Waikato RC 10 April 2013 – R 5 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA16395
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waikato RC - 10 April 2013
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
AGodsalve
Race Date:
2013/04/10
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
Accordingly the protest is upheld and the amended placings are now:
1st No. 8 LITTLE PEPPER
2nd No. 4 HOLY AFFAIR
3rd No. 6 WATER NYMPH
4th No. 11 SATIN QUEEN
In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with the amended placings.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5 an information was filed pursuant to rule 642(1) Instigating a Protest. The informant Mr Jago, alleged that WATER NYMPH placed 2nd by the judge interfered with the chances of his mount HOLY AFFAIR placed 3rd by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placings were as follows:
1st No. 8 LITTLE PEPPER
2nd No. 6 WATER NYMPH
3rd No. 4 HOLY AFFAIR
4th No. 11 SATIN QUEEN
The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was a long head.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Jago submitted that he was racing on the outside of Water Nymph early in the home straight. He said Water Nymph shifted out at the 200 metres which forced him to straighten his mount up. At the 100 metre mark Water Nymph again shifted out drastically causing his mount to lose momentum. He said his mount finished the race off strongly and believed he would have definitely finished 2nd if interference had not occurred.
Mr Somervell submitted that he concurred with Mr Jago that it was obvious Water Nymph cost his horse 2nd place.
Mr Hills submitted that Water Nymph did run out a bit in the final straight but did not believe Holy Affair had been checked sufficiently to change the placings.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Hills conceded that Water Nymph shifted out from the 200 metre mark when Holy Affair was racing on his hind quarters.
Mr Brick also conceded that Water Nymph did move outwards towards Holy Affair but was of the view this did not have an impact of the final result. He submitted that Holy Affair was not making ground on Water Nymph and Mr Jago did not stop riding his mount out to the finish. He said his horse was having its first start for 15 months and stated it had come to the end of its run. Finally, he submitted that Holy Affair was not good enough to beat his horse on the day.
Mr McLellan submitted that Holy Affair was a distance behind Water Nymph and believed the placings should stand.
Mr Williamson submitted that Water Nymph did shift out early in the home straight but did not interfere with any other runner. He said at the 100 metre mark Water Nymph shifted out between 3 to 4 horse widths towards Holy Affair which was between ¾ of a length behind her. He added there was no contact made between the 2 horses, however, he conceded that Holy Affair was forced over extra ground and finished well to be beaten a long head. In summing up he submitted the Stewards did support the protest.
Mr Jago in summing up submitted the video films were clear that Holy Affair chances of finishing closer were affected by the outward movement from Water Nymph.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video films several times. We established at the 200 metres Holy Affair was ¾ of a length behind Water Nymph. At the 100 metres it was clear that Water Nymph moved out 4 horse widths which forced Holy Affair of its rightful running line. We note there was no contact between the horses however Holy Affair was forced over extra ground at a vital point in the race. The films clearly showed that Holy Affair was taking ground off Water Nymph in the final 100 metres. Finally, it was significant that Holy Affair was beaten by a long head because the interference that took place cost him at least 1 length.
For these reasons we were satisfied that Holy Affair would have beaten Water Nymph had interference 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: ae5a6ceb9e183cca682b16b415aafb01
informantnumber: A2820
horsename: WATER NYMPH
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 01/04/2013
hearing_title: Waikato RC 10 April 2013 - R 5 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 5 an information was filed pursuant to rule 642(1) Instigating a Protest. The informant Mr Jago, alleged that WATER NYMPH placed 2nd by the judge interfered with the chances of his mount HOLY AFFAIR placed 3rd by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placings were as follows:
1st No. 8 LITTLE PEPPER
2nd No. 6 WATER NYMPH
3rd No. 4 HOLY AFFAIR
4th No. 11 SATIN QUEEN
The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was a long head.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Jago submitted that he was racing on the outside of Water Nymph early in the home straight. He said Water Nymph shifted out at the 200 metres which forced him to straighten his mount up. At the 100 metre mark Water Nymph again shifted out drastically causing his mount to lose momentum. He said his mount finished the race off strongly and believed he would have definitely finished 2nd if interference had not occurred.
Mr Somervell submitted that he concurred with Mr Jago that it was obvious Water Nymph cost his horse 2nd place.
Mr Hills submitted that Water Nymph did run out a bit in the final straight but did not believe Holy Affair had been checked sufficiently to change the placings.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Hills conceded that Water Nymph shifted out from the 200 metre mark when Holy Affair was racing on his hind quarters.
Mr Brick also conceded that Water Nymph did move outwards towards Holy Affair but was of the view this did not have an impact of the final result. He submitted that Holy Affair was not making ground on Water Nymph and Mr Jago did not stop riding his mount out to the finish. He said his horse was having its first start for 15 months and stated it had come to the end of its run. Finally, he submitted that Holy Affair was not good enough to beat his horse on the day.
Mr McLellan submitted that Holy Affair was a distance behind Water Nymph and believed the placings should stand.
Mr Williamson submitted that Water Nymph did shift out early in the home straight but did not interfere with any other runner. He said at the 100 metre mark Water Nymph shifted out between 3 to 4 horse widths towards Holy Affair which was between ¾ of a length behind her. He added there was no contact made between the 2 horses, however, he conceded that Holy Affair was forced over extra ground and finished well to be beaten a long head. In summing up he submitted the Stewards did support the protest.
Mr Jago in summing up submitted the video films were clear that Holy Affair chances of finishing closer were affected by the outward movement from Water Nymph.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video films several times. We established at the 200 metres Holy Affair was ¾ of a length behind Water Nymph. At the 100 metres it was clear that Water Nymph moved out 4 horse widths which forced Holy Affair of its rightful running line. We note there was no contact between the horses however Holy Affair was forced over extra ground at a vital point in the race. The films clearly showed that Holy Affair was taking ground off Water Nymph in the final 100 metres. Finally, it was significant that Holy Affair was beaten by a long head because the interference that took place cost him at least 1 length.
For these reasons we were satisfied that Holy Affair would have beaten Water Nymph had interference not occurred.
Decision:
Accordingly the protest is upheld and the amended placings are now:
1st No. 8 LITTLE PEPPER
2nd No. 4 HOLY AFFAIR
3rd No. 6 WATER NYMPH
4th No. 11 SATIN QUEEN
In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with the amended placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr J Jago - Rider of HOLY AFFAIR
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward, Mr L Somervell - Trainer of HOLY AFFAIR, Mr G Brick - Trainer of WATER NYMPH, Mr B McLellan - Owner of WATER NYMPH
Respondent: Mr M Hills - Rider of WATER NYMPH
StipendSteward:
raceid: a051d15b05ceb5c9eb7d84fb5c5a3e8c
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: 617f405999ee6cf5bad0f34ce2183edc
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 10/04/2013
meet_title: Waikato RC - 10 April 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikato-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: AGodsalve
meet_pm2: none
name: Waikato RC