Auckland RC 13 January 2019 – R 6 – (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr A Dooley
ID: JCA17630
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 13 January 2019
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
GJones
Race Date:
2019/01/13
Race Number:
R6
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest 2nd against 1st was upheld and 3rd and 4th against 1st were dismissed.
The amended placings were:
1st No. 6 RIPPA EAGLE
2nd No. 5 PRISE DE FER
3rd No. 4 TOLEMAC
4th No. 3 IN A TWINKLING
The Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 6, Monstavision 1600, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr Williamson, alleged that PRISE DE FER or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of RIPPA EAGLE, TOLEMAC and IN A TWINKLING placed 2nd, 3rd and 4th by the Judge.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 5 PRISE DE FER
2nd No. 6 RIPPA EAGLE
3rd No. 4 TOLEMAC
4th No. 3 IN A TWINKLING
The official margins were a short head between 1st and 2nd, a short head between 2nd and 3rd and a nose between 3rd and 4th.
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”.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
Submissions for Decision:
The Committee outlined the process for the hearing and there were no questions or objections.
Mr Oatham demonstrated the alleged interference using the available video footage and he identified the affected horses. He said that PRISE DE FER shifted out quite abruptly near the 50 metres and caused interference to RIPPA EAGLE which then shifted out onto IN A TWINKLING and TOLEMAC.
Mr Pike, Trainer of RIPPA EAGLE, said that the video films were very clear in that PRISE DE FAR shifted out and made heavy contact with RIPPA EAGLE near the 50 metre mark. He said RIPPA EAGLE was interfered with by the winner, then his horse was pushed out into the third horse, so was effectively interfered with twice. He said given the extremely narrow margin at the finish he believed that RIPPA EAGLE would have beaten PRISE DE FER had such interference not occurred.
Mr McNab, the rider of RIPPA EAGLE, said that he was just about to go past PRISE DE FER when he received heavy contact from that runner when it shifted out near the 50 metres. He said had the interference not occurred RIPPA EAGLE would have run straight past PRISE DE FER.
Mr B Jenkins, representing the connections of TOLEMAC, said that Mr Bosson had the opportunity to switch his whip into his other hand when PRISE DE FER shifted out. He said Mr Bosson made no effort to keep his mount straight and as a result the interference cost TOLEMAC 1st or 2nd place.
Mr Bayliss, the rider of TOLEMAC, said that he gave his mount plenty of room and was going through his gears when in the final stages the inside horses shifted out “to meet him”. He said that TOLEMAC “copped a shoulder” and it completely put his horse off stride. He believed that he nearly hit the front at one stage and dropped back to 3rd after that “shunt”.
Mr Richards, Trainer of IN A TWINKLING, said that there was obviously contact from PRISE DE FER shifting out. He said that he was unsure IN A TWINKLING would have finished ahead of PRISE DE FER. He said that IN A TWINKLING was just warming up through his gears when the incident happened.
Mr Coleman, the rider of IN A TWINKLING, said that he was winding up late but he was doubtful that he would have gone past PRISE DE FER. He said if PRISE DE FER had run straight he would have won the race and IN A TWINKLING’s best position would have been 3rd.
Mr Richards, Trainer of PRISE DE FER, said that his horse had only 2 starts prior to today and it was his first look at Ellerslie. He said that PRISE DE FER had a good look around and the horse ran away from the big screen near the 50 metres. He said Mr Bosson did his best to keep his mount balanced, and he never hit PRISE DE FER behind the saddle. He said although there was a short margin at the finish he was not sure that RIPPA EAGLE would have beaten PRISE DE FER if the interference had not occurred.
Mr Bosson, the rider of PRISE DE FER, said that he came from behind RIPPA EAGLE and went past him. He said that PRISE DE FER looked at the big screen and as a result the horse has “run around a bit”. He said that had his horse not run around he would have beaten RIPPA EAGLE easily. He believed that RIPPA EAGLE had its chance to beat PRISE DE FER.
Mr Williamson, on behalf of the Stewards, was invited to comment on the alleged interference. He said that RIPPA EAGLE was ½ a length behind PRISE DE FER between the 150 and 125 metres. He said that TOLEMAC and IN A TWINKLING were approximately 1 length behind them. He said that all 3 horses were running on to the eventual winner PRISE DE FER. He said that all 3 have made up ground to be within very short margins at the finish. He said that there was direct interference to RIPPA EAGLE near the 50 metres, then indirect interference to TOLEMAC and IN A TWINKLING. He said based on the interference the Stewards believed that there was merit in all 3 protests.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed all the video films several times. We reviewed the synchronised video films at slow speed and then frame by frame.
Reasons for Decision RIPPA EAGLE 2nd against PRISE DE FER 1st
The video films showed that at the 100 metre mark PRISE DE FER was racing in advance of RIPPA EAGLE by ½ a length. At approximately the 30 metres PRISE DE FER shifted out in an abrupt manner, which we estimated to be about 4 horse widths. In doing so PRISE DE FER made solid contact with RIPPA EAGLE which was bumped off its rightful running line. As a result RIPPA EAGLE was forced out at least a further 2 horse widths wider on the track.
In our opinion the head on video film was compelling. It was evident that RIPPA EAGLE suffered the worst interference of the 3 horses over the concluding stages of the race. This impacted on RIPPA EAGLE’s momentum at a vital stage in the race when it was challenging for the lead. Having considered the degree of the interference, the manner in which the horses were finishing the race and the short head margin at the finish the Committee is of the opinion that RIPPA EAGLE would have beaten PRISE DE FER had such interference not occurred.
Accordingly, RIPPA EAGLE 2nd against PRISE DE FER 1st was upheld.
Reasons for Decision TOLEMAC 3rd against PRISE DE FER 1st
The Committee found that TOLEMAC was the widest runner on the track passing the 50 metres. At that point Mr Bayliss was riding his mount strongly with the whip when racing in 3rd place. It was obvious when PRISE DE FER shifted out abruptly there was a concertina effect to firstly RIPPA EAGLE then IN A TWINKLING and finally TOLEMAC which were all racing on PRISE DE FER’s outside. We established that IN A TWINKLING briefly made contact with TOLEMAC which was momentarily hampered about 3 strides prior to the finish line. Having considered the degree of interference and in particular the very close proximity to the finish line the Committee was not satisfied that TOLEMAC would have beaten PRISE DE FER.
Accordingly, the protest 3rd against 1st was dismissed.
Reasons for Decision IN A TWINKLING 4th against PRISE DE FER 1st
The Committee found that passing the 50 metre mark IN A TWINKLING was racing in 4th place. It was obvious when PRISE DE FER shifted out abruptly that IN A TWINKLING was briefly hampered near the 30 metres when still in 4th place. Having considered the degree of interference, the manner in which the horses were finishing the race off and the margins at the finish the Committee was not satisfied that IN A TWINKLING would have beaten PRISE DE FER.
Accordingly, the protest 4th against 1st was dismissed.
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: fc32de1f44f6f07829771f81cffe6313
informantnumber: A11081
horsename: PRISE DE FER
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 14/01/2019
hearing_title: Auckland RC 13 January 2019 - R 6 - (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 6, Monstavision 1600, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr Williamson, alleged that PRISE DE FER or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of RIPPA EAGLE, TOLEMAC and IN A TWINKLING placed 2nd, 3rd and 4th by the Judge.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 5 PRISE DE FER
2nd No. 6 RIPPA EAGLE
3rd No. 4 TOLEMAC
4th No. 3 IN A TWINKLING
The official margins were a short head between 1st and 2nd, a short head between 2nd and 3rd and a nose between 3rd and 4th.
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”.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
The Committee outlined the process for the hearing and there were no questions or objections.
Mr Oatham demonstrated the alleged interference using the available video footage and he identified the affected horses. He said that PRISE DE FER shifted out quite abruptly near the 50 metres and caused interference to RIPPA EAGLE which then shifted out onto IN A TWINKLING and TOLEMAC.
Mr Pike, Trainer of RIPPA EAGLE, said that the video films were very clear in that PRISE DE FAR shifted out and made heavy contact with RIPPA EAGLE near the 50 metre mark. He said RIPPA EAGLE was interfered with by the winner, then his horse was pushed out into the third horse, so was effectively interfered with twice. He said given the extremely narrow margin at the finish he believed that RIPPA EAGLE would have beaten PRISE DE FER had such interference not occurred.
Mr McNab, the rider of RIPPA EAGLE, said that he was just about to go past PRISE DE FER when he received heavy contact from that runner when it shifted out near the 50 metres. He said had the interference not occurred RIPPA EAGLE would have run straight past PRISE DE FER.
Mr B Jenkins, representing the connections of TOLEMAC, said that Mr Bosson had the opportunity to switch his whip into his other hand when PRISE DE FER shifted out. He said Mr Bosson made no effort to keep his mount straight and as a result the interference cost TOLEMAC 1st or 2nd place.
Mr Bayliss, the rider of TOLEMAC, said that he gave his mount plenty of room and was going through his gears when in the final stages the inside horses shifted out “to meet him”. He said that TOLEMAC “copped a shoulder” and it completely put his horse off stride. He believed that he nearly hit the front at one stage and dropped back to 3rd after that “shunt”.
Mr Richards, Trainer of IN A TWINKLING, said that there was obviously contact from PRISE DE FER shifting out. He said that he was unsure IN A TWINKLING would have finished ahead of PRISE DE FER. He said that IN A TWINKLING was just warming up through his gears when the incident happened.
Mr Coleman, the rider of IN A TWINKLING, said that he was winding up late but he was doubtful that he would have gone past PRISE DE FER. He said if PRISE DE FER had run straight he would have won the race and IN A TWINKLING’s best position would have been 3rd.
