Canterbury R 17 November 2012 – R 4 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA16080
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 17 November 2012
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2012/11/17
Race Number:
R 4
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was upheld and amended placings read:
1st DANCER’S TALE
2ND QUINTETTE
3rd CHOICE SNITZEL
4th SPARKLING MINE
5th CHARLESTOWN
Dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
Facts:
Following Race 4, The Barneswood Farm Agistment Welcome Stakes, a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1).
Mr M Cameron alleged that horse number 5 (CHOICE SNITZEL) or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 9 (QUINTETTE) placed 3rd by the Judge. He alleged interference in the final 200m when CHOICE SNITZEL shifted ground onto QUINTETTE.
Judges placings were:
1st DANCER’S TALE
2ND CHOICE SNITZEL
3rd QUINTETTE
4th SPARKLING MINE
5th CHARLESTOWN
The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was half a neck.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Cameron explained, by way of the head-on video, that with approximately 200m to run he received two to three sharp bumps from CHOICE SNITZEL, the horse on his inside, ridden by Ms McGregor. This pushed QUINTETTE off-stride and whilst there was no further contact CHOICE SNITZEL continued to move out forcing Mr Cameron wider on the track. The interference unbalanced QUINTETTE and she did not hit the line as well as she should have. Mr Cameron was firm in his belief that he would have beaten CHOICE SNITZEL if he had received a clear run. He said with 2 year olds being green they, in particular, needed to be well balanced in the run to the line.
Mr Bridgman said these black-type races were very important for fillies however he would have lodged a protest even if his horse had been a gelding. He used the rear-view video to show how QUINTETTE had been knocked sideways and lost her hind-end action as a result of the interference from CHOICE SNITZEL. He said from that point on QUINTETTE lost all her momentum and had to rebalance and try to make up ground. He also said there was a psychological effect on lightly raced 2 year olds where they lose focus if they get hit during a race. Mr Bridgman said considering the half neck margin he was certain his horse would have beaten CHOICE SNITZEL if it had received a clear run.
Ms McGregor conceded she had made contact with QUINTETTE and she agreed that 2 year olds lose all concentration when they make contact with another runner in a race; however she said her mount was equally affected by the incident. She said Mr Cameron never stopped riding whereas she did put her whip away and try and straighten when CHOICE SNITZEL moved outwards.
Mr O’Malley agreed with Ms McGregor saying that although CHOICE SNITZEL had moved outwards both horses had been affected by the contact.
For the Stewards Mr Neal said prior to the incident QUINTETTE was racing tractably but it was apparent on the head-on view that the bumping had forced her off balance and as a result she lost ground. He said at the time of the interference both runners were level but the buffeting had caused a loss of momentum for QUINTETTE over the final stages of the race.
Reasons for Decision:
In coming to a decision the committee carefully considered all of the evidence presented. There was no doubt that there was bumping between the two runners and there was no doubt that CHOICE SNITZEL was the catalyst of that interference. The head and rear views clearly showed how Ms McGregor’s runner veered out and made significant contact with QUINTETTE. CHOICE SNITZEL continued to move out forcing QUINTETTE wider on the track. In order to uphold a protest we have to be convinced that the affected runner, in this case QUINTETTE, would have beaten the horse that caused the interference, CHOICE SNITZEL. We noted that at the time of the interference QUINTETTE was racing level with CHOICE SNITZEL but as a result of being hampered lost momentum at a vital stage of the race. Taking into account the half neck margin between the two runners at the finish we were satisfied that had QUINTETTE been allowed an unimpeded run and had not been hampered she would have beaten CHOICE SNITZEL.
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: b92a3e962e1edaa90b585cff8386dd86
informantnumber: A1366
horsename: CHOICE SNITZEL
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 30/10/2012
hearing_title: Canterbury R 17 November 2012 - R 4 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following Race 4, The Barneswood Farm Agistment Welcome Stakes, a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1).
Mr M Cameron alleged that horse number 5 (CHOICE SNITZEL) or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 9 (QUINTETTE) placed 3rd by the Judge. He alleged interference in the final 200m when CHOICE SNITZEL shifted ground onto QUINTETTE.
Judges placings were:
1st DANCER’S TALE
2ND CHOICE SNITZEL
3rd QUINTETTE
4th SPARKLING MINE
5th CHARLESTOWN
The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was half a neck.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Cameron explained, by way of the head-on video, that with approximately 200m to run he received two to three sharp bumps from CHOICE SNITZEL, the horse on his inside, ridden by Ms McGregor. This pushed QUINTETTE off-stride and whilst there was no further contact CHOICE SNITZEL continued to move out forcing Mr Cameron wider on the track. The interference unbalanced QUINTETTE and she did not hit the line as well as she should have. Mr Cameron was firm in his belief that he would have beaten CHOICE SNITZEL if he had received a clear run. He said with 2 year olds being green they, in particular, needed to be well balanced in the run to the line.
Mr Bridgman said these black-type races were very important for fillies however he would have lodged a protest even if his horse had been a gelding. He used the rear-view video to show how QUINTETTE had been knocked sideways and lost her hind-end action as a result of the interference from CHOICE SNITZEL. He said from that point on QUINTETTE lost all her momentum and had to rebalance and try to make up ground. He also said there was a psychological effect on lightly raced 2 year olds where they lose focus if they get hit during a race. Mr Bridgman said considering the half neck margin he was certain his horse would have beaten CHOICE SNITZEL if it had received a clear run.
Ms McGregor conceded she had made contact with QUINTETTE and she agreed that 2 year olds lose all concentration when they make contact with another runner in a race; however she said her mount was equally affected by the incident. She said Mr Cameron never stopped riding whereas she did put her whip away and try and straighten when CHOICE SNITZEL moved outwards.
Mr O’Malley agreed with Ms McGregor saying that although CHOICE SNITZEL had moved outwards both horses had been affected by the contact.
For the Stewards Mr Neal said prior to the incident QUINTETTE was racing tractably but it was apparent on the head-on view that the bumping had forced her off balance and as a result she lost ground. He said at the time of the interference both runners were level but the buffeting had caused a loss of momentum for QUINTETTE over the final stages of the race.
reasonsfordecision:
In coming to a decision the committee carefully considered all of the evidence presented. There was no doubt that there was bumping between the two runners and there was no doubt that CHOICE SNITZEL was the catalyst of that interference. The head and rear views clearly showed how Ms McGregor’s runner veered out and made significant contact with QUINTETTE. CHOICE SNITZEL continued to move out forcing QUINTETTE wider on the track. In order to uphold a protest we have to be convinced that the affected runner, in this case QUINTETTE, would have beaten the horse that caused the interference, CHOICE SNITZEL. We noted that at the time of the interference QUINTETTE was racing level with CHOICE SNITZEL but as a result of being hampered lost momentum at a vital stage of the race. Taking into account the half neck margin between the two runners at the finish we were satisfied that had QUINTETTE been allowed an unimpeded run and had not been hampered she would have beaten CHOICE SNITZEL.
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was upheld and amended placings read:
1st DANCER’S TALE
2ND QUINTETTE
3rd CHOICE SNITZEL
4th SPARKLING MINE
5th CHARLESTOWN
Dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr M Cameron - Licensed Rider/Mr J Bridgman - Licensed Trainer
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr R Neal - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N McIntyre - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Cameron - Rider of QUINTETTE, Mr J Bridgeman - Trainer of QUINTETTE, Ms L McGregor - Rider of CHOICE SNITZEL, Mr K O'Malley - Trainer of CHOICE SNITZEL
Respondent: P and K O'Malley/L McGregor
StipendSteward:
raceid: 4167eb6158440a70c40dd927eed6ce3f
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: b7f657e6392faefabc7e597c50347be3
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 17/11/2012
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 17 November 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: RMcKenzie
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury Racing