Auckland RC 13 December 2015 – R 7 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr A Dooley
ID: JCA10512
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 13 December 2015
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
RSeabrook
Race Date:
2015/12/13
Race Number:
Race 7
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest was upheld and ZACADA was relegated from 2nd to 3rd place.
1st No. 6 THUNDER DOWN UNDER
2nd No. 10 SPLENDIDO
3rd No. 1 ZACADA
4th No. 9 PRODIGAL SON
The Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 7, BMW 3YO Salver, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Cooksley, alleged that ZACADA or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of SPLENDIDO placed 3rd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 6 THUNDER DOWN UNDER
2nd No. 1 ZACADA
3rd No. 10 SPLENDIDO
4th No. 9 PRODIGAL SON
The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was a long head.
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 so 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”.
(2) For the purposes of Rules 637 and 642:
(a) “placed horse” shall be a horse placed by the Judge in accordance with Rule 641(3); and
(b) “interference” is defined as:
(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the rule.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Oatham demonstrated the alleged interference by using all the available video films prior to any submissions were made.
Mr Cooksley submitted that Mr Cameron had shifted out and touched his mount a couple of times over a period of 50 to 60 metres. He said that there was one decent bump that resulted in SPLENDIDO being screwed around which he believed cost him momentum and from winning the race.
Mr Peard said that he agreed with Mr Cooksley. He submitted that there were four parts of interference that SPLENDIDO received from ZACADA which cost his horse all its momentum. He advised the Committee that SPLENDIDO had returned to scale minus a front shoe and confirmed that SPLENDIDO did get turned sideways when interfered with.
Mr Cameron submitted that he had nowhere to go and a gap presented itself near the 250 metres and he got ZACADA’S head into the gap. He said Mr Cooksley turned his horse's head inwards in an effort to hold him in. He believed it was competitive riding on his part and his horse ran away from SPLENDIDO at the finish. He observed that PRODIGAL SON had rolled in as well which didn’t help the incident.
Mr Forsman submitted that there was movement from other horses which didn’t help the situation. He acknowledged that there was a far bit of buffeting going on but believed ZACADA was unlucky and it should have won the race. He added that ZACADA had come from behind SPLENDIDO.
Mr Williamson on behalf of the Stewards said that at the 350 metres ZACADA shifted out onto SPLENDIDO. He said that at the 200 metres there was no run available for ZACADA when Mr Cameron shifted out and made contact with SPLENDIDO for a total of 14 strides causing that horse to be unbalanced. He said PRODIGAL SON shifted in which compounded the interference. He said the Committee had to decide whether ZACADA was entitled to the run it took. In conclusion Mr Williamson elected not to comment whether the protest should be upheld or dismissed but he submitted that there was a reasonably strong case.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed the video films several times. Just upon entering the home straight ZACADA shifted out and made contact with SPLENDIDO which resulted in ZACADA becoming briefly unbalanced. ZACADA had drawn barrier 1 and was racing in tight quarters in the final straight with Mr Cameron desperately looking for racing room. Near the 250 metre Mr Cameron attempted to force a run to the inside of SPLENDIDO making heavy contact with that horse which resulted in solid buffeting on several occasions until ZACADA finally got clear. The hind quarters of SPLENDIDO were turned sideways in the incident and it had its momentum badly hampered.
The Committee concentrated on the head – on film which clearly showed the slender gap that presented itself near the 250 metres was insufficient for a horse to go through. In our opinion Mr Cameron was without doubt not entitled to force the run and had therefore breached the interference part of this rule and ZACADA had gained an unfair advantage.
The interference that SPLENDIDO received from ZACADA certainly cost it more than the long head margin at the finish.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee is of the opinion that SPLENDIDO would have beaten ZACADA had such interference not occurred.
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: 08f58ce9b4f683798aace29d47c86077
informantnumber: A7577
horsename: ZACADA
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 14/12/2015
hearing_title: Auckland RC 13 December 2015 - R 7 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 7, BMW 3YO Salver, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Cooksley, alleged that ZACADA or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of SPLENDIDO placed 3rd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 6 THUNDER DOWN UNDER
2nd No. 1 ZACADA
3rd No. 10 SPLENDIDO
4th No. 9 PRODIGAL SON
The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was a long head.
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 so 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”.
(2) For the purposes of Rules 637 and 642:
(a) “placed horse” shall be a horse placed by the Judge in accordance with Rule 641(3); and
(b) “interference” is defined as:
(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the rule.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Oatham demonstrated the alleged interference by using all the available video films prior to any submissions were made.
Mr Cooksley submitted that Mr Cameron had shifted out and touched his mount a couple of times over a period of 50 to 60 metres. He said that there was one decent bump that resulted in SPLENDIDO being screwed around which he believed cost him momentum and from winning the race.
Mr Peard said that he agreed with Mr Cooksley. He submitted that there were four parts of interference that SPLENDIDO received from ZACADA which cost his horse all its momentum. He advised the Committee that SPLENDIDO had returned to scale minus a front shoe and confirmed that SPLENDIDO did get turned sideways when interfered with.
Mr Cameron submitted that he had nowhere to go and a gap presented itself near the 250 metres and he got ZACADA’S head into the gap. He said Mr Cooksley turned his horse's head inwards in an effort to hold him in. He believed it was competitive riding on his part and his horse ran away from SPLENDIDO at the finish. He observed that PRODIGAL SON had rolled in as well which didn’t help the incident.
Mr Forsman submitted that there was movement from other horses which didn’t help the situation. He acknowledged that there was a far bit of buffeting going on but believed ZACADA was unlucky and it should have won the race. He added that ZACADA had come from behind SPLENDIDO.
Mr Williamson on behalf of the Stewards said that at the 350 metres ZACADA shifted out onto SPLENDIDO. He said that at the 200 metres there was no run available for ZACADA when Mr Cameron shifted out and made contact with SPLENDIDO for a total of 14 strides causing that horse to be unbalanced. He said PRODIGAL SON shifted in which compounded the interference. He said the Committee had to decide whether ZACADA was entitled to the run it took. In conclusion Mr Williamson elected not to comment whether the protest should be upheld or dismissed but he submitted that there was a reasonably strong case.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed the video films several times. Just upon entering the home straight ZACADA shifted out and made contact with SPLENDIDO which resulted in ZACADA becoming briefly unbalanced. ZACADA had drawn barrier 1 and was racing in tight quarters in the final straight with Mr Cameron desperately looking for racing room. Near the 250 metre Mr Cameron attempted to force a run to the inside of SPLENDIDO making heavy contact with that horse which resulted in solid buffeting on several occasions until ZACADA finally got clear. The hind quarters of SPLENDIDO were turned sideways in the incident and it had its momentum badly hampered.
The Committee concentrated on the head – on film which clearly showed the slender gap that presented itself near the 250 metres was insufficient for a horse to go through. In our opinion Mr Cameron was without doubt not entitled to force the run and had therefore breached the interference part of this rule and ZACADA had gained an unfair advantage.
The interference that SPLENDIDO received from ZACADA certainly cost it more than the long head margin at the finish.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee is of the opinion that SPLENDIDO would have beaten ZACADA had such interference not occurred.
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest was upheld and ZACADA was relegated from 2nd to 3rd place.
1st No. 6 THUNDER DOWN UNDER
2nd No. 10 SPLENDIDO
3rd No. 1 ZACADA
4th No. 9 PRODIGAL SON
The Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr G Cooksley - Rider of SPLENDIDO
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson -Stipendiary Steward, Mr A Peard - Stable Foreman for SPLENDIDO, Mr M Cameron - Rider of ZACADA
Respondent: Mr A Forsman - Co Trainer of ZACADA
StipendSteward:
raceid: 6849523dc017234769f9bd4b14ff7971
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 8ce004c54dda841fc1d97c11d8729f21
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 13/12/2015
meet_title: Auckland RC - 13 December 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: RSeabrook
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC