Canterbury JC 6 June 2018 – R 7 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr R McKenzie
ID: JCA15383
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 6 June 2018
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2018/06/06
Race Number:
R7
Decision:
The protest was dismissed.
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the judge’s placings as above.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 7, Racecourse Hotel & Motor Lodge Rating 65, an Information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Trainers (Class A), Messrs M R & M M Pitman, trainers of SMILING ASSASSIN (S R F Weatherley), placed 2nd by the judge, against HEEL BE JAKE (K Williams), trained by the Respondents, Messrs Harris & Moore, placed 1st by the judge, on the ground of “interference over the closing stages”.
Present at the hearing were Mr M M Pitman, Mr S R F Weatherley, Messrs P D J Harris and K J Moore (trainers of HEEL BE JAKE) and Ms K Williams.
Rule 642 provides as follows:
(1) If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with
The judge’s placings were:
1st - 1 Heel Be Jake
2nd - 2 Smiling Assassin
3rd - 10 I’llav Bubbles
4th - 8 Tuilana
5th - 6 Rapt N Red
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a half neck.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Weatherley, representing the connections of SMILING ASSASSIN, said that his mount was just starting to “get into his work” entering the home straight. He pointed out on the video replays the position of his mount between the eventual winner, HEEL BE JAKE, and I’LLAV BUBBLES (ST Collett). He said that there was a run there for him and he was intending to take that gap. His mount was gaining a lot of momentum at that stage. HEEL BE JAKE then crossed into his line and stopped his horse’s momentum on three occasions in the run home. In the heavy ground, and to run the winner to a half neck, Mr Weatherley said, he was confident he would have won the race but for the interference received. It was difficult to pick up momentum in the prevailing track conditions, he said.
Mr Pitman said that there had been three points of interference – when SMILING ASSASSIN had first been denied the gap, when it was crossed by HEEL BE JAKE and when that runner rolled out again towards the finish. These had cost SMILING ASSASSIN the race, he submitted.
Ms Williams, representing the connections of HEEL BE JAKE, said that her horse had rolled in “half a stride” early in the run home, causing her to stop riding and straighten it. However, the gap for Mr Weatherley did not fully close. Her horse had been “rolling around” and she was forced to stop using the whip to keep it running straight. Mr Weatherley had drawn his whip before she did, Ms Williams said. Mr Weatherley had 150-200 metres to run her down, she submitted, and her mount was holding SMILING ASSASSIN at the line.
Mr Harris was given the opportunity to speak. He referred to the first incident just after turning for home. Both horses rolled in and Mr Weatherley took a hold. Mr Weatherley had every opportunity to take the gap but his mount was not travelling well enough, he submitted. Mr Weatherley did make ground but when he came out his mount “stumbled” and lost momentum. Further, he said, SMILING ASSASSIN had the entire length of the straight to get past but HEEL BE JAKE had won decisively.
Stipendiary Steward, Mr J M McLaughlin, said that it was the Stewards’ view that the protest was not without merit. The initial movement was at about the 250 metres, he said. When Ms Williams crossed SMILING ASSASSIN, it was just inside the 200 metres and then she drifted out approaching the 100 metres. He left it to the Committee to determine whether the placings should be changed.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee had listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties and Mr McLaughlin and had carefully viewed the available video replays of the final 300 metres of the race.
Referring to the first alleged incident of interference, the Committee is not satisfied that it amounted to interference. There was a clear gap initially for Mr Weatherley but, despite urging his mount with the whip, it was unable to improve into that gap. The gap subsequently closed.
The most significant incident of alleged interference was the second one when Ms Williams’ mount drifted in and crossed Mr Weatherley, who had to stop riding for a couple of strides and change ground. The Committee accepts that interference took place at that point.
From that point to the finishing line, HEEL BE JAKE did drift out slightly but the Committee is not satisfied that this forced SMILING ASSASSIN over significant extra ground affecting its chances. Any interference at that stage of the race was minor.
The Committee needed to determine whether, in the light of the evidence of the parties and the video replays, but for any interference, SMILING ASSASSIN would have beaten HEEL BE JAKE. In finding that this was not the case, the Committee had regard, in particular, to the manner in which the two horses finished over the concluding stages of the race and the half neck margin between the two runners at the finish which, the Committee considered, was significant. Over the concluding stages, Mr Weatherley was able to ride his mount out to the fullest extent but his mount was being comfortably held at the finishing line.
