Manawatu RC 13 December 2014 – R 7 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA15071
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Manawatu RC - 13 December 2014
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
TCastles
Race Date:
2014/12/13
Race Number:
R 7
Decision:
Both protests were dismissed and placings allowed to stand as called by the Judge:
Dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
Facts:
Following Race 7, The Lawnmaster Eulogy Stakes Group 3, a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr P Williams alleging that horse number 3 (ATTENTION SEEKER) or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge and horse number 4 (CHOICE) or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 11 (PALACE ROCK) placed 3rd by the Judge.
The information alleged interference in the final stages.
Judge's placings were:
1st CHOICE (4)
2ND ATTENTION SEEKER (3)
3rd PALACE ROCK (11)
4th OUTSPOKEN (7)
5th BOHEMIAN LILY (8)
The official margins were 1 length between 1st and 2nd and 1 ¼ lengths between 2nd and 3rd.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Williams used the head-on films to show how over the concluding stages PALACE ROCK went to make a run to the outside of ATTENTION SEEKER however that horse ran out. At the same time CHOICE, when making a run down the outside, ran inwards with both horses coming close together cutting PALACE ROCK out of its run. He said in the testing conditions PALACE ROCK’s momentum had been stopped yet after the interference she still ran on.
Mr Johnson added that he hadn’t gone for his horse when the interference occurred. He said PALACE ROCK was making nice ground when he got buffeted and lost ground. While ATTENTION SEEKER had hampered his run it was CHOICE who actually made contact and bumped him.
Mr Scott said that while ATTENTION SEEKER had come out slightly it was the outside horse CHOICE who was to blame for the interference to PALACE ROCK. Mr Parkes acknowledged moving out slightly on ATTENTION SEEKER but said it was CHOICE who had cut PALACE ROCK out of a run.
Mr Patterson said PALACE ROCK wasn’t going well enough to go through the gap whereas his horse CHOICE had made a long sustained run and was going forward and away from the field. Ms Johnston said that she had won convincingly and even if PALACE ROCK had received a clear run it would not have beaten her mount.
For the Stewards Mr Goodwin said there had been movement from both runners which denied PALACE ROCK a clear run to the finish. He said the majority of the interference came from the inward movement of CHOICE however he would leave it up to the committee to decide if that was enough to warrant a change of placings.
Reasons for Decision:
In coming to a decision the committee carefully considered all of the evidence presented. Mr Williams protested against both first and second placed horses.
Rule 642(1) reads:
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.
Regarding the protest of PALACE ROCK against the 2nd placed horse ATTENTION SEEKER. At the 200 metres Mr Parkes moved outwards slightly and dictated the line of PALACE ROCK before straightening his mount up. Mr Johnson was, at this point, attempting a run to the outside of ATTENTION SEEKER and as a result did lose some momentum. Simultaneously CHOICE moved inwards and caused further interference to PALACE ROCK. In the committee’s opinion the interference caused by ATTENTION SEEKER was minor and unlikely to have influenced the final placings therefore the protest 3rd against 2nd was dismissed.
Regarding the protest of PALACE ROCK against the 1st placed horse CHOICE. The committee agree that the majority of the interference to PALACE ROCK occurred as a result of Ms Johnston being slow to correct the inward movement of CHOICE. PALACE ROCK, who was already dictated out by ATTENTION SEEKER, was squeezed for room when CHOICE moved inwards. While we found the interference suffered by PALACE ROCK was significant CHOICE came from behind and was finishing the race very strongly. The combined margin between first and third was 2 ¼ lengths and the side-on film did not satisfy us that PALACE ROCK was making up any ground on the winner. We also had regard to the fact that the 2nd placed horse had contributed, albeit to a lesser degree. Accordingly the protest 3rd against first was also dismissed.
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: a31fdb1ea5f6f65595486057d200921c
informantnumber: A6783
horsename: CHOICE and ATTENTION SEEKER
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 13/12/2014
hearing_title: Manawatu RC 13 December 2014 - R 7 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following Race 7, The Lawnmaster Eulogy Stakes Group 3, a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr P Williams alleging that horse number 3 (ATTENTION SEEKER) or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge and horse number 4 (CHOICE) or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 11 (PALACE ROCK) placed 3rd by the Judge.