Mr Richards, Trainer of PRISE DE FER, said that his horse had only 2 starts prior to today and it was his first look at Ellerslie. He said that PRISE DE FER had a good look around and the horse ran away from the big screen near the 50 metres. He said Mr Bosson did his best to keep his mount balanced, and he never hit PRISE DE FER behind the saddle. He said although there was a short margin at the finish he was not sure that RIPPA EAGLE would have beaten PRISE DE FER if the interference had not occurred.
Mr Bosson, the rider of PRISE DE FER, said that he came from behind RIPPA EAGLE and went past him. He said that PRISE DE FER looked at the big screen and as a result the horse has “run around a bit”. He said that had his horse not run around he would have beaten RIPPA EAGLE easily. He believed that RIPPA EAGLE had its chance to beat PRISE DE FER.
Mr Williamson, on behalf of the Stewards, was invited to comment on the alleged interference. He said that RIPPA EAGLE was ½ a length behind PRISE DE FER between the 150 and 125 metres. He said that TOLEMAC and IN A TWINKLING were approximately 1 length behind them. He said that all 3 horses were running on to the eventual winner PRISE DE FER. He said that all 3 have made up ground to be within very short margins at the finish. He said that there was direct interference to RIPPA EAGLE near the 50 metres, then indirect interference to TOLEMAC and IN A TWINKLING. He said based on the interference the Stewards believed that there was merit in all 3 protests.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed all the video films several times. We reviewed the synchronised video films at slow speed and then frame by frame.
Reasons for Decision RIPPA EAGLE 2nd against PRISE DE FER 1st
The video films showed that at the 100 metre mark PRISE DE FER was racing in advance of RIPPA EAGLE by ½ a length. At approximately the 30 metres PRISE DE FER shifted out in an abrupt manner, which we estimated to be about 4 horse widths. In doing so PRISE DE FER made solid contact with RIPPA EAGLE which was bumped off its rightful running line. As a result RIPPA EAGLE was forced out at least a further 2 horse widths wider on the track.
In our opinion the head on video film was compelling. It was evident that RIPPA EAGLE suffered the worst interference of the 3 horses over the concluding stages of the race. This impacted on RIPPA EAGLE’s momentum at a vital stage in the race when it was challenging for the lead. Having considered the degree of the interference, the manner in which the horses were finishing the race and the short head margin at the finish the Committee is of the opinion that RIPPA EAGLE would have beaten PRISE DE FER had such interference not occurred.
Accordingly, RIPPA EAGLE 2nd against PRISE DE FER 1st was upheld.
Reasons for Decision TOLEMAC 3rd against PRISE DE FER 1st
The Committee found that TOLEMAC was the widest runner on the track passing the 50 metres. At that point Mr Bayliss was riding his mount strongly with the whip when racing in 3rd place. It was obvious when PRISE DE FER shifted out abruptly there was a concertina effect to firstly RIPPA EAGLE then IN A TWINKLING and finally TOLEMAC which were all racing on PRISE DE FER’s outside. We established that IN A TWINKLING briefly made contact with TOLEMAC which was momentarily hampered about 3 strides prior to the finish line. Having considered the degree of interference and in particular the very close proximity to the finish line the Committee was not satisfied that TOLEMAC would have beaten PRISE DE FER.
Accordingly, the protest 3rd against 1st was dismissed.
Reasons for Decision IN A TWINKLING 4th against PRISE DE FER 1st
The Committee found that passing the 50 metre mark IN A TWINKLING was racing in 4th place. It was obvious when PRISE DE FER shifted out abruptly that IN A TWINKLING was briefly hampered near the 30 metres when still in 4th place. Having considered the degree of interference, the manner in which the horses were finishing the race off and the margins at the finish the Committee was not satisfied that IN A TWINKLING would have beaten PRISE DE FER.
Accordingly, the protest 4th against 1st was dismissed.
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest 2nd against 1st was upheld and 3rd and 4th against 1st were dismissed.
The amended placings were:
1st No. 6 RIPPA EAGLE
2nd No. 5 PRISE DE FER
3rd No. 4 TOLEMAC
4th No. 3 IN A TWINKLING
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 M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr P Wilcox - CEO Auckland Racing Club, Mr R Edmunds - Journalist, Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr T Pike - Trainer of RIPPA EAGLE, Mr M McNab - Rider of RIPPA EAGLE, Mr B Jenkins - reprsenting Mr P Jenkins - Trainer of TOLEMAC, Mr J Bayliss - Rider of TOLEMAC, Mr M Coleman - Rider of IN A TWINKLING, Mr J Richards - Trainer of IN A TWINKLING and PRISE DE FER, Mr O Bosson - Rider of PRISE DE FER
Respondent: Mr J Richards - Trainer of PRISE DE FER
StipendSteward:
raceid: b18a9658b72ad2857eec9e688ab4b1d7
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: b6bc30e9f8224679114c4cd88b72d4b5
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 13/01/2019
meet_title: Auckland RC - 13 January 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: GJones
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC