Canterbury R 2 May 2015 – R 3 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA16434
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 2 May 2015
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
PKnowles
Race Date:
2015/05/02
Race Number:
R3
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and it was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the judge’s official placings.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 3, NZ Tax Refunds Premier, an information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Trainer (Class A), Mr D T Champion, alleging that MONTRACHET (D M Walsh), placed 1st by the judge, interfered with the chances of ANGEL FALLS (R J Myers), trained by him, placed 2nd by the judge, alleging “interference in the final straight”.
Mr Champion was present at the hearing of the information together with Miss R J Myers, rider of ANGEL FALLS. The connections of MONTRACHET were represented by Jockey D M Walsh and Stable Representative, Mr A Carston.
Rule 642 provides as follows:
(1) If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of 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.
The judge’s official placings were:
1st 9 Montrachet
2nd 11 Angel Falls
3rd 10 Bellaleah
4th 5 Vanquished
5th 4 Mal D’Mour
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a ½ head.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Champion referred to the video replays. He pointed out ANGEL FALLS (R J Myers), the second-widest runner turning into the home straight. On its outside was MONTRACHET (D M Walsh) and he alleged that that runner had “rolled in” on ANGEL FALLS. Mr Walsh had then changed the whip into his left hand, to stop the horse running in, and had hit ANGEL FALLS on two occasions, Mr Champion submitted. It had shifted in again near the line and, just past the post, ANGEL FALLS was in front. Mr Champion referred to the margin of a half head and submitted that the interference had cost ANGEL FALLS the race. Miss Myers had been unable to fully ride out her mount, he submitted.
Miss Myers said that her mount had clear running entering the straight. From approximately the 300 metres to the 50 metres, MONTRACHET had laid in for that entire distance, with contact having occurred on three occasions. Mr Walsh had not stopped riding his mount while her whip use had been hindered, she said. She believed that she would have won the race but for the interference.
Mr Walsh showed the head-on video replay. He alleged that the first movement was from ANGEL FALLS coming out. The only reason his horse had laid on Miss Myers’ mount was because she came out, at least 1½ to 2 horse widths, and made the initial contact. That is why he put the whip in his left hand, he said.
From that point, the two horses had moved back down, a ½ to 1 horse width. There was a gap between the two runners when ANGEL FALLS came out and made contact again, Mr Walsh alleged, following which his horse laid on that runner again.
Mr Walsh continued that, approximately 50 metres from the finishing line, where there was again space between the two runners, Miss Myers’ mount shifted out again and made contact. Mr Walsh said that his mount had been running “perfectly straight”. On three occasions in total, Mr Walsh alleged, Miss Myers’ mount had come out and made contact with his.
Miss Myers admitted that she had moved out at the 400 metres which had little bearing, she said. She had come out close to the finish because she was very aware of “rolling” into the path of MAL D’MOUR (C W Johnson) on her inside.
Mr Carston said that the initial contact had been from ANGEL FALLS. The heaviest contact was the one just short of the post, which had also come from ANGEL FALLS, he said.
Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr R L Neal, said that it was clear from the video evidence that, in the initial stages, ANGEL FALLS had shifted out and contacted Mr Walsh’s mount, which reacted by turning its head in and leaning on the other horse as a result of being contacted. As the horses progressed up the straight, the horses were racing in close proximity, and did so all the way up the straight. Mr Walsh’s mount had laid in “very marginally”. There was another “bump” near the finish where Miss Myers had come out, out of concern for Mr Johnson. Notwithstanding the margin at the finish of a half head, it was the Stewards’ assessment that both horses had contributed to the incident and they did not believe that the chances of ANGEL FALLS had been affected to a degree that warranted a change of placings, he said.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee had listened carefully to the evidence and submissions of the parties and had carefully viewed the head-on and rear-on video replays of the final 400-500 metres of the race.
The Committee was satisfied that the initial contact was initiated by ANGEL FALLS, ridden by Miss Myers, when that runner shifted out, some 1½ to 2 horse widths, shortly after turning for home and contacted MONTRACHET, ridden by Mr Walsh. We found that this resulted in that latter runner leaning in on ANGEL FALLS, as submitted by Mr Walsh.
The two horses continued to race side by side and in close proximity down the home straight and there were, clearly, a couple of other points at which the horses came together. Each party had a different explanation for the horses bumping and it is difficult to lay the blame on one of those horses over the other, as each contributed to a degree.
The Committee was satisfied that both ANGEL FALLS and MONTRACHET were able to be ridden out by their respective riders as much as could be expected, given that they raced tightly with neither runner yielding and each maintaining its line. The most significant bump, in the Committee’s opinion, was the one just short of the finishing line when Miss Myers angled her mount outwards to make room for Mr Johnson and, in the process, bumped MONTRACHET.
The Committee was not satisfied, in all of the circumstances, that a finding of interference by MONTRACHET against ANGEL FALLS could be made. It was a case of competitive racing in which, we believe, each horse was able to be ridden competitively and each horse had its chance.
The margin of a half head at the finish is only relevant if there is a finding that interference took place. On the evidence, the Committee was satisfied that no such finding could properly be made, having regard to the required standard of the balance of probabilities.
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: b496967d4003ec3eb9f7c57faadbbb3e
informantnumber: A3236
horsename: Montrachet
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 18/04/2015
hearing_title: Canterbury R 2 May 2015 - R 3 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 3, NZ Tax Refunds Premier, an information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Trainer (Class A), Mr D T Champion, alleging that MONTRACHET (D M Walsh), placed 1st by the judge, interfered with the chances of ANGEL FALLS (R J Myers), trained by him, placed 2nd by the judge, alleging “interference in the final straight”.
