Woodville-Pahiatua 17 October 2013 – R 2 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA17737
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Woodville - Pahiatua RC - 17 October 2013
Meet Chair:
TCastles
Meet Committee Member 1:
TUtikere
Race Date:
2013/10/17
Race Number:
R 2
Decision:
The protest was dismissed. Placings stand and authorisation for payout was given.
Facts:
The informant Miss. M. Dravitzki rider of I Am Leo, placed second by the judge, lodged a protest against Tinka Tinka (J. Parkes), provisionally placed first by the judge, alleging interference over the final stages. Margin between 1st and 2nd was 1 length.
Rule 642 (1) reads – “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 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.”
Submissions for Decision:
Miss M. Dravitzki, the rider of I Am Leo, using the available films informed the committee that inside the last 50 metres her mount's line had been taken and she was forced over extra ground by the actions of the provisional winner – Tinka Tinka. She believed the movement cost her horse any chance of winning.
Mr. Parkes had no questions.
Mr. K. Gray, trainer of I Am Leo, submitted that Tinka Tinka moved outwards short of the line and forced I Am Leo over extra ground. He believed his charge was taking ground off the provisional winner and interference did clearly occur. Mr. Boon informed the committee he believed that the incident was contributed to by inward movement from I Am Leo, that the horse was under pressure and not making any ground in the final run to the line.
Discussion took place between the parties on the distance from the winning post the alleged interference took place. Without markings on the running rail and the head on film not including the running rail in its footage just short of the winning post it was finally agreed by both parties that the movement occurred approximately 4 to 5 strides short of the winning post. Mr. Goodwin, Stipendiary Steward, was asked to comment. He submitted that he was not convinced that I Am Leo did move inwards and although interference did occur just short of the winning post and the margin being officially one length he believed the decision rested with the Judicial Committee as to whether I Am Leo would have beaten Tinka Tinka.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee carefully considered the submissions placed before it. The available films were revisited. There was clearly movement outwards from Tinka Tinka. The committee was not convinced that I Am Leo contributed to the incident by moving inwards. By replaying the videos of the incident the committee was of the opinion that the incident occurred between 2 – 3 strides short of the winning post. The committee was mindful that the official margin between 1st and 2nd was one length.
The committee then had to be convinced that the horse interfered with, in this case I Am Leo, would have finished ahead of Tinka Tinka if that interference had not occurred. The committee was of the opinion that that would not have 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: e6ed989f5ddf7cba835064c7d58b8b0a
informantnumber: A4087
horsename: TINKA TINKA
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 09/10/2013
hearing_title: Woodville-Pahiatua 17 October 2013 - R 2 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
The informant Miss. M. Dravitzki rider of I Am Leo, placed second by the judge, lodged a protest against Tinka Tinka (J. Parkes), provisionally placed first by the judge, alleging interference over the final stages. Margin between 1st and 2nd was 1 length.
Rule 642 (1) reads – “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 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.”
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Miss M. Dravitzki, the rider of I Am Leo, using the available films informed the committee that inside the last 50 metres her mount's line had been taken and she was forced over extra ground by the actions of the provisional winner – Tinka Tinka. She believed the movement cost her horse any chance of winning.
Mr. Parkes had no questions.
Mr. K. Gray, trainer of I Am Leo, submitted that Tinka Tinka moved outwards short of the line and forced I Am Leo over extra ground. He believed his charge was taking ground off the provisional winner and interference did clearly occur. Mr. Boon informed the committee he believed that the incident was contributed to by inward movement from I Am Leo, that the horse was under pressure and not making any ground in the final run to the line.
Discussion took place between the parties on the distance from the winning post the alleged interference took place. Without markings on the running rail and the head on film not including the running rail in its footage just short of the winning post it was finally agreed by both parties that the movement occurred approximately 4 to 5 strides short of the winning post. Mr. Goodwin, Stipendiary Steward, was asked to comment. He submitted that he was not convinced that I Am Leo did move inwards and although interference did occur just short of the winning post and the margin being officially one length he believed the decision rested with the Judicial Committee as to whether I Am Leo would have beaten Tinka Tinka.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee carefully considered the submissions placed before it. The available films were revisited. There was clearly movement outwards from Tinka Tinka. The committee was not convinced that I Am Leo contributed to the incident by moving inwards. By replaying the videos of the incident the committee was of the opinion that the incident occurred between 2 – 3 strides short of the winning post. The committee was mindful that the official margin between 1st and 2nd was one length.
The committee then had to be convinced that the horse interfered with, in this case I Am Leo, would have finished ahead of Tinka Tinka if that interference had not occurred. The committee was of the opinion that that would not have occurred.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed. Placings stand and authorisation for payout was given.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642 (1)
Informant: M Dravitzki
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: K Gray - Trainer, J Dalby - Owner
Respondent: J Boon - Trainer
StipendSteward:
raceid: 69fb86a75f4043f709fb1ca5815da720
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 723ca24c6d5dd6dd9595916114f815ef
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 17/10/2013
meet_title: Woodville - Pahiatua RC - 17 October 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: woodville-pahiatua-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TCastles
meet_pm1: TUtikere
meet_pm2: none
name: Woodville - Pahiatua RC