Canterbury Racing – 5 November 2005 – Race 8
ID: JCA21730
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 5 November 2005
Race Date:
2005/11/05
Race Number:
Race 8
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 8 Stipendiary Steward Mr S. C. Ching laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
----
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Before this hearing took place Mr K. G. Hales declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from the hearing.
--Following the running of Race 8 Stipendiary Steward Mr S. C. Ching laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
----The information reads as follows.
------"I allege that Its All Good or its rider placed 3rd by the judge interfered with the chances of Imhappyaboutthat placed 4th by the judge. The interference occurred inside the concluding 50 metres."
--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."
--The provisions of sub-rule 2 did not affect this protest.
--Present at this hearing were Mr P. D. J. Harris and Miss K. A. Myers the
--trainer and rider of "Imhappyaboutthat" (11). Mr Harris advised that the owner of the horse was not present but that he would represent the owner's interests. Mr L. J. Morris the trainer and part owner of "Its All Good" (8) was present with the other part owner Mr M. C. Stokes, and the rider Mr B. Hibberd was also present.
--Mr Ching said that the alleged interference had taken place over the final 50 metres of the race. He said that Miss Myers had to stop riding her horse for a stride and lost momentum, and that this was important as the margin at the finish of the race was a nose.
--Mr Ching called evidence from Miss Myers who said that there was interference and that just short of the winning post "Its All Good" came into contact with her horse. Miss Myers said that she believed she would have finished 3rd but for the interference. Video coverage of the incident was used to illustrate Miss Myers' evidence.
--The connections of "Its All Good" all gave evidence and used video coverage. Their evidence was that "Its All Good" had mostly kept a straight line, and that the interference, if there was any, was very minor and had not affected the result of the race.
--After the completion of the evidence I took time to consider my decision.
--The video coverage of the race showed that there was contact between the two horses involved, and in this respect I am satisfied that there was interference caused to "Imhappyaboutthat" by "Its All Good", although it was not severe. The interference did have the effect of preventing Miss Myers from using her whip for a stride, and it also caused her horse to lose momentum. It was also relevant that the margin at the finish was a nose.
----Before a protest can be upheld I must first find that there has been interference. In this case I am satisfied that there was interference. Secondly I must decide if the interference affected the chances of "Imhappyaboutthat". I am also satisfied the interference did affect the chances of "Imhappyaboutthat". In coming to the decision as to whether or not I should exercise my discretion to relegate because of the interference I took into account that the interference, although not severe, took place at a crucial stage of the race. I also took into account the margin between the two horses at the finish of the race was a nose. Accordingly I made the decision that "Its All Good" would be relegated to 4th place.
--On returning the he Enquiry Room I advised that a full written decision would be given later and the following oral decision was then given.
--"Having heard the evidence and having seen the video coverage of the incident I am satisfied that "Its All Good" did move in slightly and hamper "Imhappyaboutthat", and also came into contact with "Imhappyaboutthat" near the finish.
--I find that there was interference which affected the chances of "Imhappyaboutthat", and but for that interference it would have finished in a better placing.
--I therefore exercise my discretion and relegate " Its All Good" to 4th place."
--The amended places are as follows.
--1st ? Trebla (10)
--2nd ? Moby (5)
--3rd ? Imhappyaboutthat (11)
--4th ? Its All Good (8)
--5th ? Live The Reality (4)
--6th ? Empyreal (1)
----
--
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: aef340a4273ff7002a24d816e51fc3a2
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 05/11/2005
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Canterbury Racing - 5 November 2005 - Race 8
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 8 Stipendiary Steward Mr S. C. Ching laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
----
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Before this hearing took place Mr K. G. Hales declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from the hearing.
--Following the running of Race 8 Stipendiary Steward Mr S. C. Ching laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
----The information reads as follows.
------"I allege that Its All Good or its rider placed 3rd by the judge interfered with the chances of Imhappyaboutthat placed 4th by the judge. The interference occurred inside the concluding 50 metres."
--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."
--The provisions of sub-rule 2 did not affect this protest.
--Present at this hearing were Mr P. D. J. Harris and Miss K. A. Myers the
--trainer and rider of "Imhappyaboutthat" (11). Mr Harris advised that the owner of the horse was not present but that he would represent the owner's interests. Mr L. J. Morris the trainer and part owner of "Its All Good" (8) was present with the other part owner Mr M. C. Stokes, and the rider Mr B. Hibberd was also present.
--Mr Ching said that the alleged interference had taken place over the final 50 metres of the race. He said that Miss Myers had to stop riding her horse for a stride and lost momentum, and that this was important as the margin at the finish of the race was a nose.
--Mr Ching called evidence from Miss Myers who said that there was interference and that just short of the winning post "Its All Good" came into contact with her horse. Miss Myers said that she believed she would have finished 3rd but for the interference. Video coverage of the incident was used to illustrate Miss Myers' evidence.
--The connections of "Its All Good" all gave evidence and used video coverage. Their evidence was that "Its All Good" had mostly kept a straight line, and that the interference, if there was any, was very minor and had not affected the result of the race.
--After the completion of the evidence I took time to consider my decision.
--The video coverage of the race showed that there was contact between the two horses involved, and in this respect I am satisfied that there was interference caused to "Imhappyaboutthat" by "Its All Good", although it was not severe. The interference did have the effect of preventing Miss Myers from using her whip for a stride, and it also caused her horse to lose momentum. It was also relevant that the margin at the finish was a nose.
----Before a protest can be upheld I must first find that there has been interference. In this case I am satisfied that there was interference. Secondly I must decide if the interference affected the chances of "Imhappyaboutthat". I am also satisfied the interference did affect the chances of "Imhappyaboutthat". In coming to the decision as to whether or not I should exercise my discretion to relegate because of the interference I took into account that the interference, although not severe, took place at a crucial stage of the race. I also took into account the margin between the two horses at the finish of the race was a nose. Accordingly I made the decision that "Its All Good" would be relegated to 4th place.
--On returning the he Enquiry Room I advised that a full written decision would be given later and the following oral decision was then given.
--"Having heard the evidence and having seen the video coverage of the incident I am satisfied that "Its All Good" did move in slightly and hamper "Imhappyaboutthat", and also came into contact with "Imhappyaboutthat" near the finish.
--I find that there was interference which affected the chances of "Imhappyaboutthat", and but for that interference it would have finished in a better placing.
--I therefore exercise my discretion and relegate " Its All Good" to 4th place."
--The amended places are as follows.
--1st ? Trebla (10)
--2nd ? Moby (5)
--3rd ? Imhappyaboutthat (11)
--4th ? Its All Good (8)
--5th ? Live The Reality (4)
--6th ? Empyreal (1)
----
--
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 876.1
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 3f95ad038800d713ec70e29f37f4e0bb
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 8faae9fa0c50f3cf967ec195907bb97d
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 05/11/2005
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 5 November 2005
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Canterbury Racing