Canterbury Racing – 21 December 2007 – Race 3
ID: JCA19564
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Decision: --------
Following the running of Race 3, the Rangiora New World Rating 90, Mr L. J. Morris, the trainer of "Its All Good" (2), laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
----------Following the running of Race 3, the Rangiora New World Rating 90, Mr L. J. Morris, the trainer of "Its All Good" (2), laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
----The information reads as follows.
------"I allege that Le Alto or its rider placed 2nd by the judge interfered with the chances of Its All Good placed 3rd by the judge. The interference occurred the concluding stages."
--Rule 876(1) reads as follows.
--"If, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, a horse placed by the Judge or its rider has interfered with the chances of any other horse or horses placed by the Judge then, subject to sub-rule 2 hereof, the Judicial Committee may place such first-mentioned horse immediately after the horse or horses so interfered with.
--Sub-rule 2 did not apply in this case.
----Mr Morris, the trainer of "Its All Good", was accompanied by its rider Mr C. Grylls. Mr Ridley, the trainer of "Le Alto", was accompanied by its rider Mr J. Bullard. The trainers of the respective horses were also the owners.
--To assist the enquiry Stipendiary Steward Mr Ching asked Stipendiary Steward Mr Davidson to illustrate the incident by using video coverage. It was seen that in the concluding stages of the race "Le Alto" moved outwards a little and made apparent contact with "Its All Good".
--Mr Morris said that his horse received two bumps and that its jockey had to stop riding the horse at a crucial stage. Jockey Mr Grylls said that he got within about a head of "Le Alto", but because of the interference he had to stop riding his horse. Mr Grylls also said that at the time of the interference he was making steady progress.
--Mr Bullard agreed that his horse had moved in slightly, and also agreed that there was contact between the two horses that he described as "brushes". Mr Bullard also illustrated on the video that the gap between "The Bey" and his horse never closed and there was always room for "Its All Good" in that gap. It was also established at the hearing that the official margin between 2nd and 3rd was 1½ lengths.
--Stipendiary Steward Mr Ching had been present throughout the hearing and in accordance with the Rules he was asked if he wished to give evidence and call witnesses. Mr Ching then gave evidence and said that he agreed there had been slight contact, and that "Its All Good" did become unbalanced. On the other hand there was always room for "Its All Good" and the margin at the finish between 2nd ad 3rd was 1½ lengths. It was Mr Ching’s view that the chances of "Its All Good" were affected a little but not enough to justify a change of placings.
--After the completion of the evidence we took time to consider our decision.
--We were satisfied that a short distance from the finish the two horses involved came close together. We agree that there were two occasions when "Le Alto" bumped or brushed against "Its All Good". This contact was very slight and at no stage did "Its All Good" run out of racing room. Although Jockey Grylls stopped riding his horse a short distance from the winning post, we did not believe that "Its All Good" would have finished in a better placing. In coming to this decision we took into account the margin of 1½ lengths between 2nd and 3rd.
--Before a protest can be upheld the Committee must first find that there has been interference. In this case we are satisfied that there was slight interference. To uphold the protest we must also be satisfied that, but for the interference, the affected horse would have finished in a better placing. We were not so satisfied and the protest was dismissed.
----
--
--
____________
--J. M. Phelan
--Chairman
--Decision Date: 21/12/2007
Publish Date: 21/12/2007
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: 3e1ec726d3f9f6d0fce38ec833339f74
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 21/12/2007
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Canterbury Racing - 21 December 2007 - Race 3
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--------Following the running of Race 3, the Rangiora New World Rating 90, Mr L. J. Morris, the trainer of "Its All Good" (2), laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
----------Following the running of Race 3, the Rangiora New World Rating 90, Mr L. J. Morris, the trainer of "Its All Good" (2), laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
----The information reads as follows.
------"I allege that Le Alto or its rider placed 2nd by the judge interfered with the chances of Its All Good placed 3rd by the judge. The interference occurred the concluding stages."
--Rule 876(1) reads as follows.
--"If, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, a horse placed by the Judge or its rider has interfered with the chances of any other horse or horses placed by the Judge then, subject to sub-rule 2 hereof, the Judicial Committee may place such first-mentioned horse immediately after the horse or horses so interfered with.
--Sub-rule 2 did not apply in this case.
----Mr Morris, the trainer of "Its All Good", was accompanied by its rider Mr C. Grylls. Mr Ridley, the trainer of "Le Alto", was accompanied by its rider Mr J. Bullard. The trainers of the respective horses were also the owners.
--To assist the enquiry Stipendiary Steward Mr Ching asked Stipendiary Steward Mr Davidson to illustrate the incident by using video coverage. It was seen that in the concluding stages of the race "Le Alto" moved outwards a little and made apparent contact with "Its All Good".
--Mr Morris said that his horse received two bumps and that its jockey had to stop riding the horse at a crucial stage. Jockey Mr Grylls said that he got within about a head of "Le Alto", but because of the interference he had to stop riding his horse. Mr Grylls also said that at the time of the interference he was making steady progress.
--Mr Bullard agreed that his horse had moved in slightly, and also agreed that there was contact between the two horses that he described as "brushes". Mr Bullard also illustrated on the video that the gap between "The Bey" and his horse never closed and there was always room for "Its All Good" in that gap. It was also established at the hearing that the official margin between 2nd and 3rd was 1½ lengths.
--Stipendiary Steward Mr Ching had been present throughout the hearing and in accordance with the Rules he was asked if he wished to give evidence and call witnesses. Mr Ching then gave evidence and said that he agreed there had been slight contact, and that "Its All Good" did become unbalanced. On the other hand there was always room for "Its All Good" and the margin at the finish between 2nd ad 3rd was 1½ lengths. It was Mr Ching’s view that the chances of "Its All Good" were affected a little but not enough to justify a change of placings.
--After the completion of the evidence we took time to consider our decision.
--We were satisfied that a short distance from the finish the two horses involved came close together. We agree that there were two occasions when "Le Alto" bumped or brushed against "Its All Good". This contact was very slight and at no stage did "Its All Good" run out of racing room. Although Jockey Grylls stopped riding his horse a short distance from the winning post, we did not believe that "Its All Good" would have finished in a better placing. In coming to this decision we took into account the margin of 1½ lengths between 2nd and 3rd.
--Before a protest can be upheld the Committee must first find that there has been interference. In this case we are satisfied that there was slight interference. To uphold the protest we must also be satisfied that, but for the interference, the affected horse would have finished in a better placing. We were not so satisfied and the protest was dismissed.
----
--
--
____________
--J. M. Phelan
--Chairman
--sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 876.1
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid:
race_expapproval:
racecancelled:
race_noreport:
race_emailed1:
race_emailed2:
race_title:
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid:
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport:
waitingforpublication:
meet_emailed1:
meet_emailed2:
meetdate: no date provided
meet_title:
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation:
meet_racingtype:
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: