Kapiti Coast HRC 1 February 2019 – R 7 – (Instigating a Protest), Chair, Mr P Williams
ID: JCA17616
Meet Title:
Kapiti Coast HRC - 1 February 2019
Meet Chair:
PWilliams
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMoffatt
Race Date:
2019/02/01
Race Number:
R7
Decision:
The protest is upheld and the amended placings are:-
1st Bill Haley (5)
2nd Alta Leonie (6)
3rd Imola (7)
4th Mister Harris (4)
5th Fleeting Grin (1)
Authorisation is given to the payment of dividends and stakes based on the amended placings stated above.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 7, the “Grant Plumbing 2019 Wellington Cup” Information A10587 instigating a protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Mulcay against “Fleeting Grin”, driven by Mr P Ferguson, placed 4th by the judge, alleging interference in the home straight to the 5th placed “Mister Harris” driven by Mr K More, “in that driver P Ferguson has failed to leave full access to the Passing Lane for the trailing “Mister Harris” early in the run home”.
The Judge's placings in this race were:-
1st Bill Haley (5)
2nd Alta Leonie (6)
3rd Imola (7)
4th Fleeting Grin (1)
5th Mister Harris (4)
The official margin between 4th and 5th was a neck.
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.
The above “Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations” (PL Regs) are very detailed and it is not intended to state them word for word in this decision although mention will be made of the relevant aspects in the reasons for the decision below. Suffice to say at the beginning of the hearing Mr Mulcay read out the relevant Regulations in relation to the protest and Mr Ferguson stated he understood the Rule and Regulations under which the protest had been lodged.
Submissions for Decision:
Using the head on film of the home straight Mr Mulcay identified Mr Ferguson driving “Fleeting Grin” trailing the leader “Gotta Moment” driven by Mr S Abernethy and trailing Mr Ferguson was Mr More driving “Mister Harris”. Mr Mulcay said as the horses rounded the final bend and straightened for the run to the finish and approximately 20-30m prior to the start of the passing lane, “Gotta Moment” commenced to move wider on the track which meant “Fleeting Grin” became the lead horse on the markers when reaching the beginning of the passing lane. He said this was supported by the side on view just prior to the passing lane which he said showed Mr Ferguson had moved into the position previously occupied by Mr Abernethy which meant Mr Ferguson was the lead horse on the markers. As such, Mr Ferguson’s obligations under Clause 4 of the PL Regs required him to maintain a straight course to the finish if he had an interrupted run but over a period of 30-40m Mr Ferguson drifted into the passing lane denying Mr More who was directly behind him access to it.
Mr Mulcay said as the horses progressed down the straight there was no run available for Mr More for approximately 100-150m and he then decided to move to the outside of Mr Ferguson with approximately 100m to travel and then ran on strongly to be beaten a neck for fourth place.
Mr Mulcay concluded by saying that he believed had Mr Ferguson maintained a straight line to the finish as required, given he was the lead horse on the marker line, Mr More would have had access to the passing lane as soon as it became available and given the way “Mister Harris” was taking ground off “Fleeting Grin” over the final 100m that he would have beaten that horse.
To questions from Mr Mulcay Mr More said he was following Mr Ferguson and waiting for access to the passing lane as the horses progressed down the home straight. When he realised he was not going to get access to it (after a further approximate 150m) he pulled out from behind Mr Ferguson and was able to take ground off him over the final 100m of the race. He said he was aware Mr Abernethy had moved up the track and thought in his position behind Mr Ferguson he would then get access to the passing lane as soon as it became available. He concluded by saying he thought he may have beaten Mr Ferguson if he been able to improve his position earlier than at the 100m point when he moved to the outside of him.
Mr Ferguson asked Mr More where he was positioned as the passing lane became available to which Mr More said he was “three back”. To a further question later on from Mr Ferguson Mr More said he was three back prior to reaching the passing lane. The key aspect of Mr Ferguson’s submissions was that he was not the leader of the Race when the passing lane became available but was at that point trailing the leader and therefore entitled to move into the passing lane at the earliest opportunity. He said he believed Mr More was not entitled to the passing lane because it had been correctly taken by the him (Mr Ferguson) in the trail. He said it was not his fault that Mr More only decided to come out from behind him in the final 100m.
In summing up, Mr Mulcay said once Mr Abernethy had shifted up the track and was no longer the leader on the marker line the horse that had been trailing became the leader and was required to keep a straight line and therefore leave access to the passing lane and Mr Ferguson had not done that. He also said he did not agree with Mr More’s comment that he was three back when the passing lane became available because in his view Mr Ferguson was then the leader which meant Mr More was trailing the leader.
Mr Ferguson said he was never the leader and always the trailer and therefore entitled to take the passing lane which he had done. He said in any event Mr More had plenty of time to come out from behind him and it was not his fault that Mr More had left his run until around the 100m point.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee has reviewed the head and side on views of the Race from the top of the straight. The head on film clearly shows as the horses straightened for the run to the finish Mr Abernethy shifted up the track at least one cart width which meant Mr Ferguson automatically went from being the trailer to the leader on the marker line. The films show the outward movement by Mr Abernethy commenced approximately 20-30m prior to the beginning of the passing lane which meant at the beginning of the passing lane Mr Ferguson was the leader and required to maintain a straight line and allow the trailing horse access to the passing lane.
Clause 4 of the PL Regs states:- “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.
The Committee accepts that Mr Ferguson was not the lead horse “upon entering the home straight” but was the leader before the passing lane became available and should have not moved into the passing lane as he had an uninterrupted run to the finish line. Because he did not maintain that straight line he is in contravention of clause 6 of the PL Regs which state:
“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”.
Through not maintaining as straight a course as possible Mr More was denied rightful access to the passing lane as the trailer behind Mr Ferguson. Given the way “Mister Harris” was taking ground off “Fleeting Grin” over the final 100m and was eventually beaten a neck for fourth we believe that, had Mr More been given full access to the passing lane “Mister Harris” would have would have finished ahead of “Fleeting Grin”.
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: f8d99a8c5c946a13cabf0ee4d5ac1157
informantnumber: A10587
horsename: Fleeting Grin
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 04/02/2019
hearing_title: Kapiti Coast HRC 1 February 2019 - R 7 - (Instigating a Protest), Chair, Mr P Williams
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 7, the “Grant Plumbing 2019 Wellington Cup” Information A10587 instigating a protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Mulcay against “Fleeting Grin”, driven by Mr P Ferguson, placed 4th by the judge, alleging interference in the home straight to the 5th placed “Mister Harris” driven by Mr K More, “in that driver P Ferguson has failed to leave full access to the Passing Lane for the trailing “Mister Harris” early in the run home”.
The Judge's placings in this race were:-
1st Bill Haley (5)
2nd Alta Leonie (6)
3rd Imola (7)
4th Fleeting Grin (1)
5th Mister Harris (4)
The official margin between 4th and 5th was a neck.
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.
The above “Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations” (PL Regs) are very detailed and it is not intended to state them word for word in this decision although mention will be made of the relevant aspects in the reasons for the decision below. Suffice to say at the beginning of the hearing Mr Mulcay read out the relevant Regulations in relation to the protest and Mr Ferguson stated he understood the Rule and Regulations under which the protest had been lodged.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Using the head on film of the home straight Mr Mulcay identified Mr Ferguson driving “Fleeting Grin” trailing the leader “Gotta Moment” driven by Mr S Abernethy and trailing Mr Ferguson was Mr More driving “Mister Harris”. Mr Mulcay said as the horses rounded the final bend and straightened for the run to the finish and approximately 20-30m prior to the start of the passing lane, “Gotta Moment” commenced to move wider on the track which meant “Fleeting Grin” became the lead horse on the markers when reaching the beginning of the passing lane. He said this was supported by the side on view just prior to the passing lane which he said showed Mr Ferguson had moved into the position previously occupied by Mr Abernethy which meant Mr Ferguson was the lead horse on the markers. As such, Mr Ferguson’s obligations under Clause 4 of the PL Regs required him to maintain a straight course to the finish if he had an interrupted run but over a period of 30-40m Mr Ferguson drifted into the passing lane denying Mr More who was directly behind him access to it.
Mr Mulcay said as the horses progressed down the straight there was no run available for Mr More for approximately 100-150m and he then decided to move to the outside of Mr Ferguson with approximately 100m to travel and then ran on strongly to be beaten a neck for fourth place.
Mr Mulcay concluded by saying that he believed had Mr Ferguson maintained a straight line to the finish as required, given he was the lead horse on the marker line, Mr More would have had access to the passing lane as soon as it became available and given the way “Mister Harris” was taking ground off “Fleeting Grin” over the final 100m that he would have beaten that horse.
To questions from Mr Mulcay Mr More said he was following Mr Ferguson and waiting for access to the passing lane as the horses progressed down the home straight. When he realised he was not going to get access to it (after a further approximate 150m) he pulled out from behind Mr Ferguson and was able to take ground off him over the final 100m of the race. He said he was aware Mr Abernethy had moved up the track and thought in his position behind Mr Ferguson he would then get access to the passing lane as soon as it became available. He concluded by saying he thought he may have beaten Mr Ferguson if he been able to improve his position earlier than at the 100m point when he moved to the outside of him.
Mr Ferguson asked Mr More where he was positioned as the passing lane became available to which Mr More said he was “three back”. To a further question later on from Mr Ferguson Mr More said he was three back prior to reaching the passing lane. The key aspect of Mr Ferguson’s submissions was that he was not the leader of the Race when the passing lane became available but was at that point trailing the leader and therefore entitled to move into the passing lane at the earliest opportunity. He said he believed Mr More was not entitled to the passing lane because it had been correctly taken by the him (Mr Ferguson) in the trail. He said it was not his fault that Mr More only decided to come out from behind him in the final 100m.
In summing up, Mr Mulcay said once Mr Abernethy had shifted up the track and was no longer the leader on the marker line the horse that had been trailing became the leader and was required to keep a straight line and therefore leave access to the passing lane and Mr Ferguson had not done that. He also said he did not agree with Mr More’s comment that he was three back when the passing lane became available because in his view Mr Ferguson was then the leader which meant Mr More was trailing the leader.
Mr Ferguson said he was never the leader and always the trailer and therefore entitled to take the passing lane which he had done. He said in any event Mr More had plenty of time to come out from behind him and it was not his fault that Mr More had left his run until around the 100m point.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee has reviewed the head and side on views of the Race from the top of the straight. The head on film clearly shows as the horses straightened for the run to the finish Mr Abernethy shifted up the track at least one cart width which meant Mr Ferguson automatically went from being the trailer to the leader on the marker line. The films show the outward movement by Mr Abernethy commenced approximately 20-30m prior to the beginning of the passing lane which meant at the beginning of the passing lane Mr Ferguson was the leader and required to maintain a straight line and allow the trailing horse access to the passing lane.
Clause 4 of the PL Regs states:- “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.
The Committee accepts that Mr Ferguson was not the lead horse “upon entering the home straight” but was the leader before the passing lane became available and should have not moved into the passing lane as he had an uninterrupted run to the finish line. Because he did not maintain that straight line he is in contravention of clause 6 of the PL Regs which state:
“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”.
Through not maintaining as straight a course as possible Mr More was denied rightful access to the passing lane as the trailer behind Mr Ferguson. Given the way “Mister Harris” was taking ground off “Fleeting Grin” over the final 100m and was eventually beaten a neck for fourth we believe that, had Mr More been given full access to the passing lane “Mister Harris” would have would have finished ahead of “Fleeting Grin”.
Decision:
The protest is upheld and the amended placings are:-
1st Bill Haley (5)
2nd Alta Leonie (6)
3rd Imola (7)
4th Mister Harris (4)
5th Fleeting Grin (1)
Authorisation is given to the payment of dividends and stakes based on the amended placings stated above.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 869(A)(2) and Passing Lane Regulations
Informant: Mr S Mulcay - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent: Mr P Ferguson - Driver of "Fleeting Grin", Mr K More - Driver of "Mister Harris"
StipendSteward:
raceid: 9faac4b4e1b42d0a9deb5acf24da310c
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 37df8503bada4ccf118f6e91d7df3d42
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/02/2019
meet_title: Kapiti Coast HRC - 1 February 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: kapiti-coast-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: PWilliams
meet_pm1: NMoffatt
meet_pm2: none
name: Kapiti Coast HRC