Greymouth JC 5 January 2013 – R 5 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA15254
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Greymouth JC - 5 January 2013
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
SChing
Race Date:
2013/01/05
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and it was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the judge’s official placings.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5, Jack Curragh Memorial/PGG Wrightsons Rating 75, an information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Jockey (Class A), Miss K Williams, alleging that WERIO (R J Bishop), placed 1st by the judge, interfered with the chances of ELECTRONIC MOTION, ridden by her, placed 2nd by the judge, alleging “interference in the straight”.
Miss Williams was present at the hearing of the information together with Mr A J Taylor, trainer of ELECTRONIC MOTION. The connections of WERIO were represented by its trainer and co-owner, Mr S L Cameron. Mr R J Bishop, rider of WERIO, named as Respondent, was also present at the hearing.
Rule 642 provides as follows:
(1) If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of 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 Rule 642:
(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.
The judge’s official placings were:
1st Werio
2nd Electronic Motion
3rd Malachite
4th Slick Nickel
5th Treat
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was ¾ length.
Submissions for Decision:
Miss Williams said that, rounding the home turn, she had been following Mr Bishop and had attempted to go for a run outside him. Mr Bishop had come out on the corner so she had elected to take a run on the inside of Mr Bishop, Miss Williams said. She had rebalanced her mount and was about to draw the whip when Mr Bishop’s mount “rolled in” on top of her horse causing her to take a hold of her mount, pull it out and rebalance it before drawing the whip in the last 50 metres. She alleged that, had she been able to remain on Mr Bishop’s inside, she would have had her mount going forward and been able to draw her whip earlier. She alleged that, when she had begun using the whip, her mount had responded. She pointed out that she had been beaten by only ¾ length and said that she would have won but for the interference received. Miss Williams referred to the side-on and head-on video replays of the final 200-300 metres of the race.
Mr Taylor said that Mr Bishop had carried Miss Williams out on the home turn and had taken her out with him. He submitted that Miss Williams had had to change ground twice in the straight on ELECTRONIC MOTION.
Mr Cameron submitted that ELECTRONIC MOTION had been “leaning in”. Miss Williams had elected to take an inside run and had lost no momentum when she shifted outside of WERIO. Her mount had followed WERIO over, he alleged. At no stage was Miss Williams unable to ride her mount out. She had every opportunity to get past WERIO in the straight, he submitted.
In reply to a question from the Committee, Miss Williams replied that Mr Bishop was only a length in front of her when he crossed in front of her. She had to take a hold of her mount to avoid WERIO’s heels.
Mr M Zarb, Stipendiary Steward, was asked to comment. He stated that it was the Stewards’ view that, while it was clear that half way down the straight Miss Williams’ mount had suffered some interference from WERIO when it shifted in, the margin of ¾ length between the two runners at the finish raised the question of whether or not ELECTRONIC MOTION would have beaten WERIO but for that interference. That was for the Committee to determine, he said.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee was satisfied, on the evidence, that ELECTRONIC MOTION had received interference from WERIO as the field turned for home and again some 100 metres from the finishing line. The first incident of interference was very minor and forced Miss Williams to come out slightly wider on the track. We attached little or no significance to that incident. The second incident of interference was more significant when WERIO shifted in slightly, when not its own length and another length clear, resulting in Miss Williams having to briefly check her mount, ELECTRONIC MOTION, and shift outside the heels of WERIO.
Having found that interference took place, the Committee needed to decide whether ELECTRONIC MOTION would have finished in front of WERIO had such interference not occurred. In deciding this, the Committee had regard to the margin of ¾ length between the two runners at the finish and looked at the manner in which the two horses went to the line. It was significant that, prior to the second incident of interference, Miss Williams was able to ride her mount out fully and only had to stop riding it out for, perhaps, 2-3 strides in total. The ¾ length margin was a comfortable one for WERIO and it was the Committee’s view that ELECTRONIC MOTION would not have beaten that runner even if the interference had not occurred.
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: 7bbde1e080633cdc82d27aab6a03fb52
informantnumber: A4915
horsename: WERIO
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 18/12/2012
hearing_title: Greymouth JC 5 January 2013 - R 5 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 5, Jack Curragh Memorial/PGG Wrightsons Rating 75, an information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Jockey (Class A), Miss K Williams, alleging that WERIO (R J Bishop), placed 1st by the judge, interfered with the chances of ELECTRONIC MOTION, ridden by her, placed 2nd by the judge, alleging “interference in the straight”.
Miss Williams was present at the hearing of the information together with Mr A J Taylor, trainer of ELECTRONIC MOTION. The connections of WERIO were represented by its trainer and co-owner, Mr S L Cameron. Mr R J Bishop, rider of WERIO, named as Respondent, was also present at the hearing.
Rule 642 provides as follows:
(1) If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of 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 Rule 642:
(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.
The judge’s official placings were:
1st Werio
2nd Electronic Motion
3rd Malachite
4th Slick Nickel
5th Treat
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was ¾ length.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Miss Williams said that, rounding the home turn, she had been following Mr Bishop and had attempted to go for a run outside him. Mr Bishop had come out on the corner so she had elected to take a run on the inside of Mr Bishop, Miss Williams said. She had rebalanced her mount and was about to draw the whip when Mr Bishop’s mount “rolled in” on top of her horse causing her to take a hold of her mount, pull it out and rebalance it before drawing the whip in the last 50 metres. She alleged that, had she been able to remain on Mr Bishop’s inside, she would have had her mount going forward and been able to draw her whip earlier. She alleged that, when she had begun using the whip, her mount had responded. She pointed out that she had been beaten by only ¾ length and said that she would have won but for the interference received. Miss Williams referred to the side-on and head-on video replays of the final 200-300 metres of the race.
Mr Taylor said that Mr Bishop had carried Miss Williams out on the home turn and had taken her out with him. He submitted that Miss Williams had had to change ground twice in the straight on ELECTRONIC MOTION.
Mr Cameron submitted that ELECTRONIC MOTION had been “leaning in”. Miss Williams had elected to take an inside run and had lost no momentum when she shifted outside of WERIO. Her mount had followed WERIO over, he alleged. At no stage was Miss Williams unable to ride her mount out. She had every opportunity to get past WERIO in the straight, he submitted.
In reply to a question from the Committee, Miss Williams replied that Mr Bishop was only a length in front of her when he crossed in front of her. She had to take a hold of her mount to avoid WERIO’s heels.
Mr M Zarb, Stipendiary Steward, was asked to comment. He stated that it was the Stewards’ view that, while it was clear that half way down the straight Miss Williams’ mount had suffered some interference from WERIO when it shifted in, the margin of ¾ length between the two runners at the finish raised the question of whether or not ELECTRONIC MOTION would have beaten WERIO but for that interference. That was for the Committee to determine, he said.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee was satisfied, on the evidence, that ELECTRONIC MOTION had received interference from WERIO as the field turned for home and again some 100 metres from the finishing line. The first incident of interference was very minor and forced Miss Williams to come out slightly wider on the track. We attached little or no significance to that incident. The second incident of interference was more significant when WERIO shifted in slightly, when not its own length and another length clear, resulting in Miss Williams having to briefly check her mount, ELECTRONIC MOTION, and shift outside the heels of WERIO.
Having found that interference took place, the Committee needed to decide whether ELECTRONIC MOTION would have finished in front of WERIO had such interference not occurred. In deciding this, the Committee had regard to the margin of ¾ length between the two runners at the finish and looked at the manner in which the two horses went to the line. It was significant that, prior to the second incident of interference, Miss Williams was able to ride her mount out fully and only had to stop riding it out for, perhaps, 2-3 strides in total. The ¾ length margin was a comfortable one for WERIO and it was the Committee’s view that ELECTRONIC MOTION would not have beaten that runner even if the interference had not occurred.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and it was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the judge’s official placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Miss K Williams - Licensed Jockey
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr AJ Taylor - Trainer of ELECTRONIC MOTION, Mr SL Cameron - Trainer/Co-owner representing the connections of WERIO, Mr M Zarb - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr RJ Bishop - Licensed Jockey rider of WERIO
StipendSteward:
raceid: 15ebe877844f95eaf46379c655a8df75
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: f498730206e93dd3f13aa41d68ce586b
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 05/01/2013
meet_title: Greymouth JC - 5 January 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: greymouth-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: SChing
meet_pm2: none
name: Greymouth JC