Whangarei RC 17 December 2019 – R 4 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr G Jones
ID: JCA18049
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Whangarei RC - 17 December 2019
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2019/12/17
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
The protest is dismissed and the Judge's placing’s shall stand.
The Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.
Facts:
Following the running of race 4, the Hirepool 1400 metres, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr A Calder, alleged that SPELTERINI, or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of SEPELLA placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 8 SPELTERINI
2nd No. 9 SEPELLA
3rd No. 10 OUR STILETTO
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a head.
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”.
For the purposes of Rule 642 “interference” is defined as:
(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Coles demonstrated the incident using the available video footage. There was no rear-view footage.
Mr Calder submitted that SPELTERINI and SEPELLA were racing side by side passing the 100 metres. He said that SPELTERINI was a head in front of SEPELLA when it shifted out and made contact with his mount 3 strides before the finish line. He said as a result SEPELLA lost momentum. He acknowledged that he did not stop riding his mount out to the end of the race.
Ms Thornton said that SEPELLA made an inward movement toward SPELTERINI in the final straight. She accepted that brief contact occurred 3 strides before the finish, but said that at no stage was SEPELLA ever going to finish ahead of SPELTERINI.
Ms Waddell submitted that although there was minor contact 3 strides before the finish, there was no way that SEPELLA was going to finish ahead of SPELTERINI.
Mr Coles submitted that there was slight contact 3 or 4 strides before the finish line and the Committee had to determine whether that cost SEPELLA the winning of the race.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video footage several times.
In our analysis of the race films we observed that at the 200-metre mark there was a clear gap between the 2 runners with both racing on level terms with each other. At the 100 metres we noted SEPELLA was slightly ahead of SPELTERINI. The films clearly showed that 3 strides before the finish line SPELTERINI did make firm contact with SEPELLA who as a result was only slightly inconvenienced. Further, immediately after contact was made there was a clear gap between the 2 horses over the concluding stages and SPELTERINI held ascendency, albeit there was a small margin at the finish.
Although we found that interference did occur, we were not sufficiently satisfied that it had a bearing on the final placings. Accordingly, after weighing up all the factors including the level of interference and it’s proximity to the finish and the head margin between the 2 horses at the finish, the Committee is of the opinion that despite the interference having occurred, SEPELLA would not have beaten SPELTERINI.
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: e73fe8e01324c417bd7f24a6039cbcd9
informantnumber: A11288
horsename: SPELTERINI
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 18/12/2019
hearing_title: Whangarei RC 17 December 2019 - R 4 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr G Jones
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 4, the Hirepool 1400 metres, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr A Calder, alleged that SPELTERINI, or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of SEPELLA placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 8 SPELTERINI
2nd No. 9 SEPELLA
3rd No. 10 OUR STILETTO
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a head.
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”.
For the purposes of Rule 642 “interference” is defined as:
(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Coles demonstrated the incident using the available video footage. There was no rear-view footage.
Mr Calder submitted that SPELTERINI and SEPELLA were racing side by side passing the 100 metres. He said that SPELTERINI was a head in front of SEPELLA when it shifted out and made contact with his mount 3 strides before the finish line. He said as a result SEPELLA lost momentum. He acknowledged that he did not stop riding his mount out to the end of the race.
Ms Thornton said that SEPELLA made an inward movement toward SPELTERINI in the final straight. She accepted that brief contact occurred 3 strides before the finish, but said that at no stage was SEPELLA ever going to finish ahead of SPELTERINI.
Ms Waddell submitted that although there was minor contact 3 strides before the finish, there was no way that SEPELLA was going to finish ahead of SPELTERINI.
Mr Coles submitted that there was slight contact 3 or 4 strides before the finish line and the Committee had to determine whether that cost SEPELLA the winning of the race.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video footage several times.
In our analysis of the race films we observed that at the 200-metre mark there was a clear gap between the 2 runners with both racing on level terms with each other. At the 100 metres we noted SEPELLA was slightly ahead of SPELTERINI. The films clearly showed that 3 strides before the finish line SPELTERINI did make firm contact with SEPELLA who as a result was only slightly inconvenienced. Further, immediately after contact was made there was a clear gap between the 2 horses over the concluding stages and SPELTERINI held ascendency, albeit there was a small margin at the finish.
Although we found that interference did occur, we were not sufficiently satisfied that it had a bearing on the final placings. Accordingly, after weighing up all the factors including the level of interference and it’s proximity to the finish and the head margin between the 2 horses at the finish, the Committee is of the opinion that despite the interference having occurred, SEPELLA would not have beaten SPELTERINI.
Decision:
The protest is dismissed and the Judge's placing’s shall stand.
The Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr A Calder - Rider of SEPELLA
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr A Calder - Rider of SEPELLA, Ms T Thornton - Rider of SPELTERINI, Ms D Waddell - Trainer of SPELTERINI, Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Ms T Thornton - Rider of SPELTERINI
StipendSteward:
raceid: 4a8ff8fb40ccc7a092a580685ad7dc1b
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: 87d77317a7e2308d6ef0d1e81d53db77
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 17/12/2019
meet_title: Whangarei RC - 17 December 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: whangarei-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Whangarei RC