Ashburton TC – 1 June 2009 – Race 6
ID: JCA22587
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Ashburton TC - 1 June 2009
Race Date:
2009/06/01
Race Number:
Race 6
Decision:
Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre alleging a breach of Rule 869(8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (3) placed 13th by the judge against horse number (3) placed 3rd by the judge on the grounds of interference – the interference occurred at the 900m Caesar’s Bracelet shift in checking Hipe which broke losing all chance.”
Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre alleging a breach of Rule 869(8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (3) placed 13th by the judge against horse number (3) placed 3rd by the judge on the grounds of interference – the interference occurred at the 900m Caesar’s Bracelet shift in checking Hipe which broke losing all chance.”
--Rule 869(8) reads as follows.
--“The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses, - immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.”
Present at the hearing was Mr M. R. Hay the driver of “Hipe” (3), and he advised that he would represent the interests of the trainer and owner of that horse. Also present was Mr D. B. Earnshaw, the driver of “Caesar’s Bracelet” (7) who advised that he would represent the interests of the owner and trainer of that horse.
--Mr McIntyre called Mr Hay to give evidence. He said that at the time of the incident he had been in the trail on the marker, but had dropped back and left a gap which he could see that Mr Earnshaw intended to move into. He “took hold” of his horse which broke, and went back through the field losing its chance. Mr Hay said that his horse should not have broken in those circumstances, and that it had also broken during its only two starts before today.
--Mr McIntyre used video coverage to illustrate this incident. It could be seen that “Hipe” did drop back from the horse it was trailing, and that Mr Earnshaw and “Caesar’s Bracelet” was at that time outside that gap. It was at this time that Mr Earnshaw moved into this gap.
--Mr Earnshaw gave evidence that he believed he had enough room to move into this gap behind the leading horse. He also said that he was on the back of the leader when there was contact between his sulky wheel and Mr Hay’s horse.
--It was agreed by Mr Hay and Mr Earnshaw that there had been contact. However they were unable to be certain if this contact had occurred before or after “Hipe” broke from its gait. It seemed more likely, they thought, that “Hipe” had broken (after being taken hold of) and had then made contact with the sulky wheel while in a break.
--We then adjourned to consider our decision. We were satisfied that it was more likely than not that “Hipe” had gone into a break when he was “taken hold” of by Mr Hay. It was also relevant that “Hipe” had broken in its two previous starts, and that Mr Hay had said that taking hold of his horse should not have caused it to break
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that “Hipe” broke and lost its chance at about the 900 metre mark. We are satisfied that Mr Hay took hold of his horse at that stage when Mr Earnshaw was moving into the trail. We are also satisfied that “Hipe” broke at about the same time. However we are not satisfied that this horse’s break was caused by Mr Earnshaw moving inwards, and the protest is dismissed.”
--J. M. Phelan
Chair
14181
--
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: f96b4a9117d0ed20eda13849137e5763
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 01/06/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Ashburton TC - 1 June 2009 - Race 6
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre alleging a breach of Rule 869(8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (3) placed 13th by the judge against horse number (3) placed 3rd by the judge on the grounds of interference – the interference occurred at the 900m Caesar’s Bracelet shift in checking Hipe which broke losing all chance.”
Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre alleging a breach of Rule 869(8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (3) placed 13th by the judge against horse number (3) placed 3rd by the judge on the grounds of interference – the interference occurred at the 900m Caesar’s Bracelet shift in checking Hipe which broke losing all chance.”
--Rule 869(8) reads as follows.
--“The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses, - immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.”
Present at the hearing was Mr M. R. Hay the driver of “Hipe” (3), and he advised that he would represent the interests of the trainer and owner of that horse. Also present was Mr D. B. Earnshaw, the driver of “Caesar’s Bracelet” (7) who advised that he would represent the interests of the owner and trainer of that horse.
--Mr McIntyre called Mr Hay to give evidence. He said that at the time of the incident he had been in the trail on the marker, but had dropped back and left a gap which he could see that Mr Earnshaw intended to move into. He “took hold” of his horse which broke, and went back through the field losing its chance. Mr Hay said that his horse should not have broken in those circumstances, and that it had also broken during its only two starts before today.
--Mr McIntyre used video coverage to illustrate this incident. It could be seen that “Hipe” did drop back from the horse it was trailing, and that Mr Earnshaw and “Caesar’s Bracelet” was at that time outside that gap. It was at this time that Mr Earnshaw moved into this gap.
--Mr Earnshaw gave evidence that he believed he had enough room to move into this gap behind the leading horse. He also said that he was on the back of the leader when there was contact between his sulky wheel and Mr Hay’s horse.
--It was agreed by Mr Hay and Mr Earnshaw that there had been contact. However they were unable to be certain if this contact had occurred before or after “Hipe” broke from its gait. It seemed more likely, they thought, that “Hipe” had broken (after being taken hold of) and had then made contact with the sulky wheel while in a break.
--We then adjourned to consider our decision. We were satisfied that it was more likely than not that “Hipe” had gone into a break when he was “taken hold” of by Mr Hay. It was also relevant that “Hipe” had broken in its two previous starts, and that Mr Hay had said that taking hold of his horse should not have caused it to break
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that “Hipe” broke and lost its chance at about the 900 metre mark. We are satisfied that Mr Hay took hold of his horse at that stage when Mr Earnshaw was moving into the trail. We are also satisfied that “Hipe” broke at about the same time. However we are not satisfied that this horse’s break was caused by Mr Earnshaw moving inwards, and the protest is dismissed.”
--J. M. Phelan
Chair
14181
--
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869.8
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d2160c9e63928a8b2abd988c3f5d2a03
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 4a7775b3ff1b7116245622cef51cb3e5
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/06/2009
meet_title: Ashburton TC - 1 June 2009
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: ashburton-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Ashburton TC