Auckland RC – 1 January 2008 –
ID: JCA21747
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Decision: --------
Following the running of Race 3, the Stella Artois Eclipse Stakes Mr G. A. Rogerson, the trainer of "San Bernardino" (1), laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
----
DECISION AND REASONS:
----------Following the running of Race 3, the Stella Artois Eclipse Stakes Mr G. A.
--Rogerson, the trainer of "San Bernardino" (1), laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
----The information reads as follows.
------"I allege that Lady Alberton or its rider placed 1st by the judge interfered with the chances of San Bernardino placed 3rd by the judge. The interference occurred final 50 metres."
--Rule 876(1) reads as follows.
--"(1) 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.
--(2) The discretion to relegate any horse or horses under sub-rule 1 hereof shall be exercisable by the Judicial Committee only in the following circumstances, and not otherwise:
------(a) When the horse whose chances have been interfered with has been placed by the Judge in a dividend bearing position…"
--The protest came within the limitation provided for by Rule 876(2)(a).
----Mr Rogerson, the trainer of ""San Bernardino", was accompanied by its rider Miss L. K. Cropp, and Mr Rogerson was a part owner of the horse. Mr R. A. Yuill, the trainer of "Lady Alberton", was accompanied by its rider Ms S. C. Spratt. Mr Yuill advised that he would represent the interests of the owners of the horse.
--Using video coverage Mr Rogerson illustrated an incident in the final stages of the race. He said that "Lady Alberton" had "come out" and taken the line of "San Bernadino" and that this movement had cost his horse more than the official ½ head margin between 2nd and 3rd. Miss Cropp also gave similar evidence that she believed the incident has cost her 2nd place.
--Mr Yuill gave evidence and agreed that his horse had moved outwards a little, but emphasised that there was no contact between the two horses in this incident. It was also Mr Yuill’s evidence that Miss Cropp did not have to stop riding her horse, although Miss Cropp did not agree with this. Miss Cropp did agree that there was no contact between the two horses.
--Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr George had been present throughout the hearing and in accordance with accepted practice he was asked if he wished to give evidence and call witnesses. Mr George said that in his view "Lady Alberton" had moved outwards and met "San Bernardino" but had not taken that horse’s line. Rather "San Bernardino" had shifted away from "Lady Alberton". It was the Stipendiary Steward’l[yuus opinion that the protest should not be upheld.
--Both parties were then given an opportunity to summarise their respective cases, after which we adjourned to consider our decision.
--Before a protest can be upheld we must first find that there has been interference. In this case we were satisfied that there was no contact and that the outwards movement by "Lady Alberton" had not affected the chances of "San Bernardino". We decided that the protest should be dismissed.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be given later, and advised that in our deliberations we found that there had been no contact between the horses involved, and that in our view the chances of "San Bernardino" were not affected by the outwards movement of "Lady Alberton ". We also advised that the protest was dismissed.
----
--
--
____________
--J. M. Phelan
--Chairman
--Decision Date: 01/01/2008
Publish Date: 01/01/2008
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: b2d3a25c3c99d2d7ada9fec6a4a32a26
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 01/01/2008
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Auckland RC - 1 January 2008 -
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--------Following the running of Race 3, the Stella Artois Eclipse Stakes Mr G. A. Rogerson, the trainer of "San Bernardino" (1), laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
----
DECISION AND REASONS:
----------Following the running of Race 3, the Stella Artois Eclipse Stakes Mr G. A.
--Rogerson, the trainer of "San Bernardino" (1), laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
----The information reads as follows.
------"I allege that Lady Alberton or its rider placed 1st by the judge interfered with the chances of San Bernardino placed 3rd by the judge. The interference occurred final 50 metres."
--Rule 876(1) reads as follows.
--"(1) 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.
--(2) The discretion to relegate any horse or horses under sub-rule 1 hereof shall be exercisable by the Judicial Committee only in the following circumstances, and not otherwise:
------(a) When the horse whose chances have been interfered with has been placed by the Judge in a dividend bearing position…"
--The protest came within the limitation provided for by Rule 876(2)(a).----Mr Rogerson, the trainer of ""San Bernardino", was accompanied by its rider Miss L. K. Cropp, and Mr Rogerson was a part owner of the horse. Mr R. A. Yuill, the trainer of "Lady Alberton", was accompanied by its rider Ms S. C. Spratt. Mr Yuill advised that he would represent the interests of the owners of the horse.
--Using video coverage Mr Rogerson illustrated an incident in the final stages of the race. He said that "Lady Alberton" had "come out" and taken the line of "San Bernadino" and that this movement had cost his horse more than the official ½ head margin between 2nd and 3rd. Miss Cropp also gave similar evidence that she believed the incident has cost her 2nd place.
--Mr Yuill gave evidence and agreed that his horse had moved outwards a little, but emphasised that there was no contact between the two horses in this incident. It was also Mr Yuill’s evidence that Miss Cropp did not have to stop riding her horse, although Miss Cropp did not agree with this. Miss Cropp did agree that there was no contact between the two horses.
--Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr George had been present throughout the hearing and in accordance with accepted practice he was asked if he wished to give evidence and call witnesses. Mr George said that in his view "Lady Alberton" had moved outwards and met "San Bernardino" but had not taken that horse’s line. Rather "San Bernardino" had shifted away from "Lady Alberton". It was the Stipendiary Steward’l[yuus opinion that the protest should not be upheld.
--Both parties were then given an opportunity to summarise their respective cases, after which we adjourned to consider our decision.
--Before a protest can be upheld we must first find that there has been interference. In this case we were satisfied that there was no contact and that the outwards movement by "Lady Alberton" had not affected the chances of "San Bernardino". We decided that the protest should be dismissed.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be given later, and advised that in our deliberations we found that there had been no contact between the horses involved, and that in our view the chances of "San Bernardino" were not affected by the outwards movement of "Lady Alberton ". We also advised that the protest was dismissed.
----
--
--
____________
--J. M. Phelan
--Chairman
--sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 876.1, 876.2.a
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid:
race_expapproval:
racecancelled:
race_noreport:
race_emailed1:
race_emailed2:
race_title:
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid:
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport:
waitingforpublication:
meet_emailed1:
meet_emailed2:
meetdate: no date provided
meet_title:
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation:
meet_racingtype:
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: