Avondale JC 25 April 2013 – R 3 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA16908
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Avondale JC - 25 April 2013
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
AGodsalve
Race Date:
2013/04/25
Race Number:
R3
Decision:
Accordingly the protest is upheld and the amended placings are now:
1st No. 9 UNCLE SUGAR
2nd No. 7 JACK'S RUN
3rd No. 5 ARISE
4th No. 1 TAKE CHARGE
In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with the amended placings.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 3, Western Leader 1600, Ms Thornton filed an information Instigating a Protest, pursuant to Rule 642(1). Ms Thornton alleged that JACK'S RUN placed first by the judge interfered with the chances of her mount UNCLE SUGAR placed 2nd by the judge. The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 7 JACK'S RUN
2nd No. 9 UNCLE SUGAR
3rd No. 5 ARISE
4th No. 1 TAKE CHARGE
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a 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”.
All parties present acknowledged they understood the rule.
Submissions for Decision:
Ms Thornton submitted that she was racing 1 off the rail outside the leader Jack's Run at the 400 metre mark. She said that Jack's Run gradually moved out into her rightful running line in the final straight and dictated her progress. She said at the 100 metre mark Jack's Run moved out further on the track and forced her out over extra ground. Ms Thornton in summing up stated there was sharp contact between the horses 4 to 5 strides before the finish and she believed this had cost her from winning the race.
Ms Anderson submitted the video films were self explanatory noting her horse was forced over extra ground in the final straight. She said that her horse was entitled to hold its rightful line of running and would have won if Jack's Run had not bumped it close to the finish.
Mr Bosson conceded that his horse had drifted out in the final straight. He felt the contact occurred too close to the finish to affect Uncle Sugar's chance of winning. He added that his mount when being ridden hands and heels had momentum over Uncle Sugar. He said that Ms Thornton had been riding her mount hard with the whip and had every chance to win the race.
Mr Brown said he did not believe Ms Thornton had to ease up on her mount enough in the final straight. He added he did not think the outward movement by Jack's Run affected Uncle Sugar's chances of winning given the neck margin.
Mr Coles when asked for his assessment of the alleged incident said there were 2 factors for the Committee to take into account. He said at the top of the straight Jack's Run was racing 2 horse widths out from the rail and had shifted out quite significantly at the end of the race. He added at the 250 metre mark Jack's Run was a neck ahead of Uncle Sugar and shortly after Uncle Sugar had progressed to be on terms with Jack's Run. He then said there were 2 points of contact between the 2 horses in the final straight noting the second which was 5 strides before the finish was quite severe. He summed by saying the Stewards were not totally convinced that they supported a change of placings.
When given the opportunity to sum up Ms Thornton had nothing new to add.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video films several times. We established at the 200 metre mark Jack's Run had a neck advantage over Uncle Sugar. At the 150 metre mark the pair were almost on level terms with Jack's Run noticeably drifting away from the running rail. At approximately the 75 metres we note that Jack's Run had shifted out at least a further 2 horse widths hampering Uncle Sugar's progress. The most relevant piece of interference did occur at the 50 metre mark when Jack's Run shifted out significantly making contact with Uncle Sugar. In doing so, this affected Uncle Sugar's momentum over the final 6 to 7 strides which resulted in Ms Thornton being unable to ride her mount out fully.
A further significant fact we identified when reviewing the back on video film was that Jack's Run was racing 1 off the rail at the 400 metre mark however, at the finish he was racing at least 6 horse widths off the rail. This resulted in Uncle Sugar being forced off his rightful running line and Ms Thornton had to stop riding her mount on at least 2 occasions in the straight.
For these reasons we are satisfied that Uncle Sugar would have beaten Jack's Run 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: b0ed9157f73ff3c2ddfe5bca95403203
informantnumber: A2092
horsename: JACK'S RUN
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 26/04/2013
hearing_title: Avondale JC 25 April 2013 - R 3 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 3, Western Leader 1600, Ms Thornton filed an information Instigating a Protest, pursuant to Rule 642(1). Ms Thornton alleged that JACK'S RUN placed first by the judge interfered with the chances of her mount UNCLE SUGAR placed 2nd by the judge. The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 7 JACK'S RUN
2nd No. 9 UNCLE SUGAR
3rd No. 5 ARISE
4th No. 1 TAKE CHARGE
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a 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”.
All parties present acknowledged they understood the rule.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Ms Thornton submitted that she was racing 1 off the rail outside the leader Jack's Run at the 400 metre mark. She said that Jack's Run gradually moved out into her rightful running line in the final straight and dictated her progress. She said at the 100 metre mark Jack's Run moved out further on the track and forced her out over extra ground. Ms Thornton in summing up stated there was sharp contact between the horses 4 to 5 strides before the finish and she believed this had cost her from winning the race.
Ms Anderson submitted the video films were self explanatory noting her horse was forced over extra ground in the final straight. She said that her horse was entitled to hold its rightful line of running and would have won if Jack's Run had not bumped it close to the finish.
Mr Bosson conceded that his horse had drifted out in the final straight. He felt the contact occurred too close to the finish to affect Uncle Sugar's chance of winning. He added that his mount when being ridden hands and heels had momentum over Uncle Sugar. He said that Ms Thornton had been riding her mount hard with the whip and had every chance to win the race.
Mr Brown said he did not believe Ms Thornton had to ease up on her mount enough in the final straight. He added he did not think the outward movement by Jack's Run affected Uncle Sugar's chances of winning given the neck margin.
Mr Coles when asked for his assessment of the alleged incident said there were 2 factors for the Committee to take into account. He said at the top of the straight Jack's Run was racing 2 horse widths out from the rail and had shifted out quite significantly at the end of the race. He added at the 250 metre mark Jack's Run was a neck ahead of Uncle Sugar and shortly after Uncle Sugar had progressed to be on terms with Jack's Run. He then said there were 2 points of contact between the 2 horses in the final straight noting the second which was 5 strides before the finish was quite severe. He summed by saying the Stewards were not totally convinced that they supported a change of placings.
When given the opportunity to sum up Ms Thornton had nothing new to add.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video films several times. We established at the 200 metre mark Jack's Run had a neck advantage over Uncle Sugar. At the 150 metre mark the pair were almost on level terms with Jack's Run noticeably drifting away from the running rail. At approximately the 75 metres we note that Jack's Run had shifted out at least a further 2 horse widths hampering Uncle Sugar's progress. The most relevant piece of interference did occur at the 50 metre mark when Jack's Run shifted out significantly making contact with Uncle Sugar. In doing so, this affected Uncle Sugar's momentum over the final 6 to 7 strides which resulted in Ms Thornton being unable to ride her mount out fully.
A further significant fact we identified when reviewing the back on video film was that Jack's Run was racing 1 off the rail at the 400 metre mark however, at the finish he was racing at least 6 horse widths off the rail. This resulted in Uncle Sugar being forced off his rightful running line and Ms Thornton had to stop riding her mount on at least 2 occasions in the straight.
For these reasons we are satisfied that Uncle Sugar would have beaten Jack's Run had interference not occurred.
Decision:
Accordingly the protest is upheld and the amended placings are now:
1st No. 9 UNCLE SUGAR
2nd No. 7 JACK'S RUN
3rd No. 5 ARISE
4th No. 1 TAKE CHARGE
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: Ms T Thornton - Rider of UNCLE SUGAR
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Brown - Part Owner of JACK'S RUN, Ms L Anderson - Trainer of UNCLE SUGAR
Respondent: Mr O Bosson - Rider of JACK'S RUN
StipendSteward:
raceid: aac1f7b3dd0ba177b88d84bbeb43d131
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: ad92aad48507e9d188221c758963f5d8
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 25/04/2013
meet_title: Avondale JC - 25 April 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: avondale-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: AGodsalve
meet_pm2: none
name: Avondale JC