NZ Metro TC 21 October 2016 – R 6 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr S Ching
ID: JCA16017
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 21 October 2016
Meet Chair:
SChing
Meet Committee Member 1:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2016/10/21
Race Number:
R6
Decision:
The protest was upheld with the amended judge’s placings as follows
1st MONGOLIAN STORM (5)
2nd MORE THE BETTER (9)
3rd KING SOLOMON (1)
4th TIGER THOMPSON (2)
5th BILLY BADGER (8)
6th ON THE RANTAN (7)
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with that amended result.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 6, the NRM Sires’ Stakes Series No.33 (Heat 5) Mobile Pace, an information instigating a protest was filed by Junior Driver, Mr M Anderson, driver of 4th placed horse, KING SOLOMON, against TIGER THOMPSON, placed 1st by the judge, alleging interference in the home straight by TIGER THOMPSON, driven by Mr J Curtin.
The Judge's placings in this race were as follows.
1st TIGER THOMPSON (2)
2nd MONGOLIAN STORM (5)
3rd MORE THE BETTER (9)
4th KING SOLOMON (1)
5th BILLY BADGER (8)
6th ON THE RANTAN (7)
The official margins between 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th were a Neck, 2 ½ lengths, ½ head.
Rule 869A (2) provides as follows.
(2) When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse and the Judicial Committee is satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of that horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference the Judicial Committee must, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, place the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference immediately after the horse interfered with.
PASSING LANES, FALSE RAILS AND HOME STRAIGHT REGULATIONS
The following regulation is made by the Board pursuant to the Rules of Harness Racing.
1. (a) "Passing Lane"
For the purpose of these regulations "passing lane" shall mean an inward expansion of the racetrack on the inside of the straight immediately preceding the winning post (hereinafter referred to as the "home straight") for the purpose of allowing a horse or horses in the last lap of any race to pass on the inside any horse on the running line.
(b) "False Rail"
For the purpose of these regulations a "false rail" shall mean an outward expansion of the racetrack by the attachment of an additional inside rail around the home bend of the track, which attachment once extended shall not be further capable of movement during that race.
(a) “Expanded Inside Lane”
For the purpose of these regulations the term “expanded inside lane” will be used to describe the additional area created by a “passing lane” or “false rail”.
(b) “Running Line”
For the purpose of these regulations “running line” shall mean a line from the inside track marker prior to the commencement of the expanded inside lane to the winning post or such other point of the finish line as directed by the Stipendiary Steward.
2. Any club wishing to use an expanded inside lane shall first obtain a fresh plan of the racetrack incorporating the proposed alterations, which has been prepared and certified as correct by a registered civil engineer or surveyor, and submit same to the Board for approval in
accordance with Rules 602 and 603 of the NZ Rules of Harness Racing.
3. Except after entering the home straight for the last time in any race, no horse may use the expanded inside lane in an attempt to pass any other horse or horses or improve its position. Any horse which does so may be disqualified, or relegated under Rule 869A and the horseman shall be in breach of Rule 869(3)(f).
4. In the last lap of any race the leading horse on the running line shall, upon entering the home straight, maintain as straight a course as possible parallel to the running line and allow the trailing horses full access to the expanded inside lane.
5. On any track where the expanded inside lane is designated by the Board as a dual passing lane, the first horse attempting to utilise the expanded inside lane shall take the run available immediately inside the leading horse on the running line thereby allowing trailing horses full access to the remainder of the expanded inside lane.
6. Subject to clause 4 hereof, in the last lap of any race no horse shall move inwards into the expanded inside lane (or any part thereof) when it has an unimpeded run to the finish line.
7. Except where a horseman is making a move pursuant to Rule 869(7) and subject to the preceding provisions of this regulation where applicable, every horse shall upon entering the home straight prior to the finish maintain as straight a course as possible to the finish line.
8. Failure to comply with clauses 4 and/or 5 and/or 6 and/or 7 hereof shall be deemed a breach of Rule 869(4) of the NZ Rules of Harness Racing in respect of which Rules 1003 and 869A apply.