Mr Champion was present at the hearing of the information together with Miss R J Myers, rider of ANGEL FALLS. The connections of MONTRACHET were represented by Jockey D M Walsh and Stable Representative, Mr A Carston.
Rule 642 provides as follows:
(1) If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of 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.
The judge’s official placings were:
1st 9 Montrachet
2nd 11 Angel Falls
3rd 10 Bellaleah
4th 5 Vanquished
5th 4 Mal D’Mour
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a ½ head.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Champion referred to the video replays. He pointed out ANGEL FALLS (R J Myers), the second-widest runner turning into the home straight. On its outside was MONTRACHET (D M Walsh) and he alleged that that runner had “rolled in” on ANGEL FALLS. Mr Walsh had then changed the whip into his left hand, to stop the horse running in, and had hit ANGEL FALLS on two occasions, Mr Champion submitted. It had shifted in again near the line and, just past the post, ANGEL FALLS was in front. Mr Champion referred to the margin of a half head and submitted that the interference had cost ANGEL FALLS the race. Miss Myers had been unable to fully ride out her mount, he submitted.
Miss Myers said that her mount had clear running entering the straight. From approximately the 300 metres to the 50 metres, MONTRACHET had laid in for that entire distance, with contact having occurred on three occasions. Mr Walsh had not stopped riding his mount while her whip use had been hindered, she said. She believed that she would have won the race but for the interference.
Mr Walsh showed the head-on video replay. He alleged that the first movement was from ANGEL FALLS coming out. The only reason his horse had laid on Miss Myers’ mount was because she came out, at least 1½ to 2 horse widths, and made the initial contact. That is why he put the whip in his left hand, he said.
From that point, the two horses had moved back down, a ½ to 1 horse width. There was a gap between the two runners when ANGEL FALLS came out and made contact again, Mr Walsh alleged, following which his horse laid on that runner again.
Mr Walsh continued that, approximately 50 metres from the finishing line, where there was again space between the two runners, Miss Myers’ mount shifted out again and made contact. Mr Walsh said that his mount had been running “perfectly straight”. On three occasions in total, Mr Walsh alleged, Miss Myers’ mount had come out and made contact with his.
Miss Myers admitted that she had moved out at the 400 metres which had little bearing, she said. She had come out close to the finish because she was very aware of “rolling” into the path of MAL D’MOUR (C W Johnson) on her inside.
Mr Carston said that the initial contact had been from ANGEL FALLS. The heaviest contact was the one just short of the post, which had also come from ANGEL FALLS, he said.
Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr R L Neal, said that it was clear from the video evidence that, in the initial stages, ANGEL FALLS had shifted out and contacted Mr Walsh’s mount, which reacted by turning its head in and leaning on the other horse as a result of being contacted. As the horses progressed up the straight, the horses were racing in close proximity, and did so all the way up the straight. Mr Walsh’s mount had laid in “very marginally”. There was another “bump” near the finish where Miss Myers had come out, out of concern for Mr Johnson. Notwithstanding the margin at the finish of a half head, it was the Stewards’ assessment that both horses had contributed to the incident and they did not believe that the chances of ANGEL FALLS had been affected to a degree that warranted a change of placings, he said.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee had listened carefully to the evidence and submissions of the parties and had carefully viewed the head-on and rear-on video replays of the final 400-500 metres of the race.
The Committee was satisfied that the initial contact was initiated by ANGEL FALLS, ridden by Miss Myers, when that runner shifted out, some 1½ to 2 horse widths, shortly after turning for home and contacted MONTRACHET, ridden by Mr Walsh. We found that this resulted in that latter runner leaning in on ANGEL FALLS, as submitted by Mr Walsh.
The two horses continued to race side by side and in close proximity down the home straight and there were, clearly, a couple of other points at which the horses came together. Each party had a different explanation for the horses bumping and it is difficult to lay the blame on one of those horses over the other, as each contributed to a degree.
The Committee was satisfied that both ANGEL FALLS and MONTRACHET were able to be ridden out by their respective riders as much as could be expected, given that they raced tightly with neither runner yielding and each maintaining its line. The most significant bump, in the Committee’s opinion, was the one just short of the finishing line when Miss Myers angled her mount outwards to make room for Mr Johnson and, in the process, bumped MONTRACHET.
The Committee was not satisfied, in all of the circumstances, that a finding of interference by MONTRACHET against ANGEL FALLS could be made. It was a case of competitive racing in which, we believe, each horse was able to be ridden competitively and each horse had its chance.
The margin of a half head at the finish is only relevant if there is a finding that interference took place. On the evidence, the Committee was satisfied that no such finding could properly be made, having regard to the required standard of the balance of probabilities.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and it was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the judge’s official placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: R L Neal, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: D T Champion, Licensed Trainer (Class A), R J Myers, Licensed Jockey (Class A), D M Walsh Licensed Jockey (Class A), A Carston, Stable Representative
Respondent: L M Latta, Licensed Trainer (Class A)
StipendSteward:
raceid: 42c08f3efa3cfc8405cc0d65f34abba1
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 6ca669ea9a14bd632938916edbaf2c32
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 02/05/2015
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 2 May 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: PKnowles
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury Racing