Waikato BOP H 24 December 2020 -R 4 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr A Godsalve
ID: JCA17556
Meet Title:
Harness Racing Waikato - 24 December 2020
Meet Chair:
AGodsalve
Race Date:
2020/12/24
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was dismissed.
Authority was given for stakes and dividends to be paid in accordance with the Judges original placings.
Facts:
Following the runnng of Race 2, the Informant Mr Mulcay initiated a protest by way of an Information. He alleged that RICHMOND TIGER, driven by Mr Drake shifted in over the final stages and locked wheels with ' TE AMO ' driven by Mr Herlihy which was checked.
The Judges placings were:
1st - THEE OLD BOMB
2nd - SATCHMO
3rd - RICHMOND TIGER
4th - TE AMO
5th - NELSON'S BOY
The margins were 2 lengths, 3/4 length, a neck.
Mr Drake, assisted by Mr D Butcher, was present at the hearing and confirmed that he wished to contest the protest.
Rule 869A(2) says:
'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 the 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 interefence immediately after the horse interfered with.'
Submissions for Decision:
Prior to the evidence being heard the Committee Chairman read the Rule aloud for the benefit of the parties, particuarly Mr Drake who had not previously been involved in a protest hearing.
Mr Mulcay identified the horses RICHMOND TIGER and TE AMO. He said that late in the run home TE AMO had been improving its position on the inside of RICHMOND TIGER. He said that Stewards alleged that from the 50 metres mark, RICHMOND TIGER had shifted inwards which had caused the horses to lock wheels. He added that Stewards believed that had it not been for that incident, TE AMO would have beaten RICHMOND TIGER for 3rd placing.
Mr Herlihy said he had driven TE AMO. He said he wanted to be wider on the turn and been finishing on the outside of the other horses however TE AMO had been hanging. He said he had challenged RICHMOND TIGER on its inside. He added that he thought it was 'always going to be tight' and that he didn't think he had much of a gap to go through. He said that he was unsure if he would have beaten RICHMOND TIGER in any event. He added that if the margin had of been a nose it may have been different. He agreed with Mr Mulcay that the horses had locked wheels but he felt that it took place near to the finish line. Mr Herlihy said that to be fair he had to add that just short of the line Mr Drake had shifted RICHMOND TIGER outwards.
Mr Mulcay in final submissions said that on the films it seemed that the horses had locked wheels with about 20 metres to run. He added that as the Stewards believed TE AMO was taking ground off RICHMOND TIGER they sought the relegation of RICHMOND TIGER.
Mr Butcher said that he believed there was some movement from both horses involved, and that SATCHMO which was on the inside of TE AMO had shifted out slightly which pushed TE AMO towards RICHMOND TIGER.
The Committee said that they had to be satisfied that TE AMO would have beaten RICHMOND TIGER if the incident had not taken place, and asked Mr Herlihy if he would have beaten RICHMOND TIGER in that case.
Mr Herlihy replied that he 'couldn't say I would have beaten him' and that the gap for him had always been 'minimal'.
Reasons for Decision:
The Rule has two parts which the Committee had to take into account.
The first is that 'interference' has taken place, and the second is that the Committee has to be satisfied that the horse affected by such interference would have beaten the horse that caused it.
In this case the driver of the affected horse, Mr Herlihy, a vastly experienced reinsman, said that he could not say that his horse would have beaten RICHMOND TIGER in any event.
There may well have been contributing movement by other horses involved in the finish and the Committee has not made any determination that 'interference' had in fact taken place.
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: f1a5350187e1236a9950c33d58fa7b9a
informantnumber: A11107
horsename: RICHMOND TIGER
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 24/12/2020
hearing_title: Waikato BOP H 24 December 2020 -R 4 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Godsalve
charge:
facts:
Following the runnng of Race 2, the Informant Mr Mulcay initiated a protest by way of an Information. He alleged that RICHMOND TIGER, driven by Mr Drake shifted in over the final stages and locked wheels with ' TE AMO ' driven by Mr Herlihy which was checked.
The Judges placings were:
1st - THEE OLD BOMB
2nd - SATCHMO
3rd - RICHMOND TIGER
4th - TE AMO
5th - NELSON'S BOY
The margins were 2 lengths, 3/4 length, a neck.
Mr Drake, assisted by Mr D Butcher, was present at the hearing and confirmed that he wished to contest the protest.
Rule 869A(2) says:
'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 the 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 interefence immediately after the horse interfered with.'
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Prior to the evidence being heard the Committee Chairman read the Rule aloud for the benefit of the parties, particuarly Mr Drake who had not previously been involved in a protest hearing.
Mr Mulcay identified the horses RICHMOND TIGER and TE AMO. He said that late in the run home TE AMO had been improving its position on the inside of RICHMOND TIGER. He said that Stewards alleged that from the 50 metres mark, RICHMOND TIGER had shifted inwards which had caused the horses to lock wheels. He added that Stewards believed that had it not been for that incident, TE AMO would have beaten RICHMOND TIGER for 3rd placing.
Mr Herlihy said he had driven TE AMO. He said he wanted to be wider on the turn and been finishing on the outside of the other horses however TE AMO had been hanging. He said he had challenged RICHMOND TIGER on its inside. He added that he thought it was 'always going to be tight' and that he didn't think he had much of a gap to go through. He said that he was unsure if he would have beaten RICHMOND TIGER in any event. He added that if the margin had of been a nose it may have been different. He agreed with Mr Mulcay that the horses had locked wheels but he felt that it took place near to the finish line. Mr Herlihy said that to be fair he had to add that just short of the line Mr Drake had shifted RICHMOND TIGER outwards.
Mr Mulcay in final submissions said that on the films it seemed that the horses had locked wheels with about 20 metres to run. He added that as the Stewards believed TE AMO was taking ground off RICHMOND TIGER they sought the relegation of RICHMOND TIGER.
Mr Butcher said that he believed there was some movement from both horses involved, and that SATCHMO which was on the inside of TE AMO had shifted out slightly which pushed TE AMO towards RICHMOND TIGER.
The Committee said that they had to be satisfied that TE AMO would have beaten RICHMOND TIGER if the incident had not taken place, and asked Mr Herlihy if he would have beaten RICHMOND TIGER in that case.
Mr Herlihy replied that he 'couldn't say I would have beaten him' and that the gap for him had always been 'minimal'.
reasonsfordecision:
The Rule has two parts which the Committee had to take into account.
The first is that 'interference' has taken place, and the second is that the Committee has to be satisfied that the horse affected by such interference would have beaten the horse that caused it.
In this case the driver of the affected horse, Mr Herlihy, a vastly experienced reinsman, said that he could not say that his horse would have beaten RICHMOND TIGER in any event.
There may well have been contributing movement by other horses involved in the finish and the Committee has not made any determination that 'interference' had in fact taken place.
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was dismissed.
Authority was given for stakes and dividends to be paid in accordance with the Judges original placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 869A(2)
Informant: Mr S Mulcay - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr D Butcher - Senior Driver assisting Mr Drake, Mr A Herlihy - Driver of TE AMO
Respondent: Mr A Drake - Junior Driver of RICHMOND TIGER
StipendSteward:
raceid: a07cbd9526916f9855786547fd126390
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: e8ff73bae151592ec6eaa0afa82b5698
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 24/12/2020
meet_title: Harness Racing Waikato - 24 December 2020
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: harness-racing-waikato
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: AGodsalve
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Harness Racing Waikato