Wellington RC 24 January 2015 – R 7 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA17975
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Wellington RC - 24 January 2015
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
TUtikere
Race Date:
2015/01/24
Race Number:
R 7
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was dismissed and placings allowed to stand as called by the Judge.
Dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
Facts:
Following Race 7, the Harcourts Thorndon Mile, a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr G Barlow alleging that horse number 3 (PUCCINI) or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 4 (SORIANO) placed 2nd by the Judge.
The information alleged interference near the post.
Judge's placings were:
1st PUCCINI (3)
2ND SORIANO (4)
3rd MIGHTY SOLOMON (9)
4th SLICE OF CLASS (12)
5th GENIUS (18)
The official margin between first and second was a short head.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Barlow used the head-on film to show where PUCCINI moved outwards for some distance across the track and bumped SORIANO. This contact knocked SORIANO off-stride and caused a loss of momentum which, in Mr Barlow’s opinion, cost her the winning of the race. After viewing the side-on video Mr Barlow estimated the incident took place 2 strides short of the winning post. All three views of the final stages were played. Mr Hutchings, the rider of SORIANO, said he was travelling strongly out wide on the track when PUCCINI came across and bumped him. He described the contact as significant enough to knock SORIANO off balance and put 1 -2 horse widths between the two horses. He said the margin at the finish was only a short head and considering his loss of momentum he believed, with a clear run, he would have won the race possibly by a neck margin.
Mr McKay said that although PUCCINI had rolled outwards from approximately the 200 metres SORIANO had, at the same time, moved inwards thereby contributing to the interference. He played the head-on film and asked the committee to note the grass mowing strips on the track. SORIANO moved inwards 3 horse-widths prior to the contact, which Mr McKay described as slight interference. He argued that the incident was too close to the line, SORIANO had contributed to the contact by moving inwards and finally that PUCCINI had been headed but was finishing over the top of SORIANO. Ms Johnson, the rider of PUCCINI, said the contact was the result of both horses moving off their lines at the same time. She also drew the committee’s attention to the fact that Mr Hutchings did not have to stop riding SORIANO and they were both able to ride strongly to the line.
For the Stewards Mr Neal said the films clearly showed PUCCINI move outwards over the final stages to a point where it made contact with SORIANO. Prior to that SORIANO was running into the race quite strongly but PUCCINI fought back and established an advantage over SORIANO. It was the stewards’ opinion that the incident occurred at a point one stride short of the finish post and while there was a possibility that SORIANO might have beaten PUCCINI that possibility was a remote one.
Reasons for Decision:
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.
In coming to a decision the Committee carefully considered all of the evidence presented. There was no doubt that PUCCINI and SORIANO came together and made contact just prior to the finishing post. Mr McKay put forward evidence that SORIANO contributed to the interference and while she did move inwards it was PUCCINI who moved the greater distance across. In order to uphold the protest we had to be satisfied that free of interference SORIANO would have finished ahead of PUCCINI. Due to the incident taking place in such close proximity to the finishing post and the strong manner in which PUCCINI was finishing we could not be sure that SORIANO would have beaten PUCCINI had the incident 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: de5172652a5c4c052cec57b1154ddfb6
informantnumber: A3234
horsename: PUCCINI
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 25/01/2015
hearing_title: Wellington RC 24 January 2015 - R 7 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following Race 7, the Harcourts Thorndon Mile, a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr G Barlow alleging that horse number 3 (PUCCINI) or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 4 (SORIANO) placed 2nd by the Judge.
The information alleged interference near the post.
Judge's placings were:
1st PUCCINI (3)
2ND SORIANO (4)
3rd MIGHTY SOLOMON (9)
4th SLICE OF CLASS (12)
5th GENIUS (18)
The official margin between first and second was a short head.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Barlow used the head-on film to show where PUCCINI moved outwards for some distance across the track and bumped SORIANO. This contact knocked SORIANO off-stride and caused a loss of momentum which, in Mr Barlow’s opinion, cost her the winning of the race. After viewing the side-on video Mr Barlow estimated the incident took place 2 strides short of the winning post. All three views of the final stages were played. Mr Hutchings, the rider of SORIANO, said he was travelling strongly out wide on the track when PUCCINI came across and bumped him. He described the contact as significant enough to knock SORIANO off balance and put 1 -2 horse widths between the two horses. He said the margin at the finish was only a short head and considering his loss of momentum he believed, with a clear run, he would have won the race possibly by a neck margin.
Mr McKay said that although PUCCINI had rolled outwards from approximately the 200 metres SORIANO had, at the same time, moved inwards thereby contributing to the interference. He played the head-on film and asked the committee to note the grass mowing strips on the track. SORIANO moved inwards 3 horse-widths prior to the contact, which Mr McKay described as slight interference. He argued that the incident was too close to the line, SORIANO had contributed to the contact by moving inwards and finally that PUCCINI had been headed but was finishing over the top of SORIANO. Ms Johnson, the rider of PUCCINI, said the contact was the result of both horses moving off their lines at the same time. She also drew the committee’s attention to the fact that Mr Hutchings did not have to stop riding SORIANO and they were both able to ride strongly to the line.
For the Stewards Mr Neal said the films clearly showed PUCCINI move outwards over the final stages to a point where it made contact with SORIANO. Prior to that SORIANO was running into the race quite strongly but PUCCINI fought back and established an advantage over SORIANO. It was the stewards’ opinion that the incident occurred at a point one stride short of the finish post and while there was a possibility that SORIANO might have beaten PUCCINI that possibility was a remote one.
reasonsfordecision:
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.
In coming to a decision the Committee carefully considered all of the evidence presented. There was no doubt that PUCCINI and SORIANO came together and made contact just prior to the finishing post. Mr McKay put forward evidence that SORIANO contributed to the interference and while she did move inwards it was PUCCINI who moved the greater distance across. In order to uphold the protest we had to be satisfied that free of interference SORIANO would have finished ahead of PUCCINI. Due to the incident taking place in such close proximity to the finishing post and the strong manner in which PUCCINI was finishing we could not be sure that SORIANO would have beaten PUCCINI had the incident not occurred.
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was dismissed and placings allowed to stand as called by the Judge.
Dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr G Barlow - representing Trainer of SORIANO
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Ms D Johnson - Rider of PUCCINI, Mr R Hutchings - Rider of SORIANO, Mr R Neal - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr P McKay - Trainer of PUCCINI
StipendSteward:
raceid: db9da8a6f97720b857f878b443b13d34
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: c348c7f78e5655cb5a35aa7d8b5f92dd
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 24/01/2015
meet_title: Wellington RC - 24 January 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wellington-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: TUtikere
meet_pm2: none
name: Wellington RC