Auckland RC 8 March 2014 – R 1 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA13975
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 8 March 2014
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
GJones
Race Date:
2014/03/08
Race Number:
R1
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is upheld and the amended placings are now:
1st No. 9 SECRET’S ONLY
2nd No. 7 BENZINI
3rd No. 5 WORTHING
4th No. 1 MAXIMUM HEIGHTS
In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 1, White Cliffs Timber Mile, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Du Plessis, alleged that BENZINI placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his mount SECRET'S ONLY placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred rounding the final turn.
The Judge's placings were as follows:
1st No. 7 BENZINI
2nd No. 9 SECRET’S ONLY
3rd No. 5 WORTHING
4th No. 1 MAXIMUM HEIGHTS
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a nose.
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”.
(2) For the purposes of Rules 637 and 642:
(a) “placed horse” shall be a horse placed by the Judge in accordance with Rule 641(3); and
(b) “interference” is defined as:
(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
Trackside and print media were present at the hearing and no objections were raised.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Du Plessis demonstrated the incident using the available video films. He submitted that as the field approached the entrance to the home straight BENZINI was racing on the inside of SECRET’S ONLY. He said BENZINI shifted out and interrupted his momentum and in his view he would have won the race but for the interference.
Mr Du Plessis said SECRET’S ONLY was a dour mare who received 2 bumps, 1 causing her hind quarters to move outwards abruptly and the other was just enough to impact on his momentum.
Mr Du Plessis said given the margin was only a nose it cost him the winning of the race.
Miss Mahoney advised the Committee that she agreed with Mr Du Plessis' submissions and had nothing further to add.
Mr Bull using the available video films identified an incident near the 200 metres where he said SECRET’S ONLY lay in on BENZINI. He submitted that SECRET’S ONLY had every chance to catch BENZINI, and every chance to build momentum following the incident at the 400 metres.
Miss Myers submitted that BENZINI did come out but SECRET’S ONLY also lay in at the 400 metres. However, she said SECRET’S ONLY had every chance to go past BENZINI and noted SECRET’S ONLY lay in over the concluding stages of the race.
Mr Oatham submitted the Stewards' interpretation of the incident was that BENZINI was being held up for a run and then made contact twice with SECRET’S ONLY. He said the first point of contact was solid and the second was much lesser. He said that the Stewards' opinion is that the protest does have merit and the Committee needs to determine whether Miss Myers was entitled to shift out and did the incident cost SECRET’S ONLY the opportunity to win the race.
In summing up Mr Du Plessis said there was solid contact between both horses which resulted in SECRET’S ONLY losing momentum and given the nose margin SECRET’S ONLY would have won by a head.
Mr Bull had nothing to say when given the opportunity to sum up.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed the video films several times. We established that near the 400 metres BENZINI has pushed outwards and created a gap that previously didn’t exist and in doing so has dictated the rightful running line of SECRET’S ONLY. As a result SECRET’S ONLY received a significant bump to its hind quarters causing a loss of momentum. Accordingly the Committee is of the opinion that BENZINI has caused interference to the progress of SECRET’S ONLY. The Committee notes that both horses raced head to head up the home straight with BENZINI gaining ascendency at the winning post. The nose margin at the finish is significant in our decision along with Miss Myers breaching the “interference” part of the Rule. The Committee is of the opinion that but for the interference SECRET’S ONLY would have beaten BENZINI.
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: 866843c2963bb5477a0a5168f3d378e4
informantnumber: A6560
horsename: BENZINI
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 10/03/2014
hearing_title: Auckland RC 8 March 2014 - R 1 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 1, White Cliffs Timber Mile, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Du Plessis, alleged that BENZINI placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his mount SECRET'S ONLY placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred rounding the final turn.
The Judge's placings were as follows:
1st No. 7 BENZINI
2nd No. 9 SECRET’S ONLY
3rd No. 5 WORTHING
4th No. 1 MAXIMUM HEIGHTS
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a nose.
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”.
(2) For the purposes of Rules 637 and 642:
(a) “placed horse” shall be a horse placed by the Judge in accordance with Rule 641(3); and
(b) “interference” is defined as:
(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
Trackside and print media were present at the hearing and no objections were raised.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Du Plessis demonstrated the incident using the available video films. He submitted that as the field approached the entrance to the home straight BENZINI was racing on the inside of SECRET’S ONLY. He said BENZINI shifted out and interrupted his momentum and in his view he would have won the race but for the interference.
Mr Du Plessis said SECRET’S ONLY was a dour mare who received 2 bumps, 1 causing her hind quarters to move outwards abruptly and the other was just enough to impact on his momentum.
Mr Du Plessis said given the margin was only a nose it cost him the winning of the race.
Miss Mahoney advised the Committee that she agreed with Mr Du Plessis' submissions and had nothing further to add.
Mr Bull using the available video films identified an incident near the 200 metres where he said SECRET’S ONLY lay in on BENZINI. He submitted that SECRET’S ONLY had every chance to catch BENZINI, and every chance to build momentum following the incident at the 400 metres.
Miss Myers submitted that BENZINI did come out but SECRET’S ONLY also lay in at the 400 metres. However, she said SECRET’S ONLY had every chance to go past BENZINI and noted SECRET’S ONLY lay in over the concluding stages of the race.
Mr Oatham submitted the Stewards' interpretation of the incident was that BENZINI was being held up for a run and then made contact twice with SECRET’S ONLY. He said the first point of contact was solid and the second was much lesser. He said that the Stewards' opinion is that the protest does have merit and the Committee needs to determine whether Miss Myers was entitled to shift out and did the incident cost SECRET’S ONLY the opportunity to win the race.
In summing up Mr Du Plessis said there was solid contact between both horses which resulted in SECRET’S ONLY losing momentum and given the nose margin SECRET’S ONLY would have won by a head.
Mr Bull had nothing to say when given the opportunity to sum up.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed the video films several times. We established that near the 400 metres BENZINI has pushed outwards and created a gap that previously didn’t exist and in doing so has dictated the rightful running line of SECRET’S ONLY. As a result SECRET’S ONLY received a significant bump to its hind quarters causing a loss of momentum. Accordingly the Committee is of the opinion that BENZINI has caused interference to the progress of SECRET’S ONLY. The Committee notes that both horses raced head to head up the home straight with BENZINI gaining ascendency at the winning post. The nose margin at the finish is significant in our decision along with Miss Myers breaching the “interference” part of the Rule. The Committee is of the opinion that but for the interference SECRET’S ONLY would have beaten BENZINI.
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is upheld and the amended placings are now:
1st No. 9 SECRET’S ONLY
2nd No. 7 BENZINI
3rd No. 5 WORTHING
4th No. 1 MAXIMUM HEIGHTS
In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642
Informant: Mr M Du Plessis - Rider of SECRET'S ONLY
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr B Lichter - Journalist, Mr D Ryan - Journalist, Mr A Rodley - Trackside, Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward, Miss R Myers - Rider of BENZINI, Miss J Mahoney - Trainer of SECRET'S ONLY
Respondent: Mr A Bull - Trainer of BENZINI
StipendSteward:
raceid: d7a13690694323564ed6fa1f7a10b3a3
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 62fa9a4ffff5b86042e3a4606255eeb9
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 08/03/2014
meet_title: Auckland RC - 8 March 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: GJones
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC