Canterbury JC – 12 April 2008 – Race 1
ID: JCA18306
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Canterbury JC - 12 April 2008
Race Date:
2008/04/12
Race Number:
Race 1
Decision: --
Information 30947 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 876(1) in that YOURS placed third by the Judge, interfered with the chances of PRINCESA placed fourth by the Judge, over the concluding stages.
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Information 30947 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 876(1) in that YOURS placed third by the Judge, interfered with the chances of PRINCESA placed fourth by the Judge, over the concluding stages.
--Following the running of Race 1 at the Canterbury Jockey Club's Autumn meeting on Saturday 12 April 2008, a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 876(1) of the Rules of Racing by Mr Brent Laming, the trainer of PRINCESA (T Newton) against the horse placed third by the Judge, YOURS (K Myers).
--It was alleged that interference occurred over the concluding stages of the race.
--Ms T Newton, the rider of PRINCESA, told the hearing that her horse was one that needed a lot of "persuasion". She said that YOURS made an inward movement towards her, and as a consequence, in the last 15 to 20 metres, she could not ride her horse out in the manner that she wanted to.
--In response, Ms K Myers, the rider of YOURS stated that whilst there was some inward movement by her horse, that any contact that was made was minimal and that in her opinion, could well have occurred just after the winning post. She was firmly of the view that she was not going to be beaten by PRINCESA. She believed that her horse was running better than Ms Newton's mount.
--Mr Laming enquired as to whether or not the position of the winning post could be adequately identified on the head-on camera view. There were some views expressed as to where it was in relation to when the interference occurred.
--Mr Thurlow, the owner and trainer of YOURS, stated that he believed that interference was minimal.
--Mr JP Oatham was given the opportunity of commenting on the incident. He was of the view that any interference was slight and did not warrant a change in the placings.
--Immediately following the hearing, we gave a preliminary decision in which we informed the hearing that the protest would be dismissed.
----
--
Preliminary Decision:
--In relation to the evidence we have had a quick look at the video coverage again. We have taken into account the submissions made by both riders and the connections. We are not exactly certain as to where the exact position of the interference was as to whether it was before the post, on the line or after the post. In any event any interference that there was, was certainly minimal in nature, and, in our opinion, it was insufficient to warrant a change in the placings.
--Substantive Decision:
--This Committee is of the view that any interference that occurred was slight and that there was some doubt as to exactly where the interference occurred. For that reason alone, we cannot be absolutely certain that there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the first test in Rule 876(1), namely that interference occurred. Therefore, there is no need for us to carry on to make further findings in relation to the remainder of Rule 876(1) and the protest is dismissed accordingly.
----
KG Hales
--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: 009827cd172f4212eef098577320adbf
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 12/04/2008
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 12 April 2008 - Race 1
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Information 30947 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 876(1) in that YOURS placed third by the Judge, interfered with the chances of PRINCESA placed fourth by the Judge, over the concluding stages.
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Information 30947 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 876(1) in that YOURS placed third by the Judge, interfered with the chances of PRINCESA placed fourth by the Judge, over the concluding stages.
--Following the running of Race 1 at the Canterbury Jockey Club's Autumn meeting on Saturday 12 April 2008, a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 876(1) of the Rules of Racing by Mr Brent Laming, the trainer of PRINCESA (T Newton) against the horse placed third by the Judge, YOURS (K Myers).
--It was alleged that interference occurred over the concluding stages of the race.
--Ms T Newton, the rider of PRINCESA, told the hearing that her horse was one that needed a lot of "persuasion". She said that YOURS made an inward movement towards her, and as a consequence, in the last 15 to 20 metres, she could not ride her horse out in the manner that she wanted to.
--In response, Ms K Myers, the rider of YOURS stated that whilst there was some inward movement by her horse, that any contact that was made was minimal and that in her opinion, could well have occurred just after the winning post. She was firmly of the view that she was not going to be beaten by PRINCESA. She believed that her horse was running better than Ms Newton's mount.
--Mr Laming enquired as to whether or not the position of the winning post could be adequately identified on the head-on camera view. There were some views expressed as to where it was in relation to when the interference occurred.
--Mr Thurlow, the owner and trainer of YOURS, stated that he believed that interference was minimal.
--Mr JP Oatham was given the opportunity of commenting on the incident. He was of the view that any interference was slight and did not warrant a change in the placings.
--Immediately following the hearing, we gave a preliminary decision in which we informed the hearing that the protest would be dismissed.
----
--
Preliminary Decision:
--In relation to the evidence we have had a quick look at the video coverage again. We have taken into account the submissions made by both riders and the connections. We are not exactly certain as to where the exact position of the interference was as to whether it was before the post, on the line or after the post. In any event any interference that there was, was certainly minimal in nature, and, in our opinion, it was insufficient to warrant a change in the placings.
--Substantive Decision:
--This Committee is of the view that any interference that occurred was slight and that there was some doubt as to exactly where the interference occurred. For that reason alone, we cannot be absolutely certain that there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the first test in Rule 876(1), namely that interference occurred. Therefore, there is no need for us to carry on to make further findings in relation to the remainder of Rule 876(1) and the protest is dismissed accordingly.
----
KG Hales
--Chairman
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 876.1
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 46a3674a1aca12f034fe6f1eb8c9d01d
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 879013fa0a5efe6c3d0b035e71b94b64
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 12/04/2008
meet_title: Canterbury JC - 12 April 2008
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Canterbury JC