Canterbury JC – 5 August 2006 – Race 8

hearingid: 66cb91e9be8b4118db48b888746404e3

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 05/08/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 5 August 2006 - Race 8

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Hearing of information number 32156 filed under Rule 876(1) by Mr DJ Walker, Licensed Jockey, alleging interference by "Delbrae" (CW Johnson) and "Eye of Horus" (RW Hannam) placed 2^nd and 3^rd by the Judge with "Balmuse" which was placed 5^th by the Judge.

Hearing of information number 32156 filed under Rule 876(1) by Mr DJ Walker, Licensed Jockey, alleging interference by "Delbrae" (CW Johnson) and "Eye of Horus" (RW Hannam) placed 2^nd and 3^rd by the Judge with "Balmuse" which was placed 5^th by the Judge.

This inquiry concerns a protest following the running of Race 8 at the Canterbury Jockey Club's meeting on Saturday 5^th August 2006, the Aussie Brown Pharmacy's Winter Cup.

This protest was lodged by Mr DJ Walker alleging that "Delbrae" (CW Johnson) placed 2^nd by the judge and "Eye of Horus" (RW Hannam) placed 3^rd by the judge, interfered with the chances of "Balmuse" placed 5^th by the Judge. The interference is alleged to have occurred over the concluding stages of the race.

We record that this committee was informed of Mr Walker's protest at the conclusion of the protest hearing involving "Delbrae" and "Eye of Horus".

The Information was filed with the Registrar within the time prescribed under Rules 917 and 1105(4)(b).

Prior to the inquiry commencing, there was discussion as to the procedure required, as in order for the Judicial Committee to have jurisdiction to hear Mr Walker's protest, we had to be able to make a finding that Mr Walker's mount, if successful in his protest, would be promoted to a dividend bearing position.

The conclusion that we came to after considering all matters was that if Mr Walker would have to succeed in his protest against both horses in order for his horse, "Balmuse", to move up to become dividend bearing.

Thus, we elected to hear the protest in two parts, namely to hear Mr Walker's protest against the "Eye of Horus", placed 3^rd by the Judge, as the first part and if successful, Mr Walker would then be able to have his protest against "Delbrae" heard because the overall effect of two successful protests would promote "Balmuse" to a dividend bearing position.

Mr Walker showed the committee the incident using the 600 metre camera video coverage and the head on video coverage. He pointed out to the hearing, the significant impact that was made on him which came from the outward movement of "Delbrae" on to "Eye of Horus" which, in turn, was forced out on to the line of "Balmuse".

There is no doubt that what Mr Walker alleged happened. "Balmuse" received a significant check, was put off line and put off stride by the actions of "Eye of Horus". "Balmuse" was racing keenly with a clear line to the finish. However, it was knocked off line and off stride by "Eye of Horus". There is no doubt that "Balmuse's" chances were markedly affected by the incident.

Rule 876(1) reads:

"If, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, any horse placed by the Judge or its rider had interfered with the chances of any other horse" ----

We have no hesitation in finding that the interference to "Balmuse" came from "Eye of Horus", but what is relevant in terms of the rule, was that "Eye of Horus" was not instrumental in causing the interference to "Balmuse". "Eye of Horus" was given no choice in terms of the line it had to take as a result of the actions of "Delbrae". Thus, it is difficult, in the circumstances, to attribute any fault on the part of "Eye of Horus". It is our considered opinion that there must be an element of fault on the part of the horse causing the interference before we can consider that such horse has, in terms of the rule, interfered with the chances of another horse.

Having reached that conclusion, we therefore find that in terms of his protest, Mr Walker is unable to satisfy us with regard to the parts of Rule 876(1) that we have referred to above, and therefore, Mr Walker's protest against "Eye of Horus" is dismissed.

Having reached that conclusion, we now turn to deal with Mr Walker's protest against "Delbrae". Rule 876(2) precludes us from hearing Mr Walker's protest against "Delbrae". Even if Mr Walker was successful in his protest against "Delbrae", "Balmuse" could not move into a dividend bearing position and therefore, we find that we have no jurisdiction to hear Mr Walker's protest against "Delbrae" and that protest is accordingly dismissed.

Mr Walker then invited us to consider disqualifying "Delbrae".

We declined to disqualify "Delbrae". Such a proposal was not submitted to us by Mr Ching at any stage during either of the protest hearings, and furthermore, from a procedural perspective, an Information would have had to have been filed with the Registrar pursuant to Rule 870 and that procedure was not followed.

Therefore, we declined to disqualify "Delbrae" in accordance with Mr Walker's submission.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 876.1, 876.2

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: