Waikato RC 1 March 2017 – R 8 – (instigating a protest) Chair, Mr A Dooley
ID: JCA14495
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waikato RC - 1 March 2017
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
BScott
Meet Committee Member 2:
ASmith
Race Date:
2017/03/01
Race Number:
Race 8
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and the Judge's placing’s shall stand.
The Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.
Facts:
Following the running of race 8, Print House 1600, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr McNab, alleged that WIDE AWAKE or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his horse SENSIBILITY placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 4 WIDE AWAKE
2nd No. 15 SENSIBILITY
3rd No. 1 KEEP UP
4th No. 9 PALERMITANO
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a 1 and ½ lengths.
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”.
All connections present acknowledged that they understood the Rule.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr McNab said that it was clear on the video footage that near the 300 metres WIDE AWAKE shifted in when not the required distance clear causing interference to SENSIBILITY. He said that WIDE AWAKE then put 3 lengths on SENSIBILITY and noted that his horse made up ground to be beaten 1 and ½ lengths. He believed that had such interference not occurred SENSIBILITY would have beaten WIDE AWAKE.
Mr Waddell said that interference occurred at the 350 metres when WIDE AWAKE rolled in 4 horse widths. He said that WIDE AWAKE cost SENSIBILITY 2 lengths at a crucial part of the race. He said if he had had an unimpeded run to the finish line SENSIBILITY would have beaten WIDE AWAKE by ½ a length.
Mr Autridge confirmed with the Stewards that the official margin between 1st and 2nd was 1 and ½ lengths. He said that SENSIBILITY was inconvenienced by WIDE AWAKE for 2 or 3 strides. He said that KILOWATT contributed to the incident by shifting out when his horse was shifting in. He was of the view that WIDE AWAKE would have won the race by a wider margin if the horse had run straight.
Mr Bosson said he totally agreed with Mr Autridge’s interpretation of the incident. Mr Bosson highlighted that over the final 100 metres of the race he eased his mount up when it was coasting to the finish line. He said he could not see how SENSIBILITY would have beaten WIDE AWAKE.
Mr Williamson said that SENSIBILITY received interference from WIDE AWAKE when that runner shifted in passing the 300 metres. He said that the interference cost SENSIBILITY 1 length and noted the margin between the 2 horses at the finish was 1 and a ½ lengths. He said it was to fair to say that Mr Bosson eased up on WIDE AWAKE over the final stages of the race.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video footage several times. We established that near the 300 metres WIDE AWAKE shifted in several horse widths when not the required distance clear of horses to his inside and caused interference to SENSIBILITY and 2 other horses. As a result Mr Waddell was forced to take a hold of SENSIBILITY for 3 strides when his mount became awkwardly placed on the hind quarters of WIDE AWAKE when that runner continued to shift in towards the running rail.
In assessing the circumstances the Committee took into account the manner in which the 2 horses finished off the final 250 metres of the race and the degree of interference suffered to SENSIBILITY as opposed to the beaten margin (1 and a ½ lengths). After taking into account all the above factors we were not satisfied that had the interference not occurred that SENSIBILITY would have beaten WIDE AWAKE.
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: 89e38c122097cbc144e4f50bf6b8645f
informantnumber: A8528
horsename: WIDE AWAKE
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 02/03/2017
hearing_title: Waikato RC 1 March 2017 - R 8 - (instigating a protest) Chair, Mr A Dooley
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 8, Print House 1600, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr McNab, alleged that WIDE AWAKE or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his horse SENSIBILITY placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 4 WIDE AWAKE
2nd No. 15 SENSIBILITY
3rd No. 1 KEEP UP
4th No. 9 PALERMITANO
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a 1 and ½ lengths.
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”.
All connections present acknowledged that they understood the Rule.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr McNab said that it was clear on the video footage that near the 300 metres WIDE AWAKE shifted in when not the required distance clear causing interference to SENSIBILITY. He said that WIDE AWAKE then put 3 lengths on SENSIBILITY and noted that his horse made up ground to be beaten 1 and ½ lengths. He believed that had such interference not occurred SENSIBILITY would have beaten WIDE AWAKE.
Mr Waddell said that interference occurred at the 350 metres when WIDE AWAKE rolled in 4 horse widths. He said that WIDE AWAKE cost SENSIBILITY 2 lengths at a crucial part of the race. He said if he had had an unimpeded run to the finish line SENSIBILITY would have beaten WIDE AWAKE by ½ a length.
Mr Autridge confirmed with the Stewards that the official margin between 1st and 2nd was 1 and ½ lengths. He said that SENSIBILITY was inconvenienced by WIDE AWAKE for 2 or 3 strides. He said that KILOWATT contributed to the incident by shifting out when his horse was shifting in. He was of the view that WIDE AWAKE would have won the race by a wider margin if the horse had run straight.
Mr Bosson said he totally agreed with Mr Autridge’s interpretation of the incident. Mr Bosson highlighted that over the final 100 metres of the race he eased his mount up when it was coasting to the finish line. He said he could not see how SENSIBILITY would have beaten WIDE AWAKE.
Mr Williamson said that SENSIBILITY received interference from WIDE AWAKE when that runner shifted in passing the 300 metres. He said that the interference cost SENSIBILITY 1 length and noted the margin between the 2 horses at the finish was 1 and a ½ lengths. He said it was to fair to say that Mr Bosson eased up on WIDE AWAKE over the final stages of the race.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video footage several times. We established that near the 300 metres WIDE AWAKE shifted in several horse widths when not the required distance clear of horses to his inside and caused interference to SENSIBILITY and 2 other horses. As a result Mr Waddell was forced to take a hold of SENSIBILITY for 3 strides when his mount became awkwardly placed on the hind quarters of WIDE AWAKE when that runner continued to shift in towards the running rail.
In assessing the circumstances the Committee took into account the manner in which the 2 horses finished off the final 250 metres of the race and the degree of interference suffered to SENSIBILITY as opposed to the beaten margin (1 and a ½ lengths). After taking into account all the above factors we were not satisfied that had the interference not occurred that SENSIBILITY would have beaten WIDE AWAKE.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and the Judge's placing’s shall stand.
The Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr C McNab - Trainer of SENSIBILITY
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr J Waddell - Rider of SENSIBILITY, Mr O Bosson - Rider of WIDE AWAKE, Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward, Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr B Jones - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr S Autridge - Co - Trainer of WIDE AWAKE
StipendSteward:
raceid: 19556b4158ddf53ff20caf6c74b97838
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: a8801dc66ebb537c789c3e0b33b7abdb
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/03/2017
meet_title: Waikato RC - 1 March 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikato-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: BScott
meet_pm2: ASmith
name: Waikato RC