Racing Rotorua – 27 December 2009 –
ID: JCA22910
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Decision:
RACING ROTORUA
--27 December 2009
--RACEDAY JUDICIAL REPORT
--RACE NO: 8 INFORMATION NO: 064 RULE: 642 (1)
--Following the running of race 8, trainer Mr G. McRae lodged a protest under Rule 642 (1) alleging that THE BEEKEEPER (N. COLLETT) or its rider placed 1st by the judge caused interference to JOAN’S CHANCE placed second by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.
--The judge placings were:
--1st no. 3 THE BEEKEEPER
2nd no. 11 JOAN’S CHANCE
3rd no. 4 MISS SHARAPOVA
4th no. 1 ELUSIVE LADY
RACING ROTORUA
--27 December 2009
--RACEDAY JUDICIAL REPORT
--RACE NO: 8 INFORMATION NO: 064 RULE: 642 (1)
--Following the running of race 8, trainer Mr G. McRae lodged a protest under Rule 642 (1) alleging that THE BEEKEEPER (N. COLLETT) or its rider placed 1st by the judge caused interference to JOAN’S CHANCE placed second by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.
--The judge placings were:
--1st no. 3 THE BEEKEEPER
2nd no. 11 JOAN’S CHANCE
3rd no. 4 MISS SHARAPOVA
4th no. 1 ELUSIVE LADY
The margin between first and second placed horse was a long neck.
--The information was filed with the registrar within the time prescribed.
--JOAN’S CHANCE was represented by rider Ms D Johnson, trainer Mr G McRae and the connections of THE BEEKEEPER were represented by part owner Mr S Tisch and rider Ms N. Collett.
--Mr McRae used head on and side on videos of the race to demonstrate the incident that he was concerned about.
--Mr McRae said that it was the final 6 strides of the race he was concerned with when THE BEEKEEPER ridden by Ms Collett rolled in causing Ms Johnson on JOAN’S CHANCE to stop riding her mount out to the finish. He said Ms Collett was able to ride her mount out to the finish and JOAN’S CHANCE was denied room late in the race.
--Ms Johnson said that Ms Collett’s’ mount had rolled inwards in the final 5 or 6 strides and denied her clear running.
--Ms Collett said that Ms Johnson did not have to ease her mount. She does not believe that JOAN’S CHANCE would have beaten THE BEEKEEPER because the interference happened too close to the finish.
--Mr Tisch said THE BEEKEEPER was travelling the best, he believed there was still room for JOAN’S CHANCE to improve, and the interference occurred too close to the finish.
--Mr Coles was asked for the Steward’s opinion of the incident. He said prior to the incident JOAN’S CHANCE was not making ground on THE BEEKEEPER, he conceded that Ms Johnson had to stop riding her mount out in the final 6 strides. He said the committee would have to take into account the official margin of a long neck when coming to a decision.
--Mr McRae when given the opportunity to sum up said he had further nothing to add.
--DECISION
--Rule 642 (1) states:
--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 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.
--The committee carefully considered all the evidence and reviewed the video films.
--Upon reviewing the video films both head on and side on we established that THE BEEKEEPER was comfortably holding a clear advantage over JOAN’S CHANCE before there was any inward movement in the closing stages of the race. Because the interference occurred only in the last 6 strides, this committee has considerable doubt that JOAN’S CHANCE would have finished in front of THE BEEKEEPER if interference had not occurred. The winning margin was a long neck.
--Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the placings shall stand as called by the judge.
--A. Dooley D. Johnstone
CHAIR Committee Member
064
--
Decision Date: 27/12/2009
Publish Date: 27/12/2009
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: f21b2dda39d28cd8db8b5837d326155f
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 27/12/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Racing Rotorua - 27 December 2009 -
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACING ROTORUA
--27 December 2009
--RACEDAY JUDICIAL REPORT
--RACE NO: 8 INFORMATION NO: 064 RULE: 642 (1)
--Following the running of race 8, trainer Mr G. McRae lodged a protest under Rule 642 (1) alleging that THE BEEKEEPER (N. COLLETT) or its rider placed 1st by the judge caused interference to JOAN’S CHANCE placed second by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.
--The judge placings were:
--1st no. 3 THE BEEKEEPER
2nd no. 11 JOAN’S CHANCE
3rd no. 4 MISS SHARAPOVA
4th no. 1 ELUSIVE LADY
RACING ROTORUA
--27 December 2009
--RACEDAY JUDICIAL REPORT
--RACE NO: 8 INFORMATION NO: 064 RULE: 642 (1)
--Following the running of race 8, trainer Mr G. McRae lodged a protest under Rule 642 (1) alleging that THE BEEKEEPER (N. COLLETT) or its rider placed 1st by the judge caused interference to JOAN’S CHANCE placed second by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.
--The judge placings were:
--1st no. 3 THE BEEKEEPER
2nd no. 11 JOAN’S CHANCE
3rd no. 4 MISS SHARAPOVA
4th no. 1 ELUSIVE LADY
The margin between first and second placed horse was a long neck.
--The information was filed with the registrar within the time prescribed.
--JOAN’S CHANCE was represented by rider Ms D Johnson, trainer Mr G McRae and the connections of THE BEEKEEPER were represented by part owner Mr S Tisch and rider Ms N. Collett.
--Mr McRae used head on and side on videos of the race to demonstrate the incident that he was concerned about.
--Mr McRae said that it was the final 6 strides of the race he was concerned with when THE BEEKEEPER ridden by Ms Collett rolled in causing Ms Johnson on JOAN’S CHANCE to stop riding her mount out to the finish. He said Ms Collett was able to ride her mount out to the finish and JOAN’S CHANCE was denied room late in the race.
--Ms Johnson said that Ms Collett’s’ mount had rolled inwards in the final 5 or 6 strides and denied her clear running.
--Ms Collett said that Ms Johnson did not have to ease her mount. She does not believe that JOAN’S CHANCE would have beaten THE BEEKEEPER because the interference happened too close to the finish.
--Mr Tisch said THE BEEKEEPER was travelling the best, he believed there was still room for JOAN’S CHANCE to improve, and the interference occurred too close to the finish.
--Mr Coles was asked for the Steward’s opinion of the incident. He said prior to the incident JOAN’S CHANCE was not making ground on THE BEEKEEPER, he conceded that Ms Johnson had to stop riding her mount out in the final 6 strides. He said the committee would have to take into account the official margin of a long neck when coming to a decision.
--Mr McRae when given the opportunity to sum up said he had further nothing to add.
--DECISION
--Rule 642 (1) states:
--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 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.
--The committee carefully considered all the evidence and reviewed the video films.
--Upon reviewing the video films both head on and side on we established that THE BEEKEEPER was comfortably holding a clear advantage over JOAN’S CHANCE before there was any inward movement in the closing stages of the race. Because the interference occurred only in the last 6 strides, this committee has considerable doubt that JOAN’S CHANCE would have finished in front of THE BEEKEEPER if interference had not occurred. The winning margin was a long neck.
--Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the placings shall stand as called by the judge.
--A. Dooley D. Johnstone
CHAIR Committee Member
064
--
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 642.1
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: