Back to decisions search

Archive Decision

This decision has been migrated from the JCA website. Information is accurate but formatting may differ from contemporary decisions. Please contact us for any further enquiries.

Counties RC 18 September 2011 – R 3 (instigating a protest)

ID: JCA16803

Applicant:
Mr W Hillis – Trainer of MAJOR RIO

Respondent(s):
Mr J Collett– Rider of NOBLE WARRIOR, Mrs T Shaw – Trainer of NOBLE WARRIOR

Information Number:
075

Hearing Type:
Protest

Rules:
642(1)

Code:
Thoroughbred

Meet Title:
Counties RC - 18 September 2011

Meet Chair:
ADooley

Meet Committee Member 1:
GTankard

Race Date:
2011/09/18

Race Number:
R 3

Decision:

Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the judge’s placings shall stand.

In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends.

Facts:

Following the running of Race 2 Mr W Hillis, Trainer of the second placed horse MAJOR RIO, lodged a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1).He alleged that NOBLE WARRIOR, placed first by the judge, caused interference to MAJOR RIO in the final straight.

The judge’s placings were as follows:
1st NOBLE WARRIOR no.3
2ND MAJOR RIO no.1
3rd PAISLEY STREET no.7
4th ISHIGOOD no.6
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was ¾ of a length.

Submissions for Decision:

Mr Hillis demonstrated the alleged incident using all the available video films. He said he was concerned with the outward movement of NOBLE WARRIOR in the final 50 metres of the race. When questioned by the Committee Mr Hillis conceded that Mr Arumugam did not have to stop riding MAJOR RIO in the final straight nor was there any contact made between the two horses.
Mr Arumugam said NOBLE WARRIOR had shifted ground out towards his mount over the final 50 metres of the race. He also conceded that no contact occurred nor did he have to stop riding his mount.
Mrs Shaw said no contact occurred and Mr Arumugam did not stop riding his mount. She believed there was no doubt NOBLE WARRIOR should retain the win.
Mr Collett demonstrated the video films and submitted at no point was there any contact between the two horses and Mr Arumugam continued to ride his mount forward to the finish line. He said MAJOR RIO did not make any ground on NOBLE WARRIOR in the final 100 metres.
Mr Coles when asked for his assessment said there was no doubt that NOBLE WARRIOR did move out. However he did not believe a change of placings was warranted as no contact occurred and MAJOR RIO did not take any ground off NOBLE WARRIOR in the last 100 metres.
Mr Hillis when given the opportunity to sum up had nothing more to add.

Reasons for Decision:

The committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions and reviewed the video films. We concede that NOBLE WARRIOR did shift outwards over the final 50 metres. However at no stage did Mr Arumugam have to stop riding MAJOR RIO. There was no contact between the two horses and MAJOR RIO was not taking any ground off NOBLE WARRIOR over the final 100 metres. The official margin at the finish was a convincing ¾ of a length.
For these reasons we are clearly not satisfied that MAJOR RIO would have beaten NOBLE WARRIOR.

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: a27d0c8ec5ed7705cbf04e340cf03737

informantnumber: 075

horsename: MAJOR RIO

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 18/09/2011

hearing_title: Counties RC 18 September 2011 – R 3 (instigating a protest)

charge:

facts:

Following the running of Race 2 Mr W Hillis, Trainer of the second placed horse MAJOR RIO, lodged a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1).He alleged that NOBLE WARRIOR, placed first by the judge, caused interference to MAJOR RIO in the final straight.

The judge’s placings were as follows:
1st NOBLE WARRIOR no.3
2ND MAJOR RIO no.1
3rd PAISLEY STREET no.7
4th ISHIGOOD no.6
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was ¾ of a length.

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

Mr Hillis demonstrated the alleged incident using all the available video films. He said he was concerned with the outward movement of NOBLE WARRIOR in the final 50 metres of the race. When questioned by the Committee Mr Hillis conceded that Mr Arumugam did not have to stop riding MAJOR RIO in the final straight nor was there any contact made between the two horses.
Mr Arumugam said NOBLE WARRIOR had shifted ground out towards his mount over the final 50 metres of the race. He also conceded that no contact occurred nor did he have to stop riding his mount.
Mrs Shaw said no contact occurred and Mr Arumugam did not stop riding his mount. She believed there was no doubt NOBLE WARRIOR should retain the win.
Mr Collett demonstrated the video films and submitted at no point was there any contact between the two horses and Mr Arumugam continued to ride his mount forward to the finish line. He said MAJOR RIO did not make any ground on NOBLE WARRIOR in the final 100 metres.
Mr Coles when asked for his assessment said there was no doubt that NOBLE WARRIOR did move out. However he did not believe a change of placings was warranted as no contact occurred and MAJOR RIO did not take any ground off NOBLE WARRIOR in the last 100 metres.
Mr Hillis when given the opportunity to sum up had nothing more to add.

reasonsfordecision:

The committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions and reviewed the video films. We concede that NOBLE WARRIOR did shift outwards over the final 50 metres. However at no stage did Mr Arumugam have to stop riding MAJOR RIO. There was no contact between the two horses and MAJOR RIO was not taking any ground off NOBLE WARRIOR over the final 100 metres. The official margin at the finish was a convincing ¾ of a length.
For these reasons we are clearly not satisfied that MAJOR RIO would have beaten NOBLE WARRIOR.

Decision:

Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the judge’s placings shall stand.

In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Protest

Rules: 642(1)

Informant: Mr W Hillis – Trainer of MAJOR RIO

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr A Coles – Stipendiary Steward, Mr T Arumugam– Rider of MAJOR RIO

Respondent: Mr J Collett– Rider of NOBLE WARRIOR, Mrs T Shaw – Trainer of NOBLE WARRIOR

StipendSteward:

raceid: 0105c3ce0c619757a745e871ce70407f

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R 3

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 515da3fcd9df6c4cd7317bb6e2c31487

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 18/09/2011

meet_title: Counties RC - 18 September 2011

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: counties-rc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair: ADooley

meet_pm1: GTankard

meet_pm2: none

name: Counties RC