Canterbury R 2 December 2016 – R 6 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr S Ching
ID: JCA11670
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 2 December 2016
Meet Chair:
SChing
Meet Committee Member 1:
DAnderson
Race Date:
2016/12/02
Race Number:
R 6
Decision:
The protest was dismissed with judge’s places being confirmed.
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the judge’s placings.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 6, the Mike Pero Mortgages Open, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr J McLaughlin, alleging interference by 1st placed RIDING SHOTGUN (6), ridden by Miss A Collett, to the 2nd placed KINAGAT (4), ridden by Miss S Wynne, in the home straight.
The Judges placings in this race were as follows.
1st - RIDING SHOTGUN (6)
2nd - KINAGAT (4)
3rd - COUP DARCI BE (3)
4th - DOUBLE BLUE (8)
5th - PEPPER MILL (5)
6th - TOMA VALEA (1)
Rule 642(1) provides as follows.
“If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 to another 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 connections of RIDING SHOTGUN were represented at this hearing by Miss A Collett and Ms T Rae with the connections of KINAGAT being represented by Mr M Pitman, the trainer and Miss S Wynne, the rider. All parties agreed that they understood the Rule and the nature of the protest.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr McLaughlin with the assistance of Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Davidson, gave evidence and used video coverage to show that approaching the 200m, RIDING SHOTGUN, ridden by Miss A Collett was racing wide on the track approximately 7 off the rail with KINAGAT, ridden by Miss S Wynne on its outer and about ¾ of a length back. Mr McLaughlin pointed out RIDING SHOTGUN when under a ride and laying out, shift out abruptly and make firm contact with KINAGAT, who was unbalanced and lost momentum in this incident. He went on to say that RIDING SHOTGUN continued to drift out over the concluding stages forcing KINAGAT over extra ground. He stated that the official margin between first and second was a long neck. In answer to a question from the Committee Mr McLaughlin agreed that there was only one point of contact, that being near the 200m.
Miss Wynne said the contact by RIDING SHOTGUN was at a vital stage as KINAGAT was travelling well at the time and she was just starting to get the horse’s momentum going forward. She said she thought she was going to go past RIDING SHOTGUN prior to contact being made. She also said that RIDING SHOTGUN kept on coming out forcing her out as well. Miss Wynne stated that she had to stop riding the horse out 2 times due to the interference and estimated that she had lost 1 ½ lengths.
Mr Pitman stated that the main point of contact was at the 200m and that KINAGAT was shifted 2 horse widths outwards with this contact. He said KINAGAT was just starting to gain momentum and looked like the horse was going to improve past RIDING SHOTGUN before contact was made. Mr Pitman stated that not only did KINAGAT lose momentum in this incident but also loses ground due to the interference. He said that KINAGAT goes from being over a length behind after the contact and was able to make up ground to get within a long head at the post.
Ms Rae stated that contact was made but only for 1 to 2 strides. She said Miss Wynne only stopped riding momentarily at the contact and stopped on a second occasion probably due to the whip rule. She also said that the interference occurred a long way out near the 200m and from the first point of contact no further interference occurred.
Miss Collett stated that at the point of contact KINAGAT was ¾ of a length behind RIDING SHOTGUN. She said that Miss Wynne never stopped riding her horse out at any point. Miss Collett also said that KINAGAT had every opportunity to get past her in the straight from the 200m after the contact was made and was unable to do so.
Reasons for Decision:
We carefully considered the evidence given and the video coverage of the incident. The Committee was satisfied that near the 200m RIDING SHOTGUN shifted out making firm contact with KINAGAT unbalancing that horse and affecting its momentum. We were also satisfied that RIDING SHOTGUN continued to drift outwards over the concluding stages. We were however not satisfied that this outward movement after the initial contact was detrimental to KINAGAT as both horses shifted outwards slowly together, never making contact, with KINAGAT being able to be ridden fully to the line. We were also satisfied that KINAGAT, although interfered with at the 200m was only affected for a stride or two and had every opportunity thereafter pass RIDING SHOTGUN. Taking all factors into consideration we were not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that but for the interference suffered to KINAGAT by RIDING SHOTGUN at the 200m, that KINAGAT would have beaten RIDING SHOTGUN.
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: 2181cd3b0972437be8da9e521173a6cb
informantnumber: A8104
horsename: RIDING SHOTGUN
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 06/12/2016
hearing_title: Canterbury R 2 December 2016 - R 6 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr S Ching
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 6, the Mike Pero Mortgages Open, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr J McLaughlin, alleging interference by 1st placed RIDING SHOTGUN (6), ridden by Miss A Collett, to the 2nd placed KINAGAT (4), ridden by Miss S Wynne, in the home straight.
The Judges placings in this race were as follows.
1st - RIDING SHOTGUN (6)
2nd - KINAGAT (4)
3rd - COUP DARCI BE (3)
4th - DOUBLE BLUE (8)
5th - PEPPER MILL (5)
6th - TOMA VALEA (1)
Rule 642(1) provides as follows.
“If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 to another 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 connections of RIDING SHOTGUN were represented at this hearing by Miss A Collett and Ms T Rae with the connections of KINAGAT being represented by Mr M Pitman, the trainer and Miss S Wynne, the rider. All parties agreed that they understood the Rule and the nature of the protest.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr McLaughlin with the assistance of Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Davidson, gave evidence and used video coverage to show that approaching the 200m, RIDING SHOTGUN, ridden by Miss A Collett was racing wide on the track approximately 7 off the rail with KINAGAT, ridden by Miss S Wynne on its outer and about ¾ of a length back. Mr McLaughlin pointed out RIDING SHOTGUN when under a ride and laying out, shift out abruptly and make firm contact with KINAGAT, who was unbalanced and lost momentum in this incident. He went on to say that RIDING SHOTGUN continued to drift out over the concluding stages forcing KINAGAT over extra ground. He stated that the official margin between first and second was a long neck. In answer to a question from the Committee Mr McLaughlin agreed that there was only one point of contact, that being near the 200m.
Miss Wynne said the contact by RIDING SHOTGUN was at a vital stage as KINAGAT was travelling well at the time and she was just starting to get the horse’s momentum going forward. She said she thought she was going to go past RIDING SHOTGUN prior to contact being made. She also said that RIDING SHOTGUN kept on coming out forcing her out as well. Miss Wynne stated that she had to stop riding the horse out 2 times due to the interference and estimated that she had lost 1 ½ lengths.
Mr Pitman stated that the main point of contact was at the 200m and that KINAGAT was shifted 2 horse widths outwards with this contact. He said KINAGAT was just starting to gain momentum and looked like the horse was going to improve past RIDING SHOTGUN before contact was made. Mr Pitman stated that not only did KINAGAT lose momentum in this incident but also loses ground due to the interference. He said that KINAGAT goes from being over a length behind after the contact and was able to make up ground to get within a long head at the post.
Ms Rae stated that contact was made but only for 1 to 2 strides. She said Miss Wynne only stopped riding momentarily at the contact and stopped on a second occasion probably due to the whip rule. She also said that the interference occurred a long way out near the 200m and from the first point of contact no further interference occurred.
Miss Collett stated that at the point of contact KINAGAT was ¾ of a length behind RIDING SHOTGUN. She said that Miss Wynne never stopped riding her horse out at any point. Miss Collett also said that KINAGAT had every opportunity to get past her in the straight from the 200m after the contact was made and was unable to do so.
reasonsfordecision:
We carefully considered the evidence given and the video coverage of the incident. The Committee was satisfied that near the 200m RIDING SHOTGUN shifted out making firm contact with KINAGAT unbalancing that horse and affecting its momentum. We were also satisfied that RIDING SHOTGUN continued to drift outwards over the concluding stages. We were however not satisfied that this outward movement after the initial contact was detrimental to KINAGAT as both horses shifted outwards slowly together, never making contact, with KINAGAT being able to be ridden fully to the line. We were also satisfied that KINAGAT, although interfered with at the 200m was only affected for a stride or two and had every opportunity thereafter pass RIDING SHOTGUN. Taking all factors into consideration we were not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that but for the interference suffered to KINAGAT by RIDING SHOTGUN at the 200m, that KINAGAT would have beaten RIDING SHOTGUN.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed with judge’s places being confirmed.
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the judge’s placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr J McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Ms S Wynne - Class A Rider, Mr M Pitman - Licensed Trainer, Ms A Collett - Class A Rider representing connections, Mr M Davidson - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Ms T Rae - Licensed Trainer
StipendSteward:
raceid: add4231781f98a63f1fdb908c95d6abf
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 267be3c10e408eadfcc5b100490394aa
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 02/12/2016
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 2 December 2016
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: SChing
meet_pm1: DAnderson
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury Racing