Mr Anderson was assisted at the hearing by Open Horseman, Mr M Purdon. Mr Anderson and Mr Purdon indicated that they represented the connections of KING SOLOMON. Mr J Curtin and trainer of TIGER THOMPSON, Mr B Mowbray, represented the connections of that horse. Also in attendance were Mr T Casey, part owner of KING SOLOMON and Mrs K Marriot, representing another part owner of KING SOLOMON, being Mr K Riseley.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Ydgren showed the relevant films of the alleged interference which occurred at the entrance to the passing lane. Mr Ydgren pointed out TIGER THOMPSON, driven by Mr Curtin, racing on the pylons and in the lead as the horses entered the home straight. In the trail behind TIGER THOMPSON was KING SOLOMON, driven by Mr Anderson. As the horses passed the entrance to the passing lane, TIGER THOMPSON, immediately shifted down into the passing lane therefore denying trailing runner KING SOLOMON that run. Mr Ydgren stated that KING SOLOMON was also interfered with over the final stages, near the 60m, when attempting to take a marginal gap between TIGER THOMPSON on the inner and MORE THE BETTER on the outer which resulted in KING SOLOMON locking wheels with MORE THE BETTER. Thus, both horses suffered interference and lost ground.
Mr Purdon stated it was evident on the films that Mr Curtin’s horse did run into the passing lane as the horses entered the home straight and, in doing so, denied Mr Anderson’s horse any opportunity in the run home to improve in the passing lane. He said that when Mr Anderson did try and improve to the outside of TIGER THOMPSON he took a marginal gap which resulted in his horse locking wheels with MORE THE BETTER. Mr Purdon stated that if KING SOLOMON had been given the opportunity to use the passing lane as he was entitled to, he probably would have won.
Mr Anderson stated to the hearing that had he gained access to the passing lane when he was entitled to at the top of the straight, he would have “most definitely” beaten TIGER THOMSON. He said that his horse was full of running with no opportunity to improve until near the 60 metres where a marginal gap appeared. He also stated that at no time from the 200m was there a full gap available in the passing lane for him to improve into.
Mr Curtin conceded at the hearing that not only had he shifted down into the passing lane but also that TIGER THOMPSON had denied KING SOLOMON the run that he was entitled to. Mr Curtin said that TIGER THOMPSON was a difficult horse to drive and that once the horse had shifted down into the passing lane when on one rein, he felt that he was better to stay in that position and let KING SOLOMON have the run on his outer. He stated that at the end of the day there was not enough room for KING SOLOMON to improve between TIGER THOMPSON and MORE THE BETTER.
Mr Mowbray stated that Mr Purdon’s horse was drifting down the track a bit and had TIGER THOMPSON maintained a straight line, with KING SOLOMON in the passing lane, maybe MORE THE BETTER would have shifted TIGER THOMPSON down onto KING SOLOMON forcing him over the pylons. He said KING SOLOMON ran “dead straight” from the top of the straight and never attempted to shift down into the passing lane. He said if Mr Curtin had straightened TIGER THOMPSON, KING SOLOMON was still not going to get to the passing lane and was stuck on TIGER THOMPSON’s back.
Mrs Marriot submitted that MORE THE BETTER had shifted inwards slightly and if TIGER THOMPSON had been in his correct position, MORE THE BETTER would have been prevented from shifting inwards as TIGER THOMPSON would have been in that position therefore leaving a clear run for KING SOLOMON as he was entitled to.
Mr Casey stated that KING SOLOMON was full running over the concluding stages and when he finally did get a gap he improved fast and gained a quick ½ length before locking wheels with MORE THE BETTER.