The information alleged interference in the final stages.
Judge's placings were:
1st CHOICE (4)
2ND ATTENTION SEEKER (3)
3rd PALACE ROCK (11)
4th OUTSPOKEN (7)
5th BOHEMIAN LILY (8)
The official margins were 1 length between 1st and 2nd and 1 ¼ lengths between 2nd and 3rd.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Williams used the head-on films to show how over the concluding stages PALACE ROCK went to make a run to the outside of ATTENTION SEEKER however that horse ran out. At the same time CHOICE, when making a run down the outside, ran inwards with both horses coming close together cutting PALACE ROCK out of its run. He said in the testing conditions PALACE ROCK’s momentum had been stopped yet after the interference she still ran on.
Mr Johnson added that he hadn’t gone for his horse when the interference occurred. He said PALACE ROCK was making nice ground when he got buffeted and lost ground. While ATTENTION SEEKER had hampered his run it was CHOICE who actually made contact and bumped him.
Mr Scott said that while ATTENTION SEEKER had come out slightly it was the outside horse CHOICE who was to blame for the interference to PALACE ROCK. Mr Parkes acknowledged moving out slightly on ATTENTION SEEKER but said it was CHOICE who had cut PALACE ROCK out of a run.
Mr Patterson said PALACE ROCK wasn’t going well enough to go through the gap whereas his horse CHOICE had made a long sustained run and was going forward and away from the field. Ms Johnston said that she had won convincingly and even if PALACE ROCK had received a clear run it would not have beaten her mount.
For the Stewards Mr Goodwin said there had been movement from both runners which denied PALACE ROCK a clear run to the finish. He said the majority of the interference came from the inward movement of CHOICE however he would leave it up to the committee to decide if that was enough to warrant a change of placings.
reasonsfordecision:
In coming to a decision the committee carefully considered all of the evidence presented. Mr Williams protested against both first and second placed horses.
Rule 642(1) reads:
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.
Regarding the protest of PALACE ROCK against the 2nd placed horse ATTENTION SEEKER. At the 200 metres Mr Parkes moved outwards slightly and dictated the line of PALACE ROCK before straightening his mount up. Mr Johnson was, at this point, attempting a run to the outside of ATTENTION SEEKER and as a result did lose some momentum. Simultaneously CHOICE moved inwards and caused further interference to PALACE ROCK. In the committee’s opinion the interference caused by ATTENTION SEEKER was minor and unlikely to have influenced the final placings therefore the protest 3rd against 2nd was dismissed.
Regarding the protest of PALACE ROCK against the 1st placed horse CHOICE. The committee agree that the majority of the interference to PALACE ROCK occurred as a result of Ms Johnston being slow to correct the inward movement of CHOICE. PALACE ROCK, who was already dictated out by ATTENTION SEEKER, was squeezed for room when CHOICE moved inwards. While we found the interference suffered by PALACE ROCK was significant CHOICE came from behind and was finishing the race very strongly. The combined margin between first and third was 2 ¼ lengths and the side-on film did not satisfy us that PALACE ROCK was making up any ground on the winner. We also had regard to the fact that the 2nd placed horse had contributed, albeit to a lesser degree. Accordingly the protest 3rd against first was also dismissed.
Decision:
Both protests were dismissed and placings allowed to stand as called by the Judge:
Dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr P Williams - Trainer of PALACE ROCK
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward, Mr R Neal - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Ms V Johnston - Rider of CHOICE, Mr J Parkes - Rider of ATTENTION SEEKER, Mr M Jamieson - Owner of ATTENTION SEEKER, Mr C Johnson - Rider of PALACE ROCK
Respondent: Mr R Patterson - Trainer of CHOICE, Mr A Scott - Trainer of ATTENTION SEEKER
StipendSteward:
raceid: 0281e4e1b3a9d03979febe0c5866ce04
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: 44dbe93913cc5eac9f49cfce7af3c4aa
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 13/12/2014
meet_title: Manawatu RC - 13 December 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: manawatu-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: TCastles
meet_pm2: none
name: Manawatu RC