Timaru HRC – 17 March 2009 – Race 8
ID: JCA19556
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Timaru HRC - 17 March 2009
Race Date:
2009/03/17
Race Number:
Race 8
Decision:
Following the running of Race 8, the Lion Beverages Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre alleging a breach of Rule 869(8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (13) placed 14th by the judge against horse number (12) placed 3rd by the judge on the grounds of interference at the start.”
--
Following the running of Race 8, the Lion Beverages Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre alleging a breach of Rule 869(8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (13) placed 14th by the judge against horse number (12) placed 3rd by the judge on the grounds of interference at the start.”
--Rule 869(8) reads 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.
Present at the hearing were Mr M. P. Jones, the driver of WASHINGTON’S BEST (7), and he advised that he would represent the interests of Mr P. N. Jones, the trainer of the horse, and also the owners of the horse. It was established that the trainer had been advised of the hearing, and Mr P. N. Jones did in fact attend part way through the hearing. Mr L. K. James, the driver of JASON advised that he would represent the interests of the connections of that horse.
--Mr McIntyre used video coverage to show that WASHINGTON’S BEST had drawn (1) on the second line, with JASON having drawn (2). When the race began WASHINGTON’S BEST ran outwards with JASON being pushed out and breaking, losing its chance.
--Mr James was called to give evidence. Mr McIntyre asked him if his horse breaking was solely attributable to the outwards movement of WASHINGTON’S BEST. His answer was that it was “….hard to say”. Mr James did agree that his horse’s chances were affected to some extent. It was also established that Mr James had driven JASON in all of its seven starts to date, and that it had a propensity to break at the start of its races.
--Mr M. P. Jones gave evidence that there had been no contact between the two horses, and all parties agreed that this was so. Mr Jones said that the video showed that JASON had continued in a pace for a stride or two after it was pushed out, and that the reason it broke was its manners at the start.
--Mr P. N. Jones said that he believed that the reason his horse ran out was because his horse had shied at a starter’s assistant who was moving away after attending to the horse which had drawn (1) on the front line.
--After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.
--We were satisfied that WASHINGTON’S BEST did run outwards when the race started. We were also satisfied that JASON was about a length behind at the start, and that there was no contract between the two horses. It also appeared that JASON had paced for a stride or two after this incident. When Mr James was asked if the actions of WASHINGTON’S BEST” had been the sole cause of his horse breaking, he said that it was hard to say. It was also relevant that JASON had a propensity to break at the start of his races.
--In relation to Mr M P Jones’ contention that a starter’s assistant had caused his horse to shy, we are not persuaded that this is the case. Starters’ Assistants are an integral part of harness racing, especially in standing start races, as this was. The horse in front of WASHINGTON’S BEST was being attended to, but the starter’s assistant had moved away before the start was declared. We reject Mr Jones’ allegation that it was clear that the starter’s assistant caused WASHINGTON’S BEST to shy and run out.
--After reviewing all the evidence we determined that there was considerable doubt and that the protest should be dismissed. On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be prepared later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--We find that there was no contact between the two horses at the start. We are satisfied that WASHINGTON’S BEST ran out at the start into the line of JASON, but again we say there was no contact.
--It was raised that a starter’s assistant may have caused WASHINGTON’S BEST to shy and move out. We agree this may have been possible, but do not accept this as a fact, as it is speculative.
--Mr James agreed that JASON has a propensity to break at the start, having done so two starts ago as well as today. It was also very relevant that there was no contact, and that it appears that JASON did pace for a stride after WASHINGTON’S BEST moved outwards.
--Taking all these matters into account we are not satisfied there was interference and the protest is dismissed.
----
J. M. Phelan
Chairman
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: 3bd792a2e264094963d6abd0b52cd7e2
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 17/03/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Timaru HRC - 17 March 2009 - Race 8
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Following the running of Race 8, the Lion Beverages Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre alleging a breach of Rule 869(8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (13) placed 14th by the judge against horse number (12) placed 3rd by the judge on the grounds of interference at the start.”
--
Following the running of Race 8, the Lion Beverages Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre alleging a breach of Rule 869(8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (13) placed 14th by the judge against horse number (12) placed 3rd by the judge on the grounds of interference at the start.”
--Rule 869(8) reads 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.
Present at the hearing were Mr M. P. Jones, the driver of WASHINGTON’S BEST (7), and he advised that he would represent the interests of Mr P. N. Jones, the trainer of the horse, and also the owners of the horse. It was established that the trainer had been advised of the hearing, and Mr P. N. Jones did in fact attend part way through the hearing. Mr L. K. James, the driver of JASON advised that he would represent the interests of the connections of that horse.
--Mr McIntyre used video coverage to show that WASHINGTON’S BEST had drawn (1) on the second line, with JASON having drawn (2). When the race began WASHINGTON’S BEST ran outwards with JASON being pushed out and breaking, losing its chance.
--Mr James was called to give evidence. Mr McIntyre asked him if his horse breaking was solely attributable to the outwards movement of WASHINGTON’S BEST. His answer was that it was “….hard to say”. Mr James did agree that his horse’s chances were affected to some extent. It was also established that Mr James had driven JASON in all of its seven starts to date, and that it had a propensity to break at the start of its races.
--Mr M. P. Jones gave evidence that there had been no contact between the two horses, and all parties agreed that this was so. Mr Jones said that the video showed that JASON had continued in a pace for a stride or two after it was pushed out, and that the reason it broke was its manners at the start.
--Mr P. N. Jones said that he believed that the reason his horse ran out was because his horse had shied at a starter’s assistant who was moving away after attending to the horse which had drawn (1) on the front line.
--After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.
--We were satisfied that WASHINGTON’S BEST did run outwards when the race started. We were also satisfied that JASON was about a length behind at the start, and that there was no contract between the two horses. It also appeared that JASON had paced for a stride or two after this incident. When Mr James was asked if the actions of WASHINGTON’S BEST” had been the sole cause of his horse breaking, he said that it was hard to say. It was also relevant that JASON had a propensity to break at the start of his races.
--In relation to Mr M P Jones’ contention that a starter’s assistant had caused his horse to shy, we are not persuaded that this is the case. Starters’ Assistants are an integral part of harness racing, especially in standing start races, as this was. The horse in front of WASHINGTON’S BEST was being attended to, but the starter’s assistant had moved away before the start was declared. We reject Mr Jones’ allegation that it was clear that the starter’s assistant caused WASHINGTON’S BEST to shy and run out.
--After reviewing all the evidence we determined that there was considerable doubt and that the protest should be dismissed. On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be prepared later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--We find that there was no contact between the two horses at the start. We are satisfied that WASHINGTON’S BEST ran out at the start into the line of JASON, but again we say there was no contact.
--It was raised that a starter’s assistant may have caused WASHINGTON’S BEST to shy and move out. We agree this may have been possible, but do not accept this as a fact, as it is speculative.
--Mr James agreed that JASON has a propensity to break at the start, having done so two starts ago as well as today. It was also very relevant that there was no contact, and that it appears that JASON did pace for a stride after WASHINGTON’S BEST moved outwards.
--Taking all these matters into account we are not satisfied there was interference and the protest is dismissed.
----
J. M. Phelan
Chairman
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869.8
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: dbdc06f6e7a43cfb6bc67d9ae40fadf0
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 92c46d7f0e7156f8806ec127c2429aab
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 17/03/2009
meet_title: Timaru HRC - 17 March 2009
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: timaru-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Timaru HRC