Canterbury JC – 8 May 2010 – R 2

hearingid: e9c528c6e1d535847bc6ee2c5ac9a7d5

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 08/05/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 8 May 2010 - R 2

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr C. J. George – Chief Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  N/A

Information No:  283 (Instigating a Protest)

Meeting:  Canterbury Jockey Club             

Date:  8 May 2010

Venue:  Riccarton Park           

Race:  2 -Avon City Ford Premier Three-Year-Old Gold Cup

Rule:  642(1)

Judicial Committee:  J. M. Phelan, Chairman

Also Present:  Miss A. M. Mundy – Licensed Jockey

                          Mr P. Williams – Co-trainer

                          Mr K. Bell – Member of owner syndicate

                          Mr C. W. Johnson – Licensed Jockey

                          Mr M. C. Stokes – Co-trainer and owner        

Prior to this hearing commencing Mr Hales declared a conflict in relation to Mr M. C. Stokes, the co-trainer and owner of “Issues”, as he was a client of his firm.  Mr Hales then withdrew from the hearing.

The Protest:

            Following the running of Race 2, the Avon City Ford Premier Three-Year-Old Gold Cup, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Miss A. M. Mundy, Licensed Jockey, under Rule 642(1).

The information reads as follows.

“I allege that Issues or its rider placed second by the judge caused interference to Miss Purrfection placed fourth by the judge.  The interference occurred in the final straight.”

Rule 642(1) reads as follows.

“If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 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.”

Present at the hearing were Miss A. M. Mundy (Jockey), Mr P. Williams (co-trainer), and Mr K. Bell (member of owner syndicate), the connections of “Miss Purrfection” (1).  Also present were Mr M. C. Stokes (co-trainer and owner) and Mr C. W. Johnson (Jockey), the connections of “Issues” (2).

Facts:

In this race “Issues” (2) finished 2^nd, with 2¼ lengths to the 3^rd horse and a further nose to “Miss Purrfection” (1) which finished 4^th.

Miss Mundy used video coverage to show that in the straight a gap appeared and she was attempting to make a run on the inside of “Issues”.  That horse then moved inwards closing the gap.  Miss Mundy said that as a result her progress was hampered (she believed) for at least ten strides. It was also Miss Mundy’s evidence that as a result of this interference she was denied the chance of finishing in front of “Issues”.

Mr Williams gave evidence in support of Miss Mundy.  He said that Mr Johnson had clearly come over for ten strides and that his horse had been stopped in its tracks.

Mr Stokes gave evidence that although there was some hampering of “Miss Purrfection’s” progress, there was plenty of “clean air” to enable the horse to run on had it been good enough, and it was relevant that she couldn’t even run past the horse on the outside of it.

Submissions:

On behalf of the connections of “Miss Purrfection” Miss Mundy said that the effect of the interference was to cause her to be held up for a run for ten strides.  Mr Williams supported these submissions.

It was Mr Stokes’ submission that “Miss Purrfection” had every chance to make up ground, and that it was never going to beat “Issues”.

Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr George had been present during this hearing and he was asked if he wished to make submissions about the protest.  Mr George said that he had concerns about the protest because of the margin between second and fourth.

After the completion of the evidence I adjourned the hearing to consider my decision.

Reasons:

After reviewing the evidence I was satisfied that there was some interference to the progress of “Miss Purrfection”, and that this interference did hamper the progress of that horse, and it did lose a little ground.

Before a protest can be upheld I must first find that there has been interference.  In this case I was satisfied that there was some interference which did impede the progress of “Miss Purrfection”.  To uphold the protest I must also be satisfied that, but for the interference, the affected horse (“Miss Purrfection”) would have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference (“Issues”).  The margin between 2^nd and 4^th was 2¼ lengths plus a nose.  I was not satisfied that “Miss Purrfection” would have finished ahead of “Issues” in the circumstances, and therefore decided that the protest should be dismissed.

Decision:

On resuming the hearing the third race was about to start, this race having already been put back by 5 minutes because of this protest and the protest in race 1.  For this reason I stated that a full written decision would be given later (as set out above), and advised that the protest was dismissed.

J. M. Phelan

CHAIR

283     

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 642(1)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: e1922ff717b7a9a4460a97b1b121029e

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R 2

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 3ba9704b064a575a4b01556fd040ffdf

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 08/05/2010

meet_title: Canterbury JC - 8 May 2010

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: canterbury-jc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair: tom

meet_pm1: tom

meet_pm2: tom

name: Canterbury JC