Mr Ydgren, as officiating Stipendiary Steward, was asked for his interpretation of the incident. He stated that the films clearly showed there had not been a run presented for KING SOLOMON that he was entitled to and he was unable to be tested to the line. He said that looking solely at the margin at the post was an unfair guide to the chances of that runner because with the 3-length margin, on the face of it, you would say that horse would not make up that ground. He said that KING SOLOMON was also interfered with 60m from the line because Mr Curtin’s horse was in the passing lane and in the rightful run of KING SOLOMON and agreed that the interference had started at the top of the straight and Mr Anderson had not had the opportunity to drive his horse out over the final 200m due to TIGER THOMPSON shifting down into the lane in breach of the passing lane regulations.
Reasons for Decision:
We carefully considered the evidence given and the video coverage of the incident. The Committee was satisfied that TIGER THOMPSON had shifted into the passing lane at the entrance near the 200m and taken up a position in the lane that it was not entitled to. We were also satisfied that the trailing horse, KING SOLOMON, was entitled to that run and was prevented from utilising that run for practically the whole straight. We determined that KING SOLOMON had suffered interference from the entrance to the passing lane where TIGER THOMPSON took his rightful line and again at the 60m where KING SOLOMON locked wheels with MORE THE BETTER when it attempted to take a marginal gap between TIGER THOMPSON and MORE THE BETTER, having been denied its rightful run in the passing lane. It was clear on the films that KING SOLOMON was full of running for the entire straight and apart from a brief attempt to improve through a marginal gap, was denied his rightful run by TIGER THOMPSON moving down into the passing lane for the entire straight. The Committee was satisfied to the required standard of a balance of probabilities that but for the interference by TIGER THOMPSON, KING SOLOMON would have beaten TIGER THOMPSON had he received his rightful running in the passing lane. The protest was accordingly upheld with TIGER THOMPSON being relegated to 4th place behind KING SOLOMON.
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: af48d676f736dbccacd38895acb81e1d
informantnumber: A8315
horsename: TIGER THOMPSON
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 25/10/2016
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 21 October 2016 - R 6 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr S Ching
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 6, the NRM Sires’ Stakes Series No.33 (Heat 5) Mobile Pace, an information instigating a protest was filed by Junior Driver, Mr M Anderson, driver of 4th placed horse, KING SOLOMON, against TIGER THOMPSON, placed 1st by the judge, alleging interference in the home straight by TIGER THOMPSON, driven by Mr J Curtin.
The Judge's placings in this race were as follows.
1st TIGER THOMPSON (2)
2nd MONGOLIAN STORM (5)
3rd MORE THE BETTER (9)
4th KING SOLOMON (1)
5th BILLY BADGER (8)
6th ON THE RANTAN (7)
The official margins between 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th were a Neck, 2 ½ lengths, ½ head.
Rule 869A (2) provides as follows.
(2) When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse and the Judicial Committee is satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of that horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference the Judicial Committee must, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, place the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference immediately after the horse interfered with.
PASSING LANES, FALSE RAILS AND HOME STRAIGHT REGULATIONS
The following regulation is made by the Board pursuant to the Rules of Harness Racing.
1. (a) "Passing Lane"
For the purpose of these regulations "passing lane" shall mean an inward expansion of the racetrack on the inside of the straight immediately preceding the winning post (hereinafter referred to as the "home straight") for the purpose of allowing a horse or horses in the last lap of any race to pass on the inside any horse on the running line.
(b) "False Rail"
For the purpose of these regulations a "false rail" shall mean an outward expansion of the racetrack by the attachment of an additional inside rail around the home bend of the track, which attachment once extended shall not be further capable of movement during that race.
(a) “Expanded Inside Lane”
For the purpose of these regulations the term “expanded inside lane” will be used to describe the additional area created by a “passing lane” or “false rail”.
(b) “Running Line”
For the purpose of these regulations “running line” shall mean a line from the inside track marker prior to the commencement of the expanded inside lane to the winning post or such other point of the finish line as directed by the Stipendiary Steward.
2. Any club wishing to use an expanded inside lane shall first obtain a fresh plan of the racetrack incorporating the proposed alterations, which has been prepared and certified as correct by a registered civil engineer or surveyor, and submit same to the Board for approval in
accordance with Rules 602 and 603 of the NZ Rules of Harness Racing.
3. Except after entering the home straight for the last time in any race, no horse may use the expanded inside lane in an attempt to pass any other horse or horses or improve its position. Any horse which does so may be disqualified, or relegated under Rule 869A and the horseman shall be in breach of Rule 869(3)(f).
4. In the last lap of any race the leading horse on the running line shall, upon entering the home straight, maintain as straight a course as possible parallel to the running line and allow the trailing horses full access to the expanded inside lane.
5. On any track where the expanded inside lane is designated by the Board as a dual passing lane, the first horse attempting to utilise the expanded inside lane shall take the run available immediately inside the leading horse on the running line thereby allowing trailing horses full access to the remainder of the expanded inside lane.
6. Subject to clause 4 hereof, in the last lap of any race no horse shall move inwards into the expanded inside lane (or any part thereof) when it has an unimpeded run to the finish line.
7. Except where a horseman is making a move pursuant to Rule 869(7) and subject to the preceding provisions of this regulation where applicable, every horse shall upon entering the home straight prior to the finish maintain as straight a course as possible to the finish line.
8. Failure to comply with clauses 4 and/or 5 and/or 6 and/or 7 hereof shall be deemed a breach of Rule 869(4) of the NZ Rules of Harness Racing in respect of which Rules 1003 and 869A apply.
Mr Anderson was assisted at the hearing by Open Horseman, Mr M Purdon. Mr Anderson and Mr Purdon indicated that they represented the connections of KING SOLOMON. Mr J Curtin and trainer of TIGER THOMPSON, Mr B Mowbray, represented the connections of that horse. Also in attendance were Mr T Casey, part owner of KING SOLOMON and Mrs K Marriot, representing another part owner of KING SOLOMON, being Mr K Riseley.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Ydgren showed the relevant films of the alleged interference which occurred at the entrance to the passing lane. Mr Ydgren pointed out TIGER THOMPSON, driven by Mr Curtin, racing on the pylons and in the lead as the horses entered the home straight. In the trail behind TIGER THOMPSON was KING SOLOMON, driven by Mr Anderson. As the horses passed the entrance to the passing lane, TIGER THOMPSON, immediately shifted down into the passing lane therefore denying trailing runner KING SOLOMON that run. Mr Ydgren stated that KING SOLOMON was also interfered with over the final stages, near the 60m, when attempting to take a marginal gap between TIGER THOMPSON on the inner and MORE THE BETTER on the outer which resulted in KING SOLOMON locking wheels with MORE THE BETTER. Thus, both horses suffered interference and lost ground.
Mr Purdon stated it was evident on the films that Mr Curtin’s horse did run into the passing lane as the horses entered the home straight and, in doing so, denied Mr Anderson’s horse any opportunity in the run home to improve in the passing lane. He said that when Mr Anderson did try and improve to the outside of TIGER THOMPSON he took a marginal gap which resulted in his horse locking wheels with MORE THE BETTER. Mr Purdon stated that if KING SOLOMON had been given the opportunity to use the passing lane as he was entitled to, he probably would have won.
Mr Anderson stated to the hearing that had he gained access to the passing lane when he was entitled to at the top of the straight, he would have “most definitely” beaten TIGER THOMSON. He said that his horse was full of running with no opportunity to improve until near the 60 metres where a marginal gap appeared. He also stated that at no time from the 200m was there a full gap available in the passing lane for him to improve into.
Mr Curtin conceded at the hearing that not only had he shifted down into the passing lane but also that TIGER THOMPSON had denied KING SOLOMON the run that he was entitled to. Mr Curtin said that TIGER THOMPSON was a difficult horse to drive and that once the horse had shifted down into the passing lane when on one rein, he felt that he was better to stay in that position and let KING SOLOMON have the run on his outer. He stated that at the end of the day there was not enough room for KING SOLOMON to improve between TIGER THOMPSON and MORE THE BETTER.
Mr Mowbray stated that Mr Purdon’s horse was drifting down the track a bit and had TIGER THOMPSON maintained a straight line, with KING SOLOMON in the passing lane, maybe MORE THE BETTER would have shifted TIGER THOMPSON down onto KING SOLOMON forcing him over the pylons. He said KING SOLOMON ran “dead straight” from the top of the straight and never attempted to shift down into the passing lane. He said if Mr Curtin had straightened TIGER THOMPSON, KING SOLOMON was still not going to get to the passing lane and was stuck on TIGER THOMPSON’s back.
Mrs Marriot submitted that MORE THE BETTER had shifted inwards slightly and if TIGER THOMPSON had been in his correct position, MORE THE BETTER would have been prevented from shifting inwards as TIGER THOMPSON would have been in that position therefore leaving a clear run for KING SOLOMON as he was entitled to.
Mr Casey stated that KING SOLOMON was full running over the concluding stages and when he finally did get a gap he improved fast and gained a quick ½ length before locking wheels with MORE THE BETTER.
Mr Ydgren, as officiating Stipendiary Steward, was asked for his interpretation of the incident. He stated that the films clearly showed there had not been a run presented for KING SOLOMON that he was entitled to and he was unable to be tested to the line. He said that looking solely at the margin at the post was an unfair guide to the chances of that runner because with the 3-length margin, on the face of it, you would say that horse would not make up that ground. He said that KING SOLOMON was also interfered with 60m from the line because Mr Curtin’s horse was in the passing lane and in the rightful run of KING SOLOMON and agreed that the interference had started at the top of the straight and Mr Anderson had not had the opportunity to drive his horse out over the final 200m due to TIGER THOMPSON shifting down into the lane in breach of the passing lane regulations.
reasonsfordecision:
We carefully considered the evidence given and the video coverage of the incident. The Committee was satisfied that TIGER THOMPSON had shifted into the passing lane at the entrance near the 200m and taken up a position in the lane that it was not entitled to. We were also satisfied that the trailing horse, KING SOLOMON, was entitled to that run and was prevented from utilising that run for practically the whole straight. We determined that KING SOLOMON had suffered interference from the entrance to the passing lane where TIGER THOMPSON took his rightful line and again at the 60m where KING SOLOMON locked wheels with MORE THE BETTER when it attempted to take a marginal gap between TIGER THOMPSON and MORE THE BETTER, having been denied its rightful run in the passing lane. It was clear on the films that KING SOLOMON was full of running for the entire straight and apart from a brief attempt to improve through a marginal gap, was denied his rightful run by TIGER THOMPSON moving down into the passing lane for the entire straight. The Committee was satisfied to the required standard of a balance of probabilities that but for the interference by TIGER THOMPSON, KING SOLOMON would have beaten TIGER THOMPSON had he received his rightful running in the passing lane. The protest was accordingly upheld with TIGER THOMPSON being relegated to 4th place behind KING SOLOMON.
Decision:
The protest was upheld with the amended judge’s placings as follows
1st MONGOLIAN STORM (5)
2nd MORE THE BETTER (9)
3rd KING SOLOMON (1)
4th TIGER THOMPSON (2)
5th BILLY BADGER (8)
6th ON THE RANTAN (7)
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with that amended result.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 869A (2) & Passing Lane, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations
Informant: M Anderson- Junior Horseman
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: N Ydgren-Stipendiary Steward, M Purdon-Open Horseman, B Mowbray-Public Trainer, T Casey-Owner, K Marriott-Owners representative
Respondent: J Curtin - Driver of TIGER THOMPSON
StipendSteward:
raceid: f54df31533a43b5118ed87efe79cd070
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 62ecf5fbd87f93bfc08a8bdea625f74f
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 21/10/2016
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 21 October 2016
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: SChing
meet_pm1: RMcKenzie
meet_pm2: none
name: NZ Metro TC