Canterbury Racing – 10 August 2005 – Race 9
ID: JCA19764
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 10 August 2005
Race Date:
2005/08/10
Race Number:
Race 9
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 9 Mr A Sharrock the trainer of "King George" (2) laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
--| -- DECISION AND REASONS: --Following the running of Race 9 Mr A Sharrock the trainer of "King George" (2) laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1). ----The information reads as follows. ------"I allege that Get Up or its rider placed 2nd by the judge interfered with the chances of King George placed 4th by the judge. The interference occurred 400 metres from the finish. --Rule 876(1) reads as follows. --"If, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, a horse placed by the Judge or its rider has interfered with the chances of any other horse or horses placed by the Judge then, subject to sub-rule 2 hereof, the Judicial Committee may place such first-mentioned horse immediately after the horse or horses so interfered with. --Sub-rule 2 did not apply in this case. ----Mr Sharrock was accompanied by the rider of "King George", Johnathon Parkes. Mr Walker was accompanied by the trainer of "Get Up", Mr K. Hughes. --None of the owners were present and the trainers advised that they would represent the owners of the two horses. All parties gave evidence. --Mr Sharrock's case was that at about the 400 metre mark Mr Walker had dictated the line of "King George" for several strides, pushing it wider on the track. Mr Sharrock said that this interference had resulted in "King George" travelling over extra ground, and that he believed that this had cost his horse a better placing. Mr Sharrock also pointed out that the margin between 2nd and 3rd was 1? lengths, and the margin between 3rd and 4th another ? length. Mr Sharrock also said that he did not believe that his horse would have beaten the 2nd horse, but that it would have beaten the 3rd horse. --Mr Walker gave evidence that his horse had moved outwards and had moved "King George" wider on the track for a few strides. He said that there was no contact between the horses. It was also Mr Walker's evidence that Mr Parkes did not have to stop riding his horse, although Mr Sharrock disputed this. Mr Hughes said that there was some inconvenience to "King George", but that the incident happened too far from the finish to have affected the result. --Stipendiary Steward Mr Ching had been present throughout the hearing and in accordance with the Rules he was asked if he wished to give evidence and call witnesses. Mr Ching then gave evidence and said that the video coverage of the race had been viewed by himself and he agreed that "King George" had been pushed about three horse widths wider on the track. Mr Ching said he was unsure whether --this had affected the chances of "King George" or not, and he would leave this to the Judicial Committee. --After the completion of the evidence we took time to consider our decision. As the next race was about to start we returned to the Enquiry Room and advised the parties that the protest was being dismissed. The parties were also told that full reasons for this decision would be given after Race 10. However this never eventuated due to a protest in Race 10 and a charge heard between races 10 and 11. --The full reasons for our decision are as follows. --Having seen the video coverage of the incident and having heard the evidence from the parties involved we are satisfied that Mr Walker (riding "Get Up") dictated --the line of "King George" at about the 400 metre mark. It was also alleged that Johnathon Parkes had to stop riding his horse for a stride or two. Mr Sharrock's --case was that "King George" lost more than a ? length due to this incident, and that "Get Up" should be relegated behind "King George". --Mr Walker and Mr Hughes did not dispute that there was interference as described, but said that this did not affect the chances of "King George" to such an extent that would justify relegation. In particular Mr Hughes said that the interference was too far from the finish of the race for the Judicial Committee to be satisfied of this. --We were satisfied that there was interference to "King George" when that horse was pushed wider on the track. The interference took place over a short distance and resulted in "King George" covering a small amount of extra ground. --Before exercising our discretion to relegate a horse because of interference we must be satisfied that the horse would have finished in a better placing but for that interference. In deciding whether to relegate or not we have taken into account the following matters. --
Taking all these matters into account we are not satisfied that "King George" would have finished in a better placing and the protest is 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: 6a958468f69bf3ed102654b50d8fab39
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 10/08/2005
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Canterbury Racing - 10 August 2005 - Race 9
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 9 Mr A Sharrock the trainer of "King George" (2) laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
--| -- DECISION AND REASONS: --Following the running of Race 9 Mr A Sharrock the trainer of "King George" (2) laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1). ----The information reads as follows. ------"I allege that Get Up or its rider placed 2nd by the judge interfered with the chances of King George placed 4th by the judge. The interference occurred 400 metres from the finish. --Rule 876(1) reads as follows. --"If, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, a horse placed by the Judge or its rider has interfered with the chances of any other horse or horses placed by the Judge then, subject to sub-rule 2 hereof, the Judicial Committee may place such first-mentioned horse immediately after the horse or horses so interfered with. --Sub-rule 2 did not apply in this case. ----Mr Sharrock was accompanied by the rider of "King George", Johnathon Parkes. Mr Walker was accompanied by the trainer of "Get Up", Mr K. Hughes. --None of the owners were present and the trainers advised that they would represent the owners of the two horses. All parties gave evidence. --Mr Sharrock's case was that at about the 400 metre mark Mr Walker had dictated the line of "King George" for several strides, pushing it wider on the track. Mr Sharrock said that this interference had resulted in "King George" travelling over extra ground, and that he believed that this had cost his horse a better placing. Mr Sharrock also pointed out that the margin between 2nd and 3rd was 1? lengths, and the margin between 3rd and 4th another ? length. Mr Sharrock also said that he did not believe that his horse would have beaten the 2nd horse, but that it would have beaten the 3rd horse. --Mr Walker gave evidence that his horse had moved outwards and had moved "King George" wider on the track for a few strides. He said that there was no contact between the horses. It was also Mr Walker's evidence that Mr Parkes did not have to stop riding his horse, although Mr Sharrock disputed this. Mr Hughes said that there was some inconvenience to "King George", but that the incident happened too far from the finish to have affected the result. --Stipendiary Steward Mr Ching had been present throughout the hearing and in accordance with the Rules he was asked if he wished to give evidence and call witnesses. Mr Ching then gave evidence and said that the video coverage of the race had been viewed by himself and he agreed that "King George" had been pushed about three horse widths wider on the track. Mr Ching said he was unsure whether --this had affected the chances of "King George" or not, and he would leave this to the Judicial Committee. --After the completion of the evidence we took time to consider our decision. As the next race was about to start we returned to the Enquiry Room and advised the parties that the protest was being dismissed. The parties were also told that full reasons for this decision would be given after Race 10. However this never eventuated due to a protest in Race 10 and a charge heard between races 10 and 11. --The full reasons for our decision are as follows. --Having seen the video coverage of the incident and having heard the evidence from the parties involved we are satisfied that Mr Walker (riding "Get Up") dictated --the line of "King George" at about the 400 metre mark. It was also alleged that Johnathon Parkes had to stop riding his horse for a stride or two. Mr Sharrock's --case was that "King George" lost more than a ? length due to this incident, and that "Get Up" should be relegated behind "King George". --Mr Walker and Mr Hughes did not dispute that there was interference as described, but said that this did not affect the chances of "King George" to such an extent that would justify relegation. In particular Mr Hughes said that the interference was too far from the finish of the race for the Judicial Committee to be satisfied of this. --We were satisfied that there was interference to "King George" when that horse was pushed wider on the track. The interference took place over a short distance and resulted in "King George" covering a small amount of extra ground. --Before exercising our discretion to relegate a horse because of interference we must be satisfied that the horse would have finished in a better placing but for that interference. In deciding whether to relegate or not we have taken into account the following matters. --
Taking all these matters into account we are not satisfied that "King George" would have finished in a better placing and the protest is dismissed. ---- --
|
| -- |
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 876.1
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 69a541569e1c67d2d59ec89cc7253e50
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: ed301b4290a98df03069a011635f6a6d
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 10/08/2005
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 10 August 2005
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Canterbury Racing