Auckland RC 3 November 2020 – R 5 (instigating a protest) – Chair, G Jones
ID: JCA14966
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Auckland RC - 3 November 2020
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
BScott
Race Date:
2020/11/03
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is upheld and the official placing are:
1st - No.4 PLUTON
2nd - No.8 LOOKEASY
3rd - No.7 A PROPER LADY
4th - No.10 HIGHLAND DANCER
The Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with our decision.
Facts:
Following the running of Race No 5, the Powersafe Electrical 1200 metres, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Rogerson, alleged that horse number 8 (LOOKSEASY) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 4 (PLUTON) placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's provisional placing were as follows:
1st - No.8 LOOKSEASY
2nd - No.4 PLUTON
3rd - No.7 A PROPER LADY
4th - No.10 HIGHLAND DANCER
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a neck.
Rule 642(1) provides:
“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”.
For the purposes of Rule 642 “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.
At the commencement of the hearing the essence of the ‘Protest Rule’ - Rule 642(1) was explained to all parties.
Submissions for Decision:
Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties, the Committee requested that Stewards show available video footage of the alleged interference. In doing Stewards were requested to make no comments about the merits of the protest. Stipendiary Steward, Mr Jones identified the field as it approached the 400-metre mark. At this point LOOKSEASY was in front racing one off the rail, with PLUTON on its outer. Both horses raced to the winning post locked together finishing first and second respectively.
Mr Rogerson used the available home straight films to demonstrate his submission. He said that from the top of the straight PLUTON was dictated wider on the track by LOOKSEASY. He said that PLUTON'S rider (C Ormsby) was put off balance several times and when taking into account the 5 kg weight difference between the two horses and the neck margin at the finish, the interference cost his horse at least 2 lengths.
Mr Ormsby submitted that from the entrance into the straight his mount PLUTON was interfered with when LOOKSEASY veered out. He said that his mount was bumped several times and he had to change his whip hand; and PLUTON lost momentum and had to change its galloping action several times. He pointed out that PLUTON had to change legs in the run to the line and given the margin at the finish he concurred with Mr Rogerson that the interference cost his horse the opportunity to win the race.
Mr Tweedie conceded that his horse LOOKSEASY did roll out, but he asserted that in the run to the line PLUTON had its chance to win the race. He added that “never at any stage was PLUTON going to win".
Mr Danis submitted that LOOKSEASY was the better horse and it won the race. He said when headed by LOOKSEASY, PLUTON did not kick back.
Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr Williamson stated that the films establish that LOOKSEASY shifted out, in the run up the straight and by the 200-metre mark had shifted PLUTON out 5 horse-widths. He said that near the 200 metres LOOKSEASY made contact with PLUTON and continued to bump that runner several times in the run to the finish. During that time, he said, that Mr Danis has continued to ride his mount forward.
Mr Williamson said that it is the Stewards view that but for the interference PLUTON may have beaten LOOKSEASY, but the Judicial Committee will need to be satisfied it would have won the race.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of submissions presented and reviewed the available video footage several times in real-time and slow motion, frame by frame.
In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule the Committee must firstly must establish that interference occurred; and second, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.
After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage the Committee established that Mr Danis permitted his mount LOOKSEASY to shift out several horse widths from the 350 metre metres to the finish. Mr Danis failed to take all reasonable steps to avoid causing interference to PLUTON, in that he did not straighten his mount when it was apparent it was shifting out. As a result, PLUTON was hampered and suffered a number of bumps in the run to the finish. It was clear that although LOOKSEASY was holding the lead over the final stages, PLUTON lost considerable momentum and had Mr Danis paused and taken corrective action, as he was obliged to do, PLUTON would have headed LOOKSEASY.
The Committee is therefore satisfied that LOOKSEASY did interfere with the chances of PLUTON. Having considered the degree of the interference, the manner in which both horses finished the race off and the margin at the finish the Committee is of the opinion that PLUTON would have beaten LOOKSEASY had the interference not occurred.
On that basis the protest is upheld.
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: 92adb62341ee4dace85eb22d18d6652e
informantnumber: A13428
horsename: LOOKSEASY
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 03/11/2020
hearing_title: Auckland RC 3 November 2020 – R 5 (instigating a protest) – Chair, G Jones
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race No 5, the Powersafe Electrical 1200 metres, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Rogerson, alleged that horse number 8 (LOOKSEASY) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 4 (PLUTON) placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's provisional placing were as follows:
1st - No.8 LOOKSEASY
2nd - No.4 PLUTON
3rd - No.7 A PROPER LADY
4th - No.10 HIGHLAND DANCER
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a neck.
Rule 642(1) provides:
“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”.
For the purposes of Rule 642 “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.
At the commencement of the hearing the essence of the ‘Protest Rule’ - Rule 642(1) was explained to all parties.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties, the Committee requested that Stewards show available video footage of the alleged interference. In doing Stewards were requested to make no comments about the merits of the protest. Stipendiary Steward, Mr Jones identified the field as it approached the 400-metre mark. At this point LOOKSEASY was in front racing one off the rail, with PLUTON on its outer. Both horses raced to the winning post locked together finishing first and second respectively.
Mr Rogerson used the available home straight films to demonstrate his submission. He said that from the top of the straight PLUTON was dictated wider on the track by LOOKSEASY. He said that PLUTON'S rider (C Ormsby) was put off balance several times and when taking into account the 5 kg weight difference between the two horses and the neck margin at the finish, the interference cost his horse at least 2 lengths.
Mr Ormsby submitted that from the entrance into the straight his mount PLUTON was interfered with when LOOKSEASY veered out. He said that his mount was bumped several times and he had to change his whip hand; and PLUTON lost momentum and had to change its galloping action several times. He pointed out that PLUTON had to change legs in the run to the line and given the margin at the finish he concurred with Mr Rogerson that the interference cost his horse the opportunity to win the race.
Mr Tweedie conceded that his horse LOOKSEASY did roll out, but he asserted that in the run to the line PLUTON had its chance to win the race. He added that “never at any stage was PLUTON going to win".
Mr Danis submitted that LOOKSEASY was the better horse and it won the race. He said when headed by LOOKSEASY, PLUTON did not kick back.
Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr Williamson stated that the films establish that LOOKSEASY shifted out, in the run up the straight and by the 200-metre mark had shifted PLUTON out 5 horse-widths. He said that near the 200 metres LOOKSEASY made contact with PLUTON and continued to bump that runner several times in the run to the finish. During that time, he said, that Mr Danis has continued to ride his mount forward.
Mr Williamson said that it is the Stewards view that but for the interference PLUTON may have beaten LOOKSEASY, but the Judicial Committee will need to be satisfied it would have won the race.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all of submissions presented and reviewed the available video footage several times in real-time and slow motion, frame by frame.
In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule the Committee must firstly must establish that interference occurred; and second, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.
After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage the Committee established that Mr Danis permitted his mount LOOKSEASY to shift out several horse widths from the 350 metre metres to the finish. Mr Danis failed to take all reasonable steps to avoid causing interference to PLUTON, in that he did not straighten his mount when it was apparent it was shifting out. As a result, PLUTON was hampered and suffered a number of bumps in the run to the finish. It was clear that although LOOKSEASY was holding the lead over the final stages, PLUTON lost considerable momentum and had Mr Danis paused and taken corrective action, as he was obliged to do, PLUTON would have headed LOOKSEASY.
The Committee is therefore satisfied that LOOKSEASY did interfere with the chances of PLUTON. Having considered the degree of the interference, the manner in which both horses finished the race off and the margin at the finish the Committee is of the opinion that PLUTON would have beaten LOOKSEASY had the interference not occurred.
On that basis the protest is upheld.
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is upheld and the official placing are:
1st - No.4 PLUTON
2nd - No.8 LOOKEASY
3rd - No.7 A PROPER LADY
4th - No.10 HIGHLAND DANCER
The Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with our decision.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: Rule 642(1)
Informant: Mr G Rogerson - Team Rogerson Trainers of PLUTON
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mrs Rogerson - Trainer of PLUTON, Mr C Ormsby - Rider of PLUTON, Mr D Danis - Rider of LOOKSEASY, Mr W Hillis - Trainer supporting Mr Danis, Mr B Jones - Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr A Tweedie - representing Connections of LOOKSEASY
StipendSteward:
raceid: c1dfb3038709f5716ebf0fa20d2438f3
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: c0aba0e2c48bc2fbaa71add76a20845f
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 03/11/2020
meet_title: Auckland RC - 3 November 2020
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: BScott
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland RC