Cambridge HRC – 12 November 2004 – Race 9
ID: JCA21882
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Cambridge HRC - 12 November 2004
Race Date:
2004/11/12
Race Number:
Race 9
Decision:
An information instigating a protest lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr T Taumanu on behalf of the horse SPRINGFIELD ALLISON driven by Mr R Richardson placed 6th by the Judge against the horse EDELVEISS driven by Mr P Jeffries and placed 3rd by the Judge on the grounds of interference with about 2400m left to run.
| -- An information instigating a protest lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr T Taumanu on behalf of the horse SPRINGFIELD ALLISON driven by Mr R Richardson placed 6th by the Judge against the horse EDELVEISS driven by Mr P Jeffries and placed 3rd by the Judge on the grounds of interference with about 2400m left to run. --Mr Jeffries represented the connections of EDELVEISS. Stipendiary Steward Mr J Muirhead gave evidence of his visual observations of the incident and his interpretation of the video film. He said EDELVEISS was trailing the leader with about 2,400m to run when it broke and went back on SPRINGFIELD ALLISON which was travelling immediately behind it, causing Mr Richardson to take hold of his horse which in turn caused it to break. He said the net result was that instead of being three back on the running line, SPRINGFIELD ALLISON ended much further back in the field and lost about 8 lengths in the process. Mr Richardson confirmed the evidence of Mr Muirhead, he said that his horse only broke after he took hold of it and he could not move it outwards because there was another horse outside. He said that his horse finished on well for 6th position and that his chances were affected. He said that no contact had been made. Mr Jefferies said that in his opinion SPRINGFIELD ALLISON was trotting roughly immediately before EDELVEISS broke. He contended that the fact that EDELVEISS broke did not cause SPRINGFIELD ALLISON to break. --DECISION & REASONS --I took into account all the evidence given and my own observations of the video film. Both Mr Muirhead and Mr Taumanu who summed up his case were firmly of the opinion that SPRINGFIELD ALLISON broke because EDELVEISS broke immediately in front of it and caused Mr Richardson to restrain that horse. Similarly Mr Richardson was clear and decisive in his evidence. Against this evidence the best Mr Jefferies could say was that SPRINGFIELD ALLISON had commenced to trot roughly. I had no hesitation in accepting the evidence of Mr Muirhead and Mr Richardson and the comments made by Mr Taumanu. In my opinion if EDELVEISS had not broken, then SPRINGFIELD ALLISON would not have broken. It was clear from the film and the evidence that the chances of SPRINGFIELD ALLISON were affected. I therefore upheld the protest and relegated EDELVEISS to immeidately behind SPRINGFIELD ALLISON, the placings then to be: --16 ? SHINE ON ALISHA --15 ? SILKY OAK --12 ? MISS HAND HOLDER --5 ? TALENTS INVASION --13 ? SPRINGFIELD ALLISON --2 - EDELVEISS |
| -- |
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: cdf50d87686f07cdc15f910046e56159
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 12/11/2004
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Cambridge HRC - 12 November 2004 - Race 9
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
An information instigating a protest lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr T Taumanu on behalf of the horse SPRINGFIELD ALLISON driven by Mr R Richardson placed 6th by the Judge against the horse EDELVEISS driven by Mr P Jeffries and placed 3rd by the Judge on the grounds of interference with about 2400m left to run.
| -- An information instigating a protest lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr T Taumanu on behalf of the horse SPRINGFIELD ALLISON driven by Mr R Richardson placed 6th by the Judge against the horse EDELVEISS driven by Mr P Jeffries and placed 3rd by the Judge on the grounds of interference with about 2400m left to run. --Mr Jeffries represented the connections of EDELVEISS. Stipendiary Steward Mr J Muirhead gave evidence of his visual observations of the incident and his interpretation of the video film. He said EDELVEISS was trailing the leader with about 2,400m to run when it broke and went back on SPRINGFIELD ALLISON which was travelling immediately behind it, causing Mr Richardson to take hold of his horse which in turn caused it to break. He said the net result was that instead of being three back on the running line, SPRINGFIELD ALLISON ended much further back in the field and lost about 8 lengths in the process. Mr Richardson confirmed the evidence of Mr Muirhead, he said that his horse only broke after he took hold of it and he could not move it outwards because there was another horse outside. He said that his horse finished on well for 6th position and that his chances were affected. He said that no contact had been made. Mr Jefferies said that in his opinion SPRINGFIELD ALLISON was trotting roughly immediately before EDELVEISS broke. He contended that the fact that EDELVEISS broke did not cause SPRINGFIELD ALLISON to break. --DECISION & REASONS --I took into account all the evidence given and my own observations of the video film. Both Mr Muirhead and Mr Taumanu who summed up his case were firmly of the opinion that SPRINGFIELD ALLISON broke because EDELVEISS broke immediately in front of it and caused Mr Richardson to restrain that horse. Similarly Mr Richardson was clear and decisive in his evidence. Against this evidence the best Mr Jefferies could say was that SPRINGFIELD ALLISON had commenced to trot roughly. I had no hesitation in accepting the evidence of Mr Muirhead and Mr Richardson and the comments made by Mr Taumanu. In my opinion if EDELVEISS had not broken, then SPRINGFIELD ALLISON would not have broken. It was clear from the film and the evidence that the chances of SPRINGFIELD ALLISON were affected. I therefore upheld the protest and relegated EDELVEISS to immeidately behind SPRINGFIELD ALLISON, the placings then to be: --16 ? SHINE ON ALISHA --15 ? SILKY OAK --12 ? MISS HAND HOLDER --5 ? TALENTS INVASION --13 ? SPRINGFIELD ALLISON --2 - EDELVEISS |
| -- |
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules:
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 01a1fadf2a3560b06848e1898d16f961
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 19a5d619ca17cf6062501fa93c4f72a8
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 12/11/2004
meet_title: Cambridge HRC - 12 November 2004
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: cambridge-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Cambridge HRC