Foxton RC – 10 August 2007 – Race 3
ID: JCA21599
Code:
Thoroughbred
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Meet Title:
Foxton RC - 10 August 2007
Race Date:
2007/08/10
Race Number:
Race 3
Decision:
Following the running of race 3, the Hometown ITM SIXPACK 1200, under Rule 871 (1) a protest was lodged by CW Johnson the rider of the 2nd placed CLARENCE against the first placed HOW CANNHE (M Tanaka).
Following the running of race 3, the Hometown ITM SIXPACK 1200, under Rule 871 (1) a protest was lodged by CW Johnson the rider of the 2nd placed CLARENCE against the first placed HOW CANNHE (M Tanaka).
----Mr Johnson alleged that CLARENCE?S chances of winning the race were effected by HOW CANNHE running out into his line over the concluding stages of the race, causing it to be checked and stumble.
----When addressing the committee Mr Johnson stated that at about the 150m mark he was running outside HOW CANNHE and was in the process of making his finishing run. Shortly after this HOW CANNHE veered out sharply and hit his horse on the shoulder, causing it to check and stumble. Mr Johnson contended that had his run not been so impeded he would have gone on to win the race, notwithstanding the proximity to the finish line. Mr Johnson used the films of the race to demonstrate this to the committee.
----Mr Eales contended that prior to receiving a check his horse was making ground on the winner and he further stated that had his horse not been checked there was sufficient time for it to get up and win the race.
----Mr Bergerson, when making his submission, argued that the interference occurred far closer to the finish than what Mr Johnson had stated. He believed that while CLARENCE had received a check, had it not received the check it would still not have made up ground in time to win the race.
----Mr Tanaka told the committee that his horse had shied at cars on the inside of the track.
--Mr Goodwin, when addressing the committee, acknowledged that CLARENCE had been the recipient of substantial interference, however he believed it had occurred only 30m from the finish of the race and not the distance contended by Mr Johnson.
--This close proximity to the winning post raised significant doubt in his mind as to wether CLARENCE would have won the race notwithstanding the interference.
--Therefore he could not support the protest.
----DECISION AND REASON.
----When determining this protest it is clear that nearing the finish of the race HOW CANNHE has run out sharply and into the line of CLARENCE, and we are satisfied that the check received was a substantial if not dramatic one.
--Therefore what this committee, in essence, must determine is that have the chances of CLARENCE winning the race been so compromised that a change of placing's warranted.
----When looking at what has been submitted to us we are mindful that the incident occurred at a critical point in the race and we are also mindful that the incident was a severe one.
--However, of concern to us is that it has occurred very close to the finish of the race and this, in our minds, is of real significance. This distance being the 30m or so as submitted by Mr Goodwin.
----While we readily acknowledge that HOW CANNHE has interfered with CLARENCE we are not so clear that this interference has affected CLARENCE's chances of winning the race.
--We note from the films that, prior to it ducking out sharply, HOW CANNHE was holding a discernable advantage over CLARENCE, and although CLARENCE was making a little ground we have no reason to believe that this advantage would not have been maintained.
--Therefore given that HOW CANNHE was maintaining an advantage and given that this incident occurred so close to the end of the race we find it doubtful that CLARENCE?S chances of winning the race have been effected to the degree that warrants a change of placing's.
----Because of these factors the committee is dismissing this protest and the judges' placings stand.
----RLH Neal,
--Chairman.
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: d9435819a55b38f33f7ce40d464aeafa
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 10/08/2007
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Foxton RC - 10 August 2007 - Race 3
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Following the running of race 3, the Hometown ITM SIXPACK 1200, under Rule 871 (1) a protest was lodged by CW Johnson the rider of the 2nd placed CLARENCE against the first placed HOW CANNHE (M Tanaka).
Following the running of race 3, the Hometown ITM SIXPACK 1200, under Rule 871 (1) a protest was lodged by CW Johnson the rider of the 2nd placed CLARENCE against the first placed HOW CANNHE (M Tanaka).
----Mr Johnson alleged that CLARENCE?S chances of winning the race were effected by HOW CANNHE running out into his line over the concluding stages of the race, causing it to be checked and stumble.
----When addressing the committee Mr Johnson stated that at about the 150m mark he was running outside HOW CANNHE and was in the process of making his finishing run. Shortly after this HOW CANNHE veered out sharply and hit his horse on the shoulder, causing it to check and stumble. Mr Johnