Auckland RC – 1 January 2006 – Race 2
ID: JCA20649
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 1 January 2006
Race Date:
2006/01/01
Race Number:
Race 2
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 2, Stipendiary Steward Mr A Coles, lodged an information instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 876(1)
--
DECISION AND REASON:
--Following the running of Race 2, Stipendiary Steward Mr A Coles, lodged an information instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 876(1), alleging that ARDENT placed third by the judge interfered with the chances of TED TYNDELL, placed fourth by the judge, and SOL INVICTUS placed 5th by the judge. The interference occurred in the home straight.
--The Judge's placings were ?
--1st No.5 ANUTHAHORSE
--2nd No.1 OUR JUSTICE
--3rd No.9 ARDENT
--4th No.3 TED TYNDEL
--5th No.2 SOL INVICTUS
--The margin between third and fourth was a neck, and between fourth and fifth a long neck.
--The information was filed with the registrar within the time prescribed.
--Present at the hearing was Ms Halse and Mr K Clotworthy, and rider Mr R Norvall representing ARDENT.
--TED TYNDEL was represented by trainer Ms P Ranui, owner Mr Tyndel, and rider Mr G Cooksley.
--Mr Nakhle, and rider Mr M Williamson represented SOL INVICTUS.
--All connections were made aware of the protest.
--Mr J Oatham demonstrated three different films, which showed ARDENT racing very greenly and move out sharply and bump SOL INVICTUS on his outside who then bumped TED TYNDEL. ARDENT was not the required distance clear when the interference occurred.
--Mr Cooksley said he received a sharp bump from Mr Norvall on his inside which he believed cost him at least 2nd placing. Ms Ranui confirmed Mr Cooksley's evidence.
--Mr Williamson, rider of SOL INVICTUS said he also received a sharp bump from TED TYNDEL, resulting from the outward movement by ARDENT. He believed this definitely affected his chances. Mr Nakhle, representing SOL INVICTUS confirmed Mr Williamson's statement.
--Ms Halse, representing ARDENT, had nothing to say and said the film was self-explanatory. Mr Norvall, rider of ARDENT, said although interference occurred he did not believe that SOL INVICTUS and TED TYNDEL would have beaten him, as both riders continued using the whip.
--Decision:
--The committee is satisfied there was interference by ARDENT when he moved out sharply bumping TED TYNDEL who in turn bumped SOL INVICTUS when not the required distance clear.
--The committee were further satisfied that the chances of TED TYNDEL and SOL INVICTUS finishing in a better place were affected.
--The committee in applying their discretion took into account the severity of the interference received by both horses, the margins of a neck and long neck, the proximity to the post when the interference occurred and the manner in which both horses finished the race.
--Accordingly, the committee exercised their discretion under Rule 876(2)(b) in favour of TED TYNDEL which will now be placed third.
--In respect of SOL INVICTUS the committee did not have a discretion because even if successful in a protest would not have gained a dividend bearing place as required by the rules, therefore the protest is upheld in respect of TED TYNDEL only and the official placings shall now be ?
--1st No.5
--2nd No.1
--3rd No.3
--4th No.9
--5th No.2
--
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: 736f7d04dc7def475bf0828b5c5258ab
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 01/01/2006
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Auckland RC - 1 January 2006 - Race 2
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 2, Stipendiary Steward Mr A Coles, lodged an information instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 876(1)
--
DECISION AND REASON:
--Following the running of Race 2, Stipendiary Steward Mr A Coles, lodged an information instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 876(1), alleging that ARDENT placed third by the judge interfered with the chances of TED TYNDELL, placed fourth by the judge, and SOL INVICTUS placed 5th by the judge. The interference occurred in the home straight.
--The Judge's placings were ?
--1st No.5 ANUTHAHORSE
--2nd No.1 OUR JUSTICE
--3rd No.9 ARDENT
--4th No.3 TED TYNDEL
--5th No.2 SOL INVICTUS
--The margin between third and fourth was a neck, and between fourth and fifth a long neck.
--The information was filed with the registrar within the time prescribed.
--Present at the hearing was Ms Halse and Mr K Clotworthy, and rider Mr R Norvall representing ARDENT.
--TED TYNDEL was represented by trainer Ms P Ranui, owner Mr Tyndel, and rider Mr G Cooksley.
--Mr Nakhle, and rider Mr M Williamson represented SOL INVICTUS.
--All connections were made aware of the protest.
--Mr J Oatham demonstrated three different films, which showed ARDENT racing very greenly and move out sharply and bump SOL INVICTUS on his outside who then bumped TED TYNDEL. ARDENT was not the required distance clear when the interference occurred.
--Mr Cooksley said he received a sharp bump from Mr Norvall on his inside which he believed cost him at least 2nd placing. Ms Ranui confirmed Mr Cooksley's evidence.
--Mr Williamson, rider of SOL INVICTUS said he also received a sharp bump from TED TYNDEL, resulting from the outward movement by ARDENT. He believed this definitely affected his chances. Mr Nakhle, representing SOL INVICTUS confirmed Mr Williamson's statement.
--Ms Halse, representing ARDENT, had nothing to say and said the film was self-explanatory. Mr Norvall, rider of ARDENT, said although interference occurred he did not believe that SOL INVICTUS and TED TYNDEL would have beaten him, as both riders continued using the whip.
--Decision:
--The committee is satisfied there was interference by ARDENT when he moved out sharply bumping TED TYNDEL who in turn bumped SOL INVICTUS when not the required distance clear.
--The committee were further satisfied that the chances of TED TYNDEL and SOL INVICTUS finishing in a better place were affected.
--The committee in applying their discretion took into account the severity of the interference received by both horses, the margins of a neck and long neck, the proximity to the post when the interference occurred and the manner in which both horses finished the race.
--Accordingly, the committee exercised their discretion under Rule 876(2)(b) in favour of TED TYNDEL which will now be placed third.
--In respect of SOL INVICTUS the committee did not have a discretion because even if successful in a protest would not have gained a dividend bearing place as required by the rules, therefore the protest is upheld in respect of TED TYNDEL only and the official placings shall now be ?
--1st No.5
--2nd No.1
--3rd No.3
--4th No.9
--5th No.2
--
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 876.1, 876.2.b
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 326f44d4c49e74032a6783656ec4306d
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: a2c1a3fae41612ae1f5a820f63afc338
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/01/2006
meet_title: Auckland RC - 1 January 2006
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Auckland RC