Egmont RC 3 August 2017 – R 4 (instigating a protest) Chair, Mr P Williams
ID: JCA14585
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Egmont RC - 3 August 2017
Meet Chair:
PWilliams
Meet Committee Member 1:
TBird
Race Date:
2017/08/03
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
The protest is dismissed and authorisation is given for the payment of all dividends and stakes based on the judge’s placings above.
Facts:
Following the running of race 4, the “Uhlenberg Haulage Maiden”, Information A8777 instigating a protest was filed by Apprentice Jockey Mr S Weatherley alleging a breach of Rule 642(1). The information stated that “Sea Star” or its rider Mrs L Allpress interfered with the chances of “Diehard” ridden by Mr Weatherley “in the home straight”.
The relevant judge’s placings were:-
1st Sea Star (1)
2nd Diehard (3)
3rd Sufficient Funds (2) and
4th Valentia (5)
The margin between the winner and the second horse was a half neck.
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”.
Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin used the head-on film from the top of the final straight point to identify the two horses concerned. Mrs Allpress was racing in the middle of the track with Mr Weatherley to her outside and on level terms with her. This view was played twice, once at normal speed and one at slightly slower speed. The side-on view was also played once at normal speed. At this point Ms Hackett excused herself from hearing as she wanted to be with her horse in the swab box and was happy for Mrs Allpress to represent her.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Weatherley said just after turning for home he and Mrs Allpress were on level terms but shortly after “Sea Star” started dictating him outwards forcing him over extra ground and this outwards pressure continued for the whole way down the straight. He added there was some contact between his horse and “Sea Star” with about 200m to run and then inside the final 100m he had to briefly stop riding because the outward pressure from “Sea Star” forced him over a particularly muddy piece of ground which affected the progress of his horse. Mr Weatherley concluded by saying had he not been forced over extra ground for the whole way down the straight he believed he would have beaten “Sea Star”.
Mrs Allpress said it was clear from the film that her horse had won on its merits. She said Mr Weatherley’s horse had plenty of opportunity to go past her but was unable to do so. She did not believe she had dictated Mr Weatherley wider on the course and it was more a case of him moving outwards with her then following him over as he moved out. She conceded there had been some contact early in the run home but described it as a “slight brush” and reiterated that Mr Weatherley’s horse had ended up wider on the track on its own accord rather than having been forced outwards by “Sea Star”.
At this stage of the hearing Ms McPherson, an employee representing the Baker/Forsman stable who train “Diehard”, entered the hearing room having had to take the horse back to its box after the race. Ms McPherson was given the opportunity to view the head-on and side-on views of the race down the home straight and was also asked if she wished to talk to Mr Weatherley before being invited to make any comments. She was also told by the Chairman the 3 key points made Mr Weatherley in support of his protest were that he had been dictated outwards all the way down the straight, there had been contact between his horse and “Sea Star” and finally that he had to briefly stop riding in the last 100m of the race. Mr Weatherley agreed with that summation and indicated to Ms McPherson that he had said everything that needed to be said. Ms McPherson then confirmed she had nothing to add to what Mr Weatherley had said.
Mr Goodwin was invited to comment on the films. He said there had been a brief coming together of the two horses at the top of the straight which in his view had little or no effect on Mr Weatherley’s horse. He said as the horses progressed down the straight both moved out under pressure but Mr Weatherley’s horse was not being dictated outwards. He further added the side-on film showed that inside the final 100m “Diehard” was briefly level with, and possibly in front of, “Sea Star” but “Sea Star” had fought back and won by half a neck.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee has reviewed the head-on and side-on films of race from the top of the straight and considered all the evidence submitted. At the top of the straight “Sea Star” was in the middle of the track with “Diehard” alongside on it outer. Soon after there was brief contact between the two horses, which at best was a very light brush, and it is clear to the Committee that Mr Weatherley’s horse was not inconvenienced at all by this brief very minimal contact. As both horses raced down the straight there was some outward movement by both horses (the Committee estimates between 2 and 3 horse widths) but the Committee does not believe Mr Weatherley’s horse has been clearly dictated outwards by “Sea Star” – rather both have moved out under hard rides.
Mr Weatherley also said that he was forced out into, at one point, a bad patch of ground, that required him to briefly stop riding his horse. He said that had he been able to fully ride out to the line and also not have to have covered extra ground he would have beaten “Sea Star”. After viewing the side-on film the Committee is not convinced Mr Weatherley did stop riding when he said he did. However, what we are sure about is that in the final 100m of the race “Diehard” did briefly head “Sea Star” but “Sea Star” fought back and went on to win the race by half a neck with both horses being ridden with vigour to the finish.
For the Committee to uphold the protest we must be sure that in the final 300m of the race Mr Weatherley and “Diehard” were so inconvenienced by Mrs Allpress and “Sea Star” that it meant they were denied the opportunity to win the race. We do not believe Mr Weatherley and “Diehard” were denied the chance of finishing ahead of “Sea Star” and Mrs Allpress and therefore there are no grounds to justify a change of placings.
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: 96738511f029c15f0fc383d5798af10a
informantnumber: A8777
horsename: SEA STAR
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 03/08/2017
hearing_title: Egmont RC 3 August 2017 - R 4 (instigating a protest) Chair, Mr P Williams
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 4, the “Uhlenberg Haulage Maiden”, Information A8777 instigating a protest was filed by Apprentice Jockey Mr S Weatherley alleging a breach of Rule 642(1). The information stated that “Sea Star” or its rider Mrs L Allpress interfered with the chances of “Diehard” ridden by Mr Weatherley “in the home straight”.
The relevant judge’s placings were:-
1st Sea Star (1)
2nd Diehard (3)
3rd Sufficient Funds (2) and
4th Valentia (5)
The margin between the winner and the second horse was a half neck.
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”.
Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin used the head-on film from the top of the final straight point to identify the two horses concerned. Mrs Allpress was racing in the middle of the track with Mr Weatherley to her outside and on level terms with her. This view was played twice, once at normal speed and one at slightly slower speed. The side-on view was also played once at normal speed. At this point Ms Hackett excused herself from hearing as she wanted to be with her horse in the swab box and was happy for Mrs Allpress to represent her.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Weatherley said just after turning for home he and Mrs Allpress were on level terms but shortly after “Sea Star” started dictating him outwards forcing him over extra ground and this outwards pressure continued for the whole way down the straight. He added there was some contact between his horse and “Sea Star” with about 200m to run and then inside the final 100m he had to briefly stop riding because the outward pressure from “Sea Star” forced him over a particularly muddy piece of ground which affected the progress of his horse. Mr Weatherley concluded by saying had he not been forced over extra ground for the whole way down the straight he believed he would have beaten “Sea Star”.
Mrs Allpress said it was clear from the film that her horse had won on its merits. She said Mr Weatherley’s horse had plenty of opportunity to go past her but was unable to do so. She did not believe she had dictated Mr Weatherley wider on the course and it was more a case of him moving outwards with her then following him over as he moved out. She conceded there had been some contact early in the run home but described it as a “slight brush” and reiterated that Mr Weatherley’s horse had ended up wider on the track on its own accord rather than having been forced outwards by “Sea Star”.
At this stage of the hearing Ms McPherson, an employee representing the Baker/Forsman stable who train “Diehard”, entered the hearing room having had to take the horse back to its box after the race. Ms McPherson was given the opportunity to view the head-on and side-on views of the race down the home straight and was also asked if she wished to talk to Mr Weatherley before being invited to make any comments. She was also told by the Chairman the 3 key points made Mr Weatherley in support of his protest were that he had been dictated outwards all the way down the straight, there had been contact between his horse and “Sea Star” and finally that he had to briefly stop riding in the last 100m of the race. Mr Weatherley agreed with that summation and indicated to Ms McPherson that he had said everything that needed to be said. Ms McPherson then confirmed she had nothing to add to what Mr Weatherley had said.
Mr Goodwin was invited to comment on the films. He said there had been a brief coming together of the two horses at the top of the straight which in his view had little or no effect on Mr Weatherley’s horse. He said as the horses progressed down the straight both moved out under pressure but Mr Weatherley’s horse was not being dictated outwards. He further added the side-on film showed that inside the final 100m “Diehard” was briefly level with, and possibly in front of, “Sea Star” but “Sea Star” had fought back and won by half a neck.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee has reviewed the head-on and side-on films of race from the top of the straight and considered all the evidence submitted. At the top of the straight “Sea Star” was in the middle of the track with “Diehard” alongside on it outer. Soon after there was brief contact between the two horses, which at best was a very light brush, and it is clear to the Committee that Mr Weatherley’s horse was not inconvenienced at all by this brief very minimal contact. As both horses raced down the straight there was some outward movement by both horses (the Committee estimates between 2 and 3 horse widths) but the Committee does not believe Mr Weatherley’s horse has been clearly dictated outwards by “Sea Star” – rather both have moved out under hard rides.
Mr Weatherley also said that he was forced out into, at one point, a bad patch of ground, that required him to briefly stop riding his horse. He said that had he been able to fully ride out to the line and also not have to have covered extra ground he would have beaten “Sea Star”. After viewing the side-on film the Committee is not convinced Mr Weatherley did stop riding when he said he did. However, what we are sure about is that in the final 100m of the race “Diehard” did briefly head “Sea Star” but “Sea Star” fought back and went on to win the race by half a neck with both horses being ridden with vigour to the finish.
For the Committee to uphold the protest we must be sure that in the final 300m of the race Mr Weatherley and “Diehard” were so inconvenienced by Mrs Allpress and “Sea Star” that it meant they were denied the opportunity to win the race. We do not believe Mr Weatherley and “Diehard” were denied the chance of finishing ahead of “Sea Star” and Mrs Allpress and therefore there are no grounds to justify a change of placings.
Decision:
The protest is dismissed and authorisation is given for the payment of all dividends and stakes based on the judge’s placings above.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1) - Interference
Informant: Mr S Weatherley - Apprentice Jockey
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward, Mr D Balcombe - Stipendiary Steward, Ms R Hackett - Trainer of "Sea Star", Ms K McPherson - representing the Baker/Forsman Stable - trainers of "Diehard"
Respondent: Mrs L Allpress - Jockey
StipendSteward:
raceid: 6f2e2aa9d17b01075c354b1829edcc96
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: 3cbe7cc6c5c1ea42361d939f2d54a0b7
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 03/08/2017
meet_title: Egmont RC - 3 August 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: egmont-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: PWilliams
meet_pm1: TBird
meet_pm2: none
name: Egmont RC