Canterbury JC – 10 November 2007 – Race 7
ID: JCA22176
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Canterbury JC - 10 November 2007
Race Date:
2007/11/10
Race Number:
Race 7
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 7, New Zealand Bloodstock 1000 Guineas (Group 1), an information instigating a protest was filed by L G Innes, rider of KEEPA CRUISIN placed 3rd by the judge, alleging that LOVETRISTA (J L Waddell) or its rider, placed 2nd by the judge, interfered with the chances of KEEPA CRUISIN, the interference occurring inside the 200 metres
--
Following the running of Race 7, New Zealand Bloodstock 1000 Guineas (Group 1), an information instigating a protest was filed by L G Innes, rider of KEEPA CRUISIN placed 3rd by the judge, alleging that LOVETRISTA (J L Waddell) or its rider, placed 2nd by the judge, interfered with the chances of KEEPA CRUISIN, the interference occurring inside the 200 metres.
----Present at the hearing of the information were Mr Innes, Mr S J McKee trainer of KEEPA CRUISIN, Mr R Williams representing Karreman Bloodstock Limited, owner of KEEPA CRUISIN, Mr J L Waddell, Mr J G Sargent, trainer of LOVETRISTA and Sir Patrick Hogan, a part-owner of LOVETRISTA.
----Mr Innes stated that KEEPA CRUISIN was denied "a rightful line of finishing better" in the Race. He said that the Race had been run at a very slow tempo and the final 400 metres was "a very fast sprint home". He pointed out on the video replay that he had angled his mount outside the heels of the leader, INSOUCIANT, and then "copped a very severe bump" from its rightful line of running which, he had no doubt, had cost him 2nd placing. The margin between 2nd and 3rd was a neck. LOVETRISTA had moved in and bumped his mount sideways, he said. At the time, he was making ground on the leader.
----Mr McKee stated that the movement by LOVETRISTA was obvious and that it had impeded the rightful line of KEEPA CRUISIN and halted her momentum at a crucial stage of the Race.
----Mr Waddell pointed out on the video replay that LOVETRISTA had rolled in under pressure at approximately the 200 metre mark – she had lugged in the whole way down the straight. He said that INSOUCIANT had moved out with KEEPA CRUISIN as LOVETRISTA had given KEEPA CRUISIN a bump. He submitted that KEEPA CRUISIN was such a small filly that it had "ricocheted" off LOVETRISTA. He had to stop riding his mount also, he said.
----Mr Sargent submitted that KEEPA CRUISIN had come out as well as LOVETRISTA shifting in. KEEPA CRUISIN was not going good enough to get through the gap, he said. Mr Sargent referred to the side-on video replay and stated that KEEPA CRUISIN had the opportunity to make up the ground. He said that the margin was a neck rather than a nose.
----Sir Patrick Hogan also referred to the video replays. He accepted that LOVETRISTA had shifted in. He pointed to KEEPA CRUISIN knock another runner (ANNA BEK) out of its way in looking for a run and had come out. He submitted that there was an equal contribution by both horses to the bumping incident. He submitted that, if the 2nd and 3rd placings had been reversed, LOVETRISTA would have been entitled to protest.
----Mr C J George, Chief Stipendiary Steward, said that KEEPA CRUISIN had improved up to race behind the then leader and eventual winner, INSOUCIANT, and had then shifted to one horse off the fence and, in doing so, had obtained running to which it was entitled. From that point, KEEPA CRUISIN was entitled to maintain that line of running. LOVETRISTA commenced to shift ground inwards of its own accord whilst under pressure. He pointed out on the video replay LOVETRISTA "clearly hamper" the running line of KEEPA CRUISIN and take it off that line to which it was entitled. He stated that, at that point, he believed that LOVETRISTA was a head to half a neck in front of KEEPA CRUISIN and, in shifting in, it had denied KEEPA CRUISIN the opportunity of maintaining its rightful line of running.
----The Committee carefully considered the evidence and submissions of the parties and the comments of Mr George and, in addition, carefully viewed the video replays of the final stages of the Race.
----The Committee was satisfied, firstly, that there was interference by LOVETRISTA to KEEPA CRUISIN inside the final 200 metres of the Race. All of the rider, trainer and part-owner of LOVETRISTA acknowledged that the filly had shifted ground inwards. Mr Waddell admitted that his filly had given KEEPA CRUISIN a bump. The inward movement and the bump were both clearly apparent from the video replays. The Committee found that KEEPA CRUISIN had been behind INSOUCIANT nearing the 200 metres and was then angled out by Mr Innes outside the heels of INSOUCIANT. It was then in a gap and had clear running to the finish. At that point, LOVETRISTA shifted in and jostled KEEPA CRUISIN, unbalancing that filly and moving her back in behind INSOUCIANT. This, quite clearly, amounted to interference by LOVETRISTA to KEEPA CRUISIN.
----Having found that interference took place, the Committee was required to determine whether that interference had interfered with the chances of KEEPA CRUISIN in terms of Rule 876 (1). The Committee was satisfied that its chances had been interfered with. KEEPA CRUISIN had just been angled out for a run by Mr Innes and was mounting a challenge having got out from behind the leader and into a clear gap. The interference had the effect of taking KEEPA CRUISIN off its rightful line, in addition to significantly checking its momentum at a crucial stage of the Race. KEEPA CRUISIN was, effectively, denied the opportunity of competing over the final 100 metres or so of the Race and the official margin of a neck between 2nd and 3rd was significant in this regard.
----The Committee was satisfied, having regard to all of the circumstances, that the protest should be upheld and, accordingly, LOVETRISTA was relegated from 2nd to 3rd placing and KEEPA CRUISIN was promoted from 3rd to 2nd placing. Consequent upon the relegation, the amended placings for the Race are as follows:
----1st 4 INSOUCIANT
--2nd 5 KEEPA CRUISIN
--3rd 8 LOVETRISTA
--4th 6 LADY LUCILLE
--5th 10 RATHSALLAGH
------
R G McKenzie
----CHAIRMAN
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: d2aba048c6fdba33b6942d00e3b4cd53
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 10/11/2007
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 10 November 2007 - Race 7
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 7, New Zealand Bloodstock 1000 Guineas (Group 1), an information instigating a protest was filed by L G Innes, rider of KEEPA CRUISIN placed 3rd by the judge, alleging that LOVETRISTA (J L Waddell) or its rider, placed 2nd by the judge, interfered with the chances of KEEPA CRUISIN, the interference occurring inside the 200 metres
--
Following the running of Race 7, New Zealand Bloodstock 1000 Guineas (Group 1), an information instigating a protest was filed by L G Innes, rider of KEEPA CRUISIN placed 3rd by the judge, alleging that LOVETRISTA (J L Waddell) or its rider, placed 2nd by the judge, interfered with the chances of KEEPA CRUISIN, the interference occurring inside the 200 metres.
----Present at the hearing of the information were Mr Innes, Mr S J McKee trainer of KEEPA CRUISIN, Mr R Williams representing Karreman Bloodstock Limited, owner of KEEPA CRUISIN, Mr J L Waddell, Mr J G Sargent, trainer of LOVETRISTA and Sir Patrick Hogan, a part-owner of LOVETRISTA.
----Mr Innes stated that KEEPA CRUISIN was denied "a rightful line of finishing better" in the Race. He said that the Race had been run at a very slow tempo and the final 400 metres was "a very fast sprint home". He pointed out on the video replay that he had angled his mount outside the heels of the leader, INSOUCIANT, and then "copped a very severe bump" from its rightful line of running which, he had no doubt, had cost him 2nd placing. The margin between 2nd and 3rd was a neck. LOVETRISTA had moved in and bumped his mount sideways, he said. At the time, he was making ground on the leader.
----Mr McKee stated that the movement by LOVETRISTA was obvious and that it had impeded the rightful line of KEEPA CRUISIN and halted her momentum at a crucial stage of the Race.
----Mr Waddell pointed out on the video replay that LOVETRISTA had rolled in under pressure at approximately the 200 metre mark – she had lugged in the whole way down the straight. He said that INSOUCIANT had moved out with KEEPA CRUISIN as LOVETRISTA had given KEEPA CRUISIN a bump. He submitted that KEEPA CRUISIN was such a small filly that it had "ricocheted" off LOVETRISTA. He had to stop riding his mount also, he said.
----Mr Sargent submitted that KEEPA CRUISIN had come out as well as LOVETRISTA shifting in. KEEPA CRUISIN was not going good enough to get through the gap, he said. Mr Sargent referred to the side-on video replay and stated that KEEPA CRUISIN had the opportunity to make up the ground. He said that the margin was a neck rather than a nose.
----Sir Patrick Hogan also referred to the video replays. He accepted that LOVETRISTA had shifted in. He pointed to KEEPA CRUISIN knock another runner (ANNA BEK) out of its way in looking for a run and had come out. He submitted that there was an equal contribution by both horses to the bumping incident. He submitted that, if the 2nd and 3rd placings had been reversed, LOVETRISTA would have been entitled to protest.
----Mr C J George, Chief Stipendiary Steward, said that KEEPA CRUISIN had improved up to race behind the then leader and eventual winner, INSOUCIANT, and had then shifted to one horse off the fence and, in doing so, had obtained running to which it was entitled. From that point, KEEPA CRUISIN was entitled to maintain that line of running. LOVETRISTA commenced to shift ground inwards of its own accord whilst under pressure. He pointed out on the video replay LOVETRISTA "clearly hamper" the running line of KEEPA CRUISIN and take it off that line to which it was entitled. He stated that, at that point, he believed that LOVETRISTA was a head to half a neck in front of KEEPA CRUISIN and, in shifting in, it had denied KEEPA CRUISIN the opportunity of maintaining its rightful line of running.
----The Committee carefully considered the evidence and submissions of the parties and the comments of Mr George and, in addition, carefully viewed the video replays of the final stages of the Race.
----The Committee was satisfied, firstly, that there was interference by LOVETRISTA to KEEPA CRUISIN inside the final 200 metres of the Race. All of the rider, trainer and part-owner of LOVETRISTA acknowledged that the filly had shifted ground inwards. Mr Waddell admitted that his filly had given KEEPA CRUISIN a bump. The inward movement and the bump were both clearly apparent from the video replays. The Committee found that KEEPA CRUISIN had been behind INSOUCIANT nearing the 200 metres and was then angled out by Mr Innes outside the heels of INSOUCIANT. It was then in a gap and had clear running to the finish. At that point, LOVETRISTA shifted in and jostled KEEPA CRUISIN, unbalancing that filly and moving her back in behind INSOUCIANT. This, quite clearly, amounted to interference by LOVETRISTA to KEEPA CRUISIN.
----Having found that interference took place, the Committee was required to determine whether that interference had interfered with the chances of KEEPA CRUISIN in terms of Rule 876 (1). The Committee was satisfied that its chances had been interfered with. KEEPA CRUISIN had just been angled out for a run by Mr Innes and was mounting a challenge having got out from behind the leader and into a clear gap. The interference had the effect of taking KEEPA CRUISIN off its rightful line, in addition to significantly checking its momentum at a crucial stage of the Race. KEEPA CRUISIN was, effectively, denied the opportunity of competing over the final 100 metres or so of the Race and the official margin of a neck between 2nd and 3rd was significant in this regard.
----The Committee was satisfied, having regard to all of the circumstances, that the protest should be upheld and, accordingly, LOVETRISTA was relegated from 2nd to 3rd placing and KEEPA CRUISIN was promoted from 3rd to 2nd placing. Consequent upon the relegation, the amended placings for the Race are as follows:
----1st 4 INSOUCIANT
--2nd 5 KEEPA CRUISIN
--3rd 8 LOVETRISTA
--4th 6 LADY LUCILLE
--5th 10 RATHSALLAGH
------
R G McKenzie
----CHAIRMAN
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 876.1
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 552789d03f1b17ff2e41905efc05ca7d
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: d9d297bc7d17d97895cf61f4841f8056
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 10/11/2007
meet_title: Canterbury JC - 10 November 2007
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Canterbury JC