Canterbury Racing – 10 August 2005 – Race 10
ID: JCA20463
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 10 August 2005
Race Date:
2005/08/10
Race Number:
Race 10
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 10 Mr M. R. Pitman the trainer of "Younme" (12) laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
--| -- DECISION AND REASONS: --Following the running of Race 10 Mr M. R. Pitman the trainer of "Younme" (12) laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1). ----The information reads as follows. ------"I allege that Jingling or its rider placed third by the judge interfered with the chances of Younme placed fourth by the judge. The interference occurred near the 400 metres." --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 Pitman was accompanied by the rider of "Younme", Ashlee Mundy. Mr Moseley was accompanied by the trainer of "Jingling", Mr K. Hughes. Mr Pitman was also a part owner of "Younme". The owners of "Jingling" were not present and Mr Hughes advised that he would represent the interest of the owners. All parties gave evidence. --Mr Pitman's case was that at about the 400 metre mark "Younme" was behind Mr Moseley's horse and Ms Mundy attempted to pass it on the outside. At this time Mr Moseley moved his horse outwards and took his horse's line. It was then necessary for "Younme" to change ground and go on the inside of Mr Moseley's horse. Mr Pitman stressed that Mr Moseley had denied his horse the right to a "clear run" in that he had taken his horse's line. It was Mr Pitman's belief that there was interference and that this had cost his horse at least three lengths. --Mr Moseley gave evidence that he had shifted out slightly, but that the chances of "Younme" had not been affected as Ms Mundy did not have to stop riding her horse, and there was a one length margin between the two horses at the end of the race. Mr Moseley agreed that he had moved out slightly but said that that there had never been contact between the two horses. --Mr Hughes said that there was clearly daylight between the two horses at the time of this incident, and that no contact had been made. --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 Mr Moseley's horse had dictated the line of "Younme" for a stride or two and that Ms Mundy had to move down to the inside, and that there had been some inconvenience and dictation by Mr Moseley's mount on Ms Mundy's mount. Mr Ching that there was a margin of one length between the two horses and that this should be taken into account. Mr Ching said that he would leave the decision whether or not to relegate up to the 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 we had not had enough time to prepare a full decision. We then gave the following oral decision. --"We have to be satisfied that "Younme" would have finished in a better placing. We are not satisfied that this is the case and the protest is dismissed. --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 Moseley (riding "Jingling") dictated the line of "Younme" at about the 400 metre mark. Mr Pitman's case was that "Younme" lost about three lengths due to this incident, and that "Jingling" should be relegated behind "Jingling". --Mr Moseley and Mr Hughes did not dispute that that there had been some dictation of "Younme's" line. Mr Ching also believed that there had been some "inconvenience and dictation" to "Younme's" line. Mr Moseley and Mr Hughes did dispute that this interference had affected the result of the race. --We were satisfied that there was interference to "Younme" when that horse's line was dictated for a short distance. --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 account of the following matters. --
Taking all these matters into account we are not satisfied that "Younme" would have finished in a better placing and the protest is dismissed. --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: 8bf5b8affbece9b00760cf98fdec5b8e
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 10
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 10 Mr M. R. Pitman the trainer of "Younme" (12) laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
--| -- DECISION AND REASONS: --Following the running of Race 10 Mr M. R. Pitman the trainer of "Younme" (12) laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1). ----The information reads as follows. ------"I allege that Jingling or its rider placed third by the judge interfered with the chances of Younme placed fourth by the judge. The interference occurred near the 400 metres." --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 Pitman was accompanied by the rider of "Younme", Ashlee Mundy. Mr Moseley was accompanied by the trainer of "Jingling", Mr K. Hughes. Mr Pitman was also a part owner of "Younme". The owners of "Jingling" were not present and Mr Hughes advised that he would represent the interest of the owners. All parties gave evidence. --Mr Pitman's case was that at about the 400 metre mark "Younme" was behind Mr Moseley's horse and Ms Mundy attempted to pass it on the outside. At this time Mr Moseley moved his horse outwards and took his horse's line. It was then necessary for "Younme" to change ground and go on the inside of Mr Moseley's horse. Mr Pitman stressed that Mr Moseley had denied his horse the right to a "clear run" in that he had taken his horse's line. It was Mr Pitman's belief that there was interference and that this had cost his horse at least three lengths. --Mr Moseley gave evidence that he had shifted out slightly, but that the chances of "Younme" had not been affected as Ms Mundy did not have to stop riding her horse, and there was a one length margin between the two horses at the end of the race. Mr Moseley agreed that he had moved out slightly but said that that there had never been contact between the two horses. --Mr Hughes said that there was clearly daylight between the two horses at the time of this incident, and that no contact had been made. --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 Mr Moseley's horse had dictated the line of "Younme" for a stride or two and that Ms Mundy had to move down to the inside, and that there had been some inconvenience and dictation by Mr Moseley's mount on Ms Mundy's mount. Mr Ching that there was a margin of one length between the two horses and that this should be taken into account. Mr Ching said that he would leave the decision whether or not to relegate up to the 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 we had not had enough time to prepare a full decision. We then gave the following oral decision. --"We have to be satisfied that "Younme" would have finished in a better placing. We are not satisfied that this is the case and the protest is dismissed. --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 Moseley (riding "Jingling") dictated the line of "Younme" at about the 400 metre mark. Mr Pitman's case was that "Younme" lost about three lengths due to this incident, and that "Jingling" should be relegated behind "Jingling". --Mr Moseley and Mr Hughes did not dispute that that there had been some dictation of "Younme's" line. Mr Ching also believed that there had been some "inconvenience and dictation" to "Younme's" line. Mr Moseley and Mr Hughes did dispute that this interference had affected the result of the race. --We were satisfied that there was interference to "Younme" when that horse's line was dictated for a short distance. --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 account of the following matters. --
Taking all these matters into account we are not satisfied that "Younme" would have finished in a better placing and the protest is dismissed. --Chairman -- |
| -- |
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 876.1
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d9917b1998ee59b5453fe2b704aad59a
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 10
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