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: 8be457c67bf074935f9047d95799ede4
informantnumber: A8169
horsename: HEEL BE JAKE
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 08/06/2018
hearing_title: Canterbury JC 6 June 2018 - R 7 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr R McKenzie
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 7, Racecourse Hotel & Motor Lodge Rating 65, an Information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Trainers (Class A), Messrs M R & M M Pitman, trainers of SMILING ASSASSIN (S R F Weatherley), placed 2nd by the judge, against HEEL BE JAKE (K Williams), trained by the Respondents, Messrs Harris & Moore, placed 1st by the judge, on the ground of “interference over the closing stages”.
Present at the hearing were Mr M M Pitman, Mr S R F Weatherley, Messrs P D J Harris and K J Moore (trainers of HEEL BE JAKE) and Ms K Williams.
Rule 642 provides as follows:
(1) If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with
The judge’s placings were:
1st - 1 Heel Be Jake
2nd - 2 Smiling Assassin
3rd - 10 I’llav Bubbles
4th - 8 Tuilana
5th - 6 Rapt N Red
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a half neck.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Weatherley, representing the connections of SMILING ASSASSIN, said that his mount was just starting to “get into his work” entering the home straight. He pointed out on the video replays the position of his mount between the eventual winner, HEEL BE JAKE, and I’LLAV BUBBLES (ST Collett). He said that there was a run there for him and he was intending to take that gap. His mount was gaining a lot of momentum at that stage. HEEL BE JAKE then crossed into his line and stopped his horse’s momentum on three occasions in the run home. In the heavy ground, and to run the winner to a half neck, Mr Weatherley said, he was confident he would have won the race but for the interference received. It was difficult to pick up momentum in the prevailing track conditions, he said.
Mr Pitman said that there had been three points of interference – when SMILING ASSASSIN had first been denied the gap, when it was crossed by HEEL BE JAKE and when that runner rolled out again towards the finish. These had cost SMILING ASSASSIN the race, he submitted.
Ms Williams, representing the connections of HEEL BE JAKE, said that her horse had rolled in “half a stride” early in the run home, causing her to stop riding and straighten it. However, the gap for Mr Weatherley did not fully close. Her horse had been “rolling around” and she was forced to stop using the whip to keep it running straight. Mr Weatherley had drawn his whip before she did, Ms Williams said. Mr Weatherley had 150-200 metres to run her down, she submitted, and her mount was holding SMILING ASSASSIN at the line.
Mr Harris was given the opportunity to speak. He referred to the first incident just after turning for home. Both horses rolled in and Mr Weatherley took a hold. Mr Weatherley had every opportunity to take the gap but his mount was not travelling well enough, he submitted. Mr Weatherley did make ground but when he came out his mount “stumbled” and lost momentum. Further, he said, SMILING ASSASSIN had the entire length of the straight to get past but HEEL BE JAKE had won decisively.
Stipendiary Steward, Mr J M McLaughlin, said that it was the Stewards’ view that the protest was not without merit. The initial movement was at about the 250 metres, he said. When Ms Williams crossed SMILING ASSASSIN, it was just inside the 200 metres and then she drifted out approaching the 100 metres. He left it to the Committee to determine whether the placings should be changed.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee had listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties and Mr McLaughlin and had carefully viewed the available video replays of the final 300 metres of the race.
Referring to the first alleged incident of interference, the Committee is not satisfied that it amounted to interference. There was a clear gap initially for Mr Weatherley but, despite urging his mount with the whip, it was unable to improve into that gap. The gap subsequently closed.
The most significant incident of alleged interference was the second one when Ms Williams’ mount drifted in and crossed Mr Weatherley, who had to stop riding for a couple of strides and change ground. The Committee accepts that interference took place at that point.
From that point to the finishing line, HEEL BE JAKE did drift out slightly but the Committee is not satisfied that this forced SMILING ASSASSIN over significant extra ground affecting its chances. Any interference at that stage of the race was minor.
The Committee needed to determine whether, in the light of the evidence of the parties and the video replays, but for any interference, SMILING ASSASSIN would have beaten HEEL BE JAKE. In finding that this was not the case, the Committee had regard, in particular, to the manner in which the two horses finished over the concluding stages of the race and the half neck margin between the two runners at the finish which, the Committee considered, was significant. Over the concluding stages, Mr Weatherley was able to ride his mount out to the fullest extent but his mount was being comfortably held at the finishing line.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed.
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the judge’s placings as above.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr MR and Mr MM Pitman- Licensed Trainers (Class A)
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr SRF Weatherley - Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class B), Ms K Williams - Licensed Jockey (Class A)
Respondent: Mr PDJ Harris - Licensed Trainer (Class B), Mr KJ Moore - Licensed Trainer (Class B)
StipendSteward:
raceid: 04eb56e5d77f53593742a825b87fd34c
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 352f45077ab7b4203a90236d3ffe7ad9
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 06/06/2018
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 6 June 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury Racing