NZ Metro TC 8 November 2011 – R 7
ID: JCA18094
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 8 November 2011
Meet Chair:
JPhelan
Meet Committee Member 1:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2011/11/08
Race Number:
R 7
Decision:
On resuming the hearing we advised that full reasons (see above) would be given in our written decision, and that the protest was dismissed.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 7, the NRM Sires’ Stakes Series 28 – Three Year Old Final, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre alleging interference by “Mark Dennis” (14), driven by Mr B. N. Orange, to “Canardly Lover” (4), driven by Mr C. J. De Filippi.
The Judge’s placings in this race were as follows:
1st – Texican (13)
2nd – Ideal Scott (11)
3rd – Smiling Star (15)
4th – Besotted (7)
5th – Mark Dennis (14)
6th – Lets Elope (12)
The Information reads as follows.
“I the above named informant allege that horse number 14 or its driver placed 5th by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 4 placed (last) by the judge – on the final bend “Mark Dennis” hung down the track contacting the off fore leg of “Canardly Lover” contributing to this horse breaking and checking other runners.”
Rule 869(8) provides as follows.
“The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses, -
immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.”
The connections of “Mark Dennis” were represented at this hearing by Mr B. N. Orange, the driver of that horse.
Submissions for Decision:
Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre used video coverage of this incident to show that at about the 300 metre mark “Mark Dennis” was hanging in and there was contact between the sulky of “Mark Dennis” and the off fore leg of “Canardly Lover”. It appeared that there was slight contact on two occasions, and that this led to “Canardly Lover” breaking from its gait. After breaking “Canardly Lover” lost it chance.
Mr C. J. De Filippi gave evidence that his horse was “in trouble” from the 600 metre mark and having a battle to keep up. He said that he would normally have allowed “Mark Dennis” room when he was moving in; but that his horse “just touched” the sulky and his horse broke. Mr De Filippi also gave evidence that at the time of this incident he was in the trail behind the leader “Chancellor Cullen” and that he would have been struggling to finish within two lengths of that runner. [For the record “Chancellor Cullen” finished in 7th place and officially 3.6 lengths from the winner.]
The information included an allegation that when “Canardly Lover” broke in this incident it also checked other runners. After seeing the video replays on numerous occasions we stated to the Stipendiary Stewards that the “other runners” appeared not to have been adversely affected by this incident. Mr McIntyre said that other runners took evasive action and as a result there was interference to Ms Rasmussen (“Hot Shot Lavros”).
We also add that there was no evidence adduced from any of the other drivers who might have been affected by this incident. If the Stipendiary Stewards were relying on interference to runners other than “Canardly Lover” to support this protest, then witnesses should have been called.
We adjourned to consider our decision.
Reasons for Decision:
Rule 869(8) requires a judicial committee to first decide whether or not there has been interference to the progress or chances of any other horse or horses. If it finds that there has been no interference then the protest would be dismissed.
If the judicial committee finds that there has been interference it must then consider whether the horse causing that interference gained an advantage over another horse or horses, or whether the chances or progress of such horse may have been affected thereby. Causing interference does not automatically result in the offending horse being relegated, and the full circumstances of the incident must be looked at.
Without being too specific, interference early in a race, where the affected horse lost its chance, would almost certainly result in a protest being upheld. Interference in the final stages of a race would not necessarily result in a protest being upheld. For example, where the evidence clearly showed that the horse was a beaten runner at the time of the interference.
We carefully considered the evidence and we viewed the video coverage of the incident on many occasions. We were satisfied that “Canardly Lover” did break at about the 300 metre mark after “Mark Dennis” hung in and made contact. We accept Mr De Filippi’s evidence that by the 300 metre mark his horse was not going finish in a dividend (4th or better) or stake bearing (5th or better) place. Mr De Filippi was quite clear in his evidence, and after hearing the evidence and seeing the video coverage we were convinced that this was the case.
In relation to the alleged interference to “other runners” the video coverage did not, in our opinion, show this to be the case. There was no evidence from other drivers in the race to support this allegation. Although “Hot Shot Lavros” did break for a stride or two because of this incident, we were not persuaded that this incident had any effect on that horse’s chances.
After taking all the above matters into account we decided that this protest should be dismissed.
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: ed24ddb87dde5de0e39aba235b9f8e90
informantnumber: A1021
horsename: MARK DENNIS
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 04/11/2011
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 8 November 2011 - R 7
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 7, the NRM Sires’ Stakes Series 28 – Three Year Old Final, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre alleging interference by “Mark Dennis” (14), driven by Mr B. N. Orange, to “Canardly Lover” (4), driven by Mr C. J. De Filippi.
The Judge’s placings in this race were as follows:
1st – Texican (13)
2nd – Ideal Scott (11)
3rd – Smiling Star (15)
4th – Besotted (7)
5th – Mark Dennis (14)
6th – Lets Elope (12)
The Information reads as follows.
“I the above named informant allege that horse number 14 or its driver placed 5th by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 4 placed (last) by the judge – on the final bend “Mark Dennis” hung down the track contacting the off fore leg of “Canardly Lover” contributing to this horse breaking and checking other runners.”
Rule 869(8) provides as follows.
“The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses, -
immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.”
The connections of “Mark Dennis” were represented at this hearing by Mr B. N. Orange, the driver of that horse.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre used video coverage of this incident to show that at about the 300 metre mark “Mark Dennis” was hanging in and there was contact between the sulky of “Mark Dennis” and the off fore leg of “Canardly Lover”. It appeared that there was slight contact on two occasions, and that this led to “Canardly Lover” breaking from its gait. After breaking “Canardly Lover” lost it chance.
Mr C. J. De Filippi gave evidence that his horse was “in trouble” from the 600 metre mark and having a battle to keep up. He said that he would normally have allowed “Mark Dennis” room when he was moving in; but that his horse “just touched” the sulky and his horse broke. Mr De Filippi also gave evidence that at the time of this incident he was in the trail behind the leader “Chancellor Cullen” and that he would have been struggling to finish within two lengths of that runner. [For the record “Chancellor Cullen” finished in 7th place and officially 3.6 lengths from the winner.]
The information included an allegation that when “Canardly Lover” broke in this incident it also checked other runners. After seeing the video replays on numerous occasions we stated to the Stipendiary Stewards that the “other runners” appeared not to have been adversely affected by this incident. Mr McIntyre said that other runners took evasive action and as a result there was interference to Ms Rasmussen (“Hot Shot Lavros”).
We also add that there was no evidence adduced from any of the other drivers who might have been affected by this incident. If the Stipendiary Stewards were relying on interference to runners other than “Canardly Lover” to support this protest, then witnesses should have been called.
We adjourned to consider our decision.
reasonsfordecision:
Rule 869(8) requires a judicial committee to first decide whether or not there has been interference to the progress or chances of any other horse or horses. If it finds that there has been no interference then the protest would be dismissed.
If the judicial committee finds that there has been interference it must then consider whether the horse causing that interference gained an advantage over another horse or horses, or whether the chances or progress of such horse may have been affected thereby. Causing interference does not automatically result in the offending horse being relegated, and the full circumstances of the incident must be looked at.
Without being too specific, interference early in a race, where the affected horse lost its chance, would almost certainly result in a protest being upheld. Interference in the final stages of a race would not necessarily result in a protest being upheld. For example, where the evidence clearly showed that the horse was a beaten runner at the time of the interference.
We carefully considered the evidence and we viewed the video coverage of the incident on many occasions. We were satisfied that “Canardly Lover” did break at about the 300 metre mark after “Mark Dennis” hung in and made contact. We accept Mr De Filippi’s evidence that by the 300 metre mark his horse was not going finish in a dividend (4th or better) or stake bearing (5th or better) place. Mr De Filippi was quite clear in his evidence, and after hearing the evidence and seeing the video coverage we were convinced that this was the case.
In relation to the alleged interference to “other runners” the video coverage did not, in our opinion, show this to be the case. There was no evidence from other drivers in the race to support this allegation. Although “Hot Shot Lavros” did break for a stride or two because of this incident, we were not persuaded that this incident had any effect on that horse’s chances.
After taking all the above matters into account we decided that this protest should be dismissed.
Decision:
On resuming the hearing we advised that full reasons (see above) would be given in our written decision, and that the protest was dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 869(8)
Informant: Mr NG McIntyre - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr CJ De Filippi - Driver of CANARDLY LOVER
Respondent: Mr BN Orange - Open Horseman
StipendSteward:
raceid: 6d269bcf953f4751e4edcf386f2b0238
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: ddac6b2b022673d033e412219c63d1e6
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 08/11/2011
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 8 November 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: JPhelan
meet_pm1: RMcKenzie
meet_pm2: none
name: NZ Metro TC