Canterbury JC 8 May 2010 – R 1 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA20130
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Canterbury JC - 8 May 2010
Meet Chair:
tom
Meet Committee Member 1:
tom
Meet Committee Member 2:
tom
Race Date:
2010/05/08
Race Number:
R 1
Decision: --
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Informant: Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr C. J. George
--Defendant: N/A
--Information No: 281 (Instigating a Protest)
--Meeting: Canterbury Jockey Club
--Date: 8 May 2010
--Venue: Riccarton Park
--Race: 1 - riccartonpark.co.nz Premier Gold Cup
--Rule: 642(1)
--Judicial Committee: J. M. Phelan, Chairman – K.G. Hales, Committee Member
--Also Present: Mr K. T. Myers - Trainer
--Miss K. A. Myers – Licensed Jockey
--Mr P. O’Malley – Co-owner and co-trainer
--Miss K. Williams – Licensed Jockey
----
The Protest:
--Following the running of Race 1, the riccartonpark.co.nz Premier Gold Cup, an Information
--Instigating a Protest was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr C. J. George under Rule 642(1).
----
The information reads as follows.
----
“I allege that William of Orange or its rider placed second by the judge caused interference to Caley Marie placed fourth by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.”
----
Rule 642(1) reads as follows.
----
“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.”
----
Present at the hearing were Mr K. T. Myers (Trainer) and Miss K. A. Myers (Jockey), the connections of “Caley Marie” (7). Mr Myers agreed that he would represent the interests of the owner of the horse. Also present were Mr P. O’Malley (co-trainer and part owner) and Miss K. Williams (Jockey), the connections of “William of Orange” (6).
----
Facts:
--In this race “William of Orange” (6) finished 2nd, with a head to the 3rd horse and a further ¾ length to “Caley Marie” (7) which finished 4th.
----
Mr George used video coverage to show that well into the straight “William of Orange” was racing widest of a line of horses, and close to the lead. At that time “William of Orange” moved wider on the track leaving a gap which was wide enough to enable Miss Myers to move “Caley Marie” into. This she proceeded to do, and when well into the gap Miss Williams moved her horse inwards, closing that gap, making contact with “Caley Marie” and causing Miss Myers to check out of this gap, losing considerable ground.
----
A little further on “William of Orange” again shifted outwards leaving a gap for “Caley Marie” to move into. As happened on the first occasion Miss Myers moved in to this gap, but once again Miss Williams moved her horse back inwards, closing the gap and causing Miss Myers to check her horse out of the gap for a second time, again losing ground.
----
Submissions:
--Mr George made submissions that in the Stipendiary Steward’s view “Caley Marie” would have beaten “William of Orange” home had it been afforded clear running.
----
On behalf of the connections of “Caley Marie”, Mr Myers said that he agreed with the summary of events presented by Mr George, and that interference had happened.
----
When asked for her comments Miss Myers said she would have won the race but for the interference.
----
On behalf of the connections of “William of Orange” Miss Williams said that when her horse moved outwards she believed she had a responsibility to straighten it up immediately, which she did. It was pointed out to Miss Williams that by the time she straightened her horse “Caley Marie” was up on her inside.
----
Mr O’Malley expressed the opinion that if “Caley Marie” had been travelling well enough it would have been able to remain in the gap. Mr O’Malley did however agree that “Caley Marie” was in the gap at the time of the alleged interference.
----
After the completion of the evidence we took time to consider our decision.
----
Reasons:
--After reviewing the evidence we were satisfied that there was interference to “Caley Marie” on two occasions, and that on each occasion that horse lost ground. Miss Williams’ evidence that she was required to straighten her horse is simply not credible, and we note that she did not dispute that there had been a gap for “Caley Marie” to move into on the two occasions referred to.
----
Before a protest can be upheld we must first find that there has been interference. In this case we are satisfied that there was significant interference on two occasions, and that “Caley Marie” lost ground on each of those occasions. Secondly, to uphold the protest we must also be satisfied that, but for the interference, the affected horse would have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference. The margin between 2nd and 4th was a head plus ¾ of a length, and we were satisfied that “Caley Marie” lost much more ground that this because of the interference. We decided that the protest should be upheld.
----
Decision:
--On returning to the Enquiry Room, the second race was about to start, it having already been put back by two minutes. We therefore advised the parties that a full written decision would be given later (see above), and that the protest was upheld.
----
The amended places are as follows.
----
1st – Karamu (8)
--2nd – Cape Fear (12)
--3rd – Caley Marie (7)
--4th – William of Orange (6)
--5th – Peter Porter (10)
--6th – Menalaus (2)
----
--
J. M. Phelan K. G. Hales
--CHAIR Committee Member
--281
----
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: 3cabdf21f1a2e6a539ec9e361cd3395a
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 08/05/2010
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Canterbury JC 8 May 2010 - R 1 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Informant: Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr C. J. George
--Defendant: N/A
--Information No: 281 (Instigating a Protest)
--Meeting: Canterbury Jockey Club
--Date: 8 May 2010
--Venue: Riccarton Park
--Race: 1 - riccartonpark.co.nz Premier Gold Cup
--Rule: 642(1)
--Judicial Committee: J. M. Phelan, Chairman – K.G. Hales, Committee Member
--Also Present: Mr K. T. Myers - Trainer
--Miss K. A. Myers – Licensed Jockey
--Mr P. O’Malley – Co-owner and co-trainer
--Miss K. Williams – Licensed Jockey
----
The Protest:
--Following the running of Race 1, the riccartonpark.co.nz Premier Gold Cup, an Information
--Instigating a Protest was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr C. J. George under Rule 642(1).
----
The information reads as follows.
----
“I allege that William of Orange or its rider placed second by the judge caused interference to Caley Marie placed fourth by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.”
----
Rule 642(1) reads as follows.
----
“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.”
----
Present at the hearing were Mr K. T. Myers (Trainer) and Miss K. A. Myers (Jockey), the connections of “Caley Marie” (7). Mr Myers agreed that he would represent the interests of the owner of the horse. Also present were Mr P. O’Malley (co-trainer and part owner) and Miss K. Williams (Jockey), the connections of “William of Orange” (6).
----
Facts:
--In this race “William of Orange” (6) finished 2nd, with a head to the 3rd horse and a further ¾ length to “Caley Marie” (7) which finished 4th.
----
Mr George used video coverage to show that well into the straight “William of Orange” was racing widest of a line of horses, and close to the lead. At that time “William of Orange” moved wider on the track leaving a gap which was wide enough to enable Miss Myers to move “Caley Marie” into. This she proceeded to do, and when well into the gap Miss Williams moved her horse inwards, closing that gap, making contact with “Caley Marie” and causing Miss Myers to check out of this gap, losing considerable ground.
----
A little further on “William of Orange” again shifted outwards leaving a gap for “Caley Marie” to move into. As happened on the first occasion Miss Myers moved in to this gap, but once again Miss Williams moved her horse back inwards, closing the gap and causing Miss Myers to check her horse out of the gap for a second time, again losing ground.
----
Submissions:
--Mr George made submissions that in the Stipendiary Steward’s view “Caley Marie” would have beaten “William of Orange” home had it been afforded clear running.
----
On behalf of the connections of “Caley Marie”, Mr Myers said that he agreed with the summary of events presented by Mr George, and that interference had happened.
----
When asked for her comments Miss Myers said she would have won the race but for the interference.
----
On behalf of the connections of “William of Orange” Miss Williams said that when her horse moved outwards she believed she had a responsibility to straighten it up immediately, which she did. It was pointed out to Miss Williams that by the time she straightened her horse “Caley Marie” was up on her inside.
----
Mr O’Malley expressed the opinion that if “Caley Marie” had been travelling well enough it would have been able to remain in the gap. Mr O’Malley did however agree that “Caley Marie” was in the gap at the time of the alleged interference.
----
After the completion of the evidence we took time to consider our decision.
----
Reasons:
--After reviewing the evidence we were satisfied that there was interference to “Caley Marie” on two occasions, and that on each occasion that horse lost ground. Miss Williams’ evidence that she was required to straighten her horse is simply not credible, and we note that she did not dispute that there had been a gap for “Caley Marie” to move into on the two occasions referred to.
----
Before a protest can be upheld we must first find that there has been interference. In this case we are satisfied that there was significant interference on two occasions, and that “Caley Marie” lost ground on each of those occasions. Secondly, to uphold the protest we must also be satisfied that, but for the interference, the affected horse would have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference. The margin between 2nd and 4th was a head plus ¾ of a length, and we were satisfied that “Caley Marie” lost much more ground that this because of the interference. We decided that the protest should be upheld.
----
Decision:
--On returning to the Enquiry Room, the second race was about to start, it having already been put back by two minutes. We therefore advised the parties that a full written decision would be given later (see above), and that the protest was upheld.
----
The amended places are as follows.
----
1st – Karamu (8)
--2nd – Cape Fear (12)
--3rd – Caley Marie (7)
--4th – William of Orange (6)
--5th – Peter Porter (10)
--6th – Menalaus (2)
----
--
J. M. Phelan K. G. Hales
--CHAIR Committee Member
--281
----
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 642(1)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 3d6a9731a834620c81ccf5b6f348e943
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 3ba9704b064a575a4b01556fd040ffdf
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 08/05/2010
meet_title: Canterbury JC - 8 May 2010
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: tom
meet_pm1: tom
meet_pm2: tom
name: Canterbury JC