi’s mount, with the majority of the interference resulting from that contact.
The interference happened 400m from the finish post. The Judicial Committee has to be satisfied that, had MAUNA KEA received a run free of interference, he would have beaten NOT USUAL PRINCE. Taking into account the distance from the finish, the degree and nature of the interference, and the manner in which both horses ran to the line, we could not be satisfied that MAUNA KEA was denied the winning of the race.
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: 58acac1c874030a380097157d496a619
informantnumber: A9223
horsename: NOT USUAL PRINCE
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 13/05/2018
hearing_title: Woodville-Pahiatua RC 10 May 2017 - R 7 - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
charge:
facts:
Following Race 7 (Leo Mumford Memorial Mdn), a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr Parkes alleging that horse number 4 (NOT USUAL PRINCE) or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 2 (MAUNA KEA), placed 2nd by the Judge.
The information alleged interference at the straight entrance.
Judges placings were:
1st - NOT USUAL PRINCE (4)
2nd - MAUNA KEA (2)
3rd - LATER ON (5)
4th - HANDYMAN (1)
The official margin between first and second placed horses was half a head.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Parkes instigated the protest and played the videos to explain the incident to the Committee. He said Mr Riddell (NOT USUAL PRINCE) was on the fence at the turn and Ms Hemi (LATER ON) was to his outside. Ms Hemi rolled out and a gap presented for Mr Parkes to improve into to the outside of NOT USUAL PRINCE. Mr Parkes said “he copped a little bit of a bump” when Mr Riddell came wide and made contact with his mount, (He later corrected this to saying he received a “decent bump”). As a result he contacted Ms Hemi’s mount and the hindquarters of MAUNA KEA were pushed sideways. Mr Parkes said he lost a little of his momentum and the margin at the finish was only half a head between first and second.
Mr Parkes also made mention that after the interference both NOT USUAL PRINCE and MAUNA KEA continued on an outward movement over the length of the straight but, following clarification from the Committee, he confirmed the protest was only concerning the contact on the turn.
Ms Moseley said it was quite clear that MAUNA KEA lost momentum as a result of the interference and perhaps lost half a stride.
Mr Riddell said at no stage was he racing on the fence, but was in fact wider as per the pattern of racing all day. He said the interference occurred because Mr Parkes went for a marginal gap between his mount and Ms Hemi’s horse and the resultant contact put his own mount off balance. Mr Riddell said at no stage did Mr Parkes stop riding and the majority of the interference occurred between Mr Parke’s horse and Ms Hemi’s horse. He said both horses were affected equally and Mr Parkes had the length of the straight to get past him but failed to do so.
For the Stewards, Mr Balcombe said rounding the turn Mr Riddell bumped Mr Parkes mount which caused him to contact Ms Hemi’s mount. There was a loss of momentum however, Mr Parkes had the length of the straight to make up that ground. Mr Goodwin said there was a legitimate gap for Mr Parkes to take and he had every right to be where he was.
reasonsfordecision:
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.
Rule 641 requires us, in the first instance, to determine if interference occurred. The films quite clearly showed the bump received by Mr Parkes riding MAUNA KEA. This occurred as a result of Mr Riddell moving wider on the turn just as Mr Parkes was improving to his outside. Both horses were affected but Mr Parkes then made contact with Ms Hemi’s mount, with the majority of the interference resulting from that contact.
The interference happened 400m from the finish post. The Judicial Committee has to be satisfied that, had MAUNA KEA received a run free of interference, he would have beaten NOT USUAL PRINCE. Taking into account the distance from the finish, the degree and nature of the interference, and the manner in which both horses ran to the line, we could not be satisfied that MAUNA KEA was denied the winning of the race.
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was dismissed and dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr J Parkes - Rider of MAUNA KEA
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr J Riddell - Rider of NOT USUSAL PRINCE, Mr P Sewell - Syndicate Manager of MAUNA KEA, Mr D Moseley - Trainer of MAUNA KEA, Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward, Mr D Balcombe - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Messrs Baker/Forsman - Trainers of NOT USUAL PRINCE
StipendSteward:
raceid: 226a302f943c64615c90f35c4e53ea5e
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 71a1fe93bad0fa845bd1b63dd474c62d
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 10/05/2018
meet_title: Woodville - Pahiatua RC - 10 May 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: woodville-pahiatua-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: TCastles
meet_pm2: none
name: Woodville - Pahiatua RC