Archive Decision

This decision has been migrated from the JCA website. Information is accurate but formatting may differ from contemporary decisions. Please contact us for any further enquiries.

Cambridge JC – 20 November 2005 –

ID: JCA18625

Hearing Type:
Old Hearing

Rules:
876.1

Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing

Decision: --

Following race 5 a protest was filed pursuant to Rule 876(1) when it was alleged by the informant, Ms L Cropp, that NIARLA or its rider placed first by the Judge interfered with the chances of RED CHIEF placed fourth by the Judge.



--

DECISION & REASON:

--

Following race 5 a protest was filed pursuant to Rule 876(1) when it was alleged by the informant, Ms L Cropp, that NIARLA or its rider placed first by the Judge interfered with the chances of RED CHIEF placed fourth by the Judge.

--

--

Mr Gussey represented the owners of NIARLA and Mr Jelicich with Ms Cropp representing RED CHIEF.

--

--

Ms Cropp demonstrated the video which showed the horses rounding the turn into the final straight. She claimed that NIARLA came up on her inside and forced her out wider hampering her for 2 strides. She maintained that as the margin between third and fourth was only a short neck, and when the horses are racing 1200 metres in 1.10 any check must be regarded as serious. She said that she stopped riding for a stride.

--

--

Stipendiary Steward J Oatham showed the film down the whole straight and suggested that this would help with our decision.

--

--

The Committee after reviewing the film and all evidence considered that slight outward movement did occur by Miss Cheshire's mount, however RED CHIEF had already shown a tendency to shift ground outwards. There was always a gap between the horses and RED CHIEF did not gain any ground on third placed horse OUR FIRST CHANCE in the run to the finish. Consequently we dismiss the protest and the Judge's placings stand.

Decision Date: 20/11/2005

Publish Date: 20/11/2005

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: 1b046a21e6281cf96caac84523972817


informantnumber:


horsename:


hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing


startdate: 20/11/2005


newcharge:


plea:


penaltyrequired:


decisiondate: no date provided


hearing_title: Cambridge JC - 20 November 2005 -


charge:


facts:


appealdecision:


isappeal:


submissionsfordecision:


reasonsfordecision:


Decision:

--

Following race 5 a protest was filed pursuant to Rule 876(1) when it was alleged by the informant, Ms L Cropp, that NIARLA or its rider placed first by the Judge interfered with the chances of RED CHIEF placed fourth by the Judge.



--

DECISION & REASON:

--

Following race 5 a protest was filed pursuant to Rule 876(1) when it was alleged by the informant, Ms L Cropp, that NIARLA or its rider placed first by the Judge interfered with the chances of RED CHIEF placed fourth by the Judge.

--

--

Mr Gussey represented the owners of NIARLA and Mr Jelicich with Ms Cropp representing RED CHIEF.

--

--

Ms Cropp demonstrated the video which showed the horses rounding the turn into the final straight. She claimed that NIARLA came up on her inside and forced her out wider hampering her for 2 strides. She maintained that as the margin between third and fourth was only a short neck, and when the horses are racing 1200 metres in 1.10 any check must be regarded as serious. She said that she stopped riding for a stride.

--

--

Stipendiary Steward J Oatham showed the film down the whole straight and suggested that this would help with our decision.

--

--

The Committee after reviewing the film and all evidence considered that slight outward movement did occur by Miss Cheshire's mount, however RED CHIEF had already shown a tendency to shift ground outwards. There was always a gap between the horses and RED CHIEF did not gain any ground on third placed horse OUR FIRST CHANCE in the run to the finish. Consequently we dismiss the protest and the Judge's placings stand.


sumissionsforpenalty:


reasonsforpenalty:


penalty:


hearing_type: Old Hearing


Rules: 876.1


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: