Canterbury R 24 February 2017 – R 1 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr S Ching
ID: JCA17624
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 24 February 2017
Meet Chair:
SChing
Meet Committee Member 1:
DAnderson
Race Date:
2017/02/24
Race Number:
R1
Decision:
The protest was upheld and PROMISING was relegated to 3rd place.
Consequent upon the relegation, the amended result for the race is as follows:
1st - ULTRA CHIC (3)
2nd - PER FORM (4)
3rd - PROMISING (7)
4th - NAKYAMA (5)
5th - QUIZ (8)
6th - HAND OF ACES (6)
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the amended placings.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 1, the NZB Insurance Pearl Series Maiden Fillies & Mares 1200m, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson, alleging interference by 2nd placed PROMISING (7), ridden by Mr T Moseley, to the 3rd placed PER FORM (4), ridden by Mr C Johnson, over the concluding stages.
The Judges placings in this race were as follows.
1st - ULTRA CHIC (3)
2nd- PROMISING (7)
3rd - PER FORM (4)
4th - NAKYAMA (5)
5th - QUIZ (8)
6th - HAND OF ACES (6)
Rule 642(1) provides as follows.
“If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 to another 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.”
The connections of PROMISING were represented at this hearing by Mr P Rudkin, the trainer and rider, Mr T Moseley with the connections of PER FORM being represented by Mr P Gray, the trainer and Mr C Johnson, the rider.
All parties agreed that they understood the Rule and the nature of the protest.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Williamson with the assistance of Stipendiary Steward, Mr J McLaughlin, gave evidence and used video coverage to show that near the 300m, PROMISING, ridden by Mr T Moseley was racing in a position approximately ½ a horse width off the rail with PER FORM, ridden by Mr C Johnson, trailing. Mr McLaughlin said that approaching the 200m, PROMISING shifted outwards slightly and provided a full run on its inner which Mr Johnson opted to improve into. Shortly after improving into the gap, PROMISING began to shift inwards when being ridden out, eventually forcing PER FORM to check out of the gap. He said that PER FORM was established in the gap, at least ¾ of a length behind and on the inside of PROMISING before being tightened and having to check. Mr McLaughlin stated that Mr Johnson, after checking, then had to ease back and go across the heels of PROMISING before running on strongly over the final 100m to finish in 3rd place only a head away from 2nd placed PROMISING. Mr McLaughlin stated that the official margin between 2nd and 3rd was a head and submitted that in his opinion PER FORM possibly lost between 1 to 2 lengths in this incident.
Mr Johnson gave evidence and stated that when he achieved the gap on the inside of PROMISING, he was established in that position and was of the opinion that PER FORM would have definitely finished in 2nd place if not been a winning chance at the time. He said that he was fully established on the inside of PROMISING, being ¾ of a length back from PROMISING, for at least 5 strides before the interference occurred and had no choice but to check out of the gap due to the pressure from PROMISING.
Mr Moseley stated that it was arguable that he had rolled outwards 1 horse width near the 300m. In his opinion he had only rolled out ½ a horse width and it was also arguable whether there was sufficient room on his inside for Mr Johnson to improve into the gap. He also said that both riders had gone for the whip at the same time and conceded that he had hampered PER FORM for a stride or two.
Mr Williamson stated in summary that the Stewards had shown that approaching the 200m PER FORM had established a run to the inside of PROMISING and that the evidence given by Mr McLaughlin and Mr Johnson stated that PER FORM had got within ¾ of a length of PROMISING before being crowded and checking. He stated that Mr Johnson had then had to ease back and go around PROMISING before finishing strongly over the concluding stages to finish a head away from PROMISING. He stated that using the margin of a length lost due to the interference and the official margin at the post being a head, PER FORM, he said, would have beaten PROMISING, but for the interference suffered.
Reasons for Decision:
We carefully considered the evidence given and the video coverage of the incident. The Committee was satisfied that near the 300m PROMISING shifted out slightly to a one-off position and made sufficient room on the inside for PER FORM to improve into. We were also satisfied that PROMISING began to shift inwards near the 200m, when under a ride, and continued to shift inwards for several strides eventually causing crowding to PER FORM who was clearly established on the inside and had to check. PER FORM, after being checked, had to be eased back and go around PROMISING, losing at least 1 to 2 lengths, before running on strongly to finish within a head margin from PROMISING at the line. Taking all factors into consideration we were satisfied that but for the interference suffered to PER FORM by PROMISING near the 200m, that PER FORM would have beaten PROMISING.
We therefore determined that the protest be upheld.
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: fa7c80db21859a7658a444049db96228
informantnumber: A8120
horsename: PROMISING
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 27/02/2017
hearing_title: Canterbury R 24 February 2017 - R 1 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr S Ching
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 1, the NZB Insurance Pearl Series Maiden Fillies & Mares 1200m, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson, alleging interference by 2nd placed PROMISING (7), ridden by Mr T Moseley, to the 3rd placed PER FORM (4), ridden by Mr C Johnson, over the concluding stages.
The Judges placings in this race were as follows.
1st - ULTRA CHIC (3)
2nd- PROMISING (7)
3rd - PER FORM (4)
4th - NAKYAMA (5)
5th - QUIZ (8)
6th - HAND OF ACES (6)
Rule 642(1) provides as follows.
“If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 to another 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.”
The connections of PROMISING were represented at this hearing by Mr P Rudkin, the trainer and rider, Mr T Moseley with the connections of PER FORM being represented by Mr P Gray, the trainer and Mr C Johnson, the rider.
All parties agreed that they understood the Rule and the nature of the protest.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Williamson with the assistance of Stipendiary Steward, Mr J McLaughlin, gave evidence and used video coverage to show that near the 300m, PROMISING, ridden by Mr T Moseley was racing in a position approximately ½ a horse width off the rail with PER FORM, ridden by Mr C Johnson, trailing. Mr McLaughlin said that approaching the 200m, PROMISING shifted outwards slightly and provided a full run on its inner which Mr Johnson opted to improve into. Shortly after improving into the gap, PROMISING began to shift inwards when being ridden out, eventually forcing PER FORM to check out of the gap. He said that PER FORM was established in the gap, at least ¾ of a length behind and on the inside of PROMISING before being tightened and having to check. Mr McLaughlin stated that Mr Johnson, after checking, then had to ease back and go across the heels of PROMISING before running on strongly over the final 100m to finish in 3rd place only a head away from 2nd placed PROMISING. Mr McLaughlin stated that the official margin between 2nd and 3rd was a head and submitted that in his opinion PER FORM possibly lost between 1 to 2 lengths in this incident.
Mr Johnson gave evidence and stated that when he achieved the gap on the inside of PROMISING, he was established in that position and was of the opinion that PER FORM would have definitely finished in 2nd place if not been a winning chance at the time. He said that he was fully established on the inside of PROMISING, being ¾ of a length back from PROMISING, for at least 5 strides before the interference occurred and had no choice but to check out of the gap due to the pressure from PROMISING.
Mr Moseley stated that it was arguable that he had rolled outwards 1 horse width near the 300m. In his opinion he had only rolled out ½ a horse width and it was also arguable whether there was sufficient room on his inside for Mr Johnson to improve into the gap. He also said that both riders had gone for the whip at the same time and conceded that he had hampered PER FORM for a stride or two.
Mr Williamson stated in summary that the Stewards had shown that approaching the 200m PER FORM had established a run to the inside of PROMISING and that the evidence given by Mr McLaughlin and Mr Johnson stated that PER FORM had got within ¾ of a length of PROMISING before being crowded and checking. He stated that Mr Johnson had then had to ease back and go around PROMISING before finishing strongly over the concluding stages to finish a head away from PROMISING. He stated that using the margin of a length lost due to the interference and the official margin at the post being a head, PER FORM, he said, would have beaten PROMISING, but for the interference suffered.
reasonsfordecision:
We carefully considered the evidence given and the video coverage of the incident. The Committee was satisfied that near the 300m PROMISING shifted out slightly to a one-off position and made sufficient room on the inside for PER FORM to improve into. We were also satisfied that PROMISING began to shift inwards near the 200m, when under a ride, and continued to shift inwards for several strides eventually causing crowding to PER FORM who was clearly established on the inside and had to check. PER FORM, after being checked, had to be eased back and go around PROMISING, losing at least 1 to 2 lengths, before running on strongly to finish within a head margin from PROMISING at the line. Taking all factors into consideration we were satisfied that but for the interference suffered to PER FORM by PROMISING near the 200m, that PER FORM would have beaten PROMISING.
We therefore determined that the protest be upheld.
Decision:
The protest was upheld and PROMISING was relegated to 3rd place.
Consequent upon the relegation, the amended result for the race is as follows:
1st - ULTRA CHIC (3)
2nd - PER FORM (4)
3rd - PROMISING (7)
4th - NAKYAMA (5)
5th - QUIZ (8)
6th - HAND OF ACES (6)
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the amended placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr C Johnson - Licensed Jockey of PER FORM, Mr C Johnson - Licensed Rider of PER FORM, Mr T Moseley - Licensed Rider of PROMISING, Mr P Gray - Licensed Trainer of PER FORM, Mr J McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr P Rudkin - Licensed Trainer of PROMISING
StipendSteward:
raceid: 476147716a2164fc866c409cdf29c3ba
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 001dd3068b14c769c2fb32b87496a62e
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 24/02/2017
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 24 February 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: SChing
meet_pm1: DAnderson
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury Racing