Canterbury JC – 14 December 2006 – Race 6
ID: JCA20809
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 6, the Dunstan Feeds Championship Qualifier, Mr P. D. J. Harris, the trainer of "Magnanimous" (6), which finished 2nd in the race, laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1) against 1st place being awarded to "Centavo"
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 6, the Dunstan Feeds Championship Qualifier, Mr P. D. J. Harris, the trainer of "Magnanimous" (6), which finished 2nd in the race, laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1) against 1st place being awarded to "Centavo" (3) ridden by Mr J. Bullard.
----The information reads as follows.
------"I allege that Centavo or its rider placed 1st by the judge interfered with the chances of Magnanimous placed 2nd by the judge. The interference occurred over the concluding stages."
--Rule 876(1) reads as follows.
--"If, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, a horse placed by the Judge or its rider has interfered with the chances of any other horse or horses placed by the Judge then, subject to sub-rule 2 hereof, the Judicial Committee may place such first-mentioned horse immediately after the horse or horses so interfered with.
--Sub-rule 2 did not apply in this case.
----Mr Harris was accompanied by the rider of "Magnanimous", Mr Patrick Holmes, and Mr Harris also undertook to represent the interests of the owner of that horse. Mr Williams did not attend the hearing and Mr Bullard advised that he would represent the trainer and the owners of "Centavo". A call had been made for the owners of "Centavo" to attend the hearing, but no one had attended by the time the hearing concluded.
--Mr Ching used video coverage of the incident to show that "Centavo" had made its run down the outside and had moved inwards dictating the line of "Magnanimous" for a short distance over the concluding stages of the race. After this incident both horses were ridden out to the finish with the margin between 1st and 2nd being a short neck.
--It was Mr Harris's case that there had been interference in that when "Centavo" was about ? to ? length in front of his horse it had moved inwards and taken his line. Mr Holmes then had to straighten "Magnanimous" which had cost his horse 1st place. Mr Holmes confirmed that he was ? to ? length behind "Centavo" when this incident occurred, and that his horse had run on afterwards to be a short neck behind at the finish.
--Mr Bullard said that there had been no contact between the two horses, but he agreed that it had moved inwards before he had been able to straighten it. It was Mr Bullard's belief that this incident had not affected the result of the race.
--Stipendiary Steward Mr Ching had been present throughout the hearing and he exercised his right to give evidence in accordance with the Rules. Mr Ching said that there was some inwards movement by "Centavo" into the line of "Magnanimous" and that "Magnanimous" was inconvenienced. Mr Ching also said that the rider of "Magnanimous" had to momentarily stop riding. Mr Ching said that a decision on whether to relegate or not was up to the Committee.
--After the completion of the evidence we took time to consider our decision. After due consideration, and as the next race was about to start, we re-convened the hearing and advised the parties that this protest would be dismissed, and that full reasons for the decision would be put in writing and given later.
--Our reasons for this decision were that we were satisfied that there was very minor interference for a short distance near the end of the race. After having seen the video coverage and hearing the evidence we were satisfied "Centavo" was travelling much better than "Magnanimous" and had come from behind with its winning run. We were therefore satisfied that this interference did not affect the chances of "Magnanimous" finishing in better place, and that the protest should be dismissed.
--Note: This protest was heard at the same time as the protest by "Ultramarine" against "Magnanimous" (Information No. 30153). Both protests were dismissed at the same time.
----
JM Phelan
--Chairman
--Decision Date: 14/12/2006
Publish Date: 14/12/2006
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: 99726474686320d64248f2b3286c02f7
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 14/12/2006
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 14 December 2006 - Race 6
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 6, the Dunstan Feeds Championship Qualifier, Mr P. D. J. Harris, the trainer of "Magnanimous" (6), which finished 2nd in the race, laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1) against 1st place being awarded to "Centavo"
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 6, the Dunstan Feeds Championship Qualifier, Mr P. D. J. Harris, the trainer of "Magnanimous" (6), which finished 2nd in the race, laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1) against 1st place being awarded to "Centavo" (3) ridden by Mr J. Bullard.
----The information reads as follows.
------"I allege that Centavo or its rider placed 1st by the judge interfered with the chances of Magnanimous placed 2nd by the judge. The interference occurred over the concluding stages."
--Rule 876(1) reads as follows.
--"If, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, a horse placed by the Judge or its rider has interfered with the chances of any other horse or horses placed by the Judge then, subject to sub-rule 2 hereof, the Judicial Committee may place such first-mentioned horse immediately after the horse or horses so interfered with.
--Sub-rule 2 did not apply in this case.
----Mr Harris was accompanied by the rider of "Magnanimous", Mr Patrick Holmes, and Mr Harris also undertook to represent the interests of the owner of that horse. Mr Williams did not attend the hearing and Mr Bullard advised that he would represent the trainer and the owners of "Centavo". A call had been made for the owners of "Centavo" to attend the hearing, but no one had attended by the time the hearing concluded.
--Mr Ching used video coverage of the incident to show that "Centavo" had made its run down the outside and had moved inwards dictating the line of "Magnanimous" for a short distance over the concluding stages of the race. After this incident both horses were ridden out to the finish with the margin between 1st and 2nd being a short neck.
--It was Mr Harris's case that there had been interference in that when "Centavo" was about ? to ? length in front of his horse it had moved inwards and taken his line. Mr Holmes then had to straighten "Magnanimous" which had cost his horse 1st place. Mr Holmes confirmed that he was ? to ? length behind "Centavo" when this incident occurred, and that his horse had run on afterwards to be a short neck behind at the finish.
--Mr Bullard said that there had been no contact between the two horses, but he agreed that it had moved inwards before he had been able to straighten it. It was Mr Bullard's belief that this incident had not affected the result of the race.
--Stipendiary Steward Mr Ching had been present throughout the hearing and he exercised his right to give evidence in accordance with the Rules. Mr Ching said that there was some inwards movement by "Centavo" into the line of "Magnanimous" and that "Magnanimous" was inconvenienced. Mr Ching also said that the rider of "Magnanimous" had to momentarily stop riding. Mr Ching said that a decision on whether to relegate or not was up to the Committee.
--After the completion of the evidence we took time to consider our decision. After due consideration, and as the next race was about to start, we re-convened the hearing and advised the parties that this protest would be dismissed, and that full reasons for the decision would be put in writing and given later.
--Our reasons for this decision were that we were satisfied that there was very minor interference for a short distance near the end of the race. After having seen the video coverage and hearing the evidence we were satisfied "Centavo" was travelling much better than "Magnanimous" and had come from behind with its winning run. We were therefore satisfied that this interference did not affect the chances of "Magnanimous" finishing in better place, and that the protest should be dismissed.
--Note:
This protest was heard at the same time as the protest by "Ultramarine" against "Magnanimous" (Information No. 30153). Both protests were dismissed at the same time.----
JM Phelan
--Chairman
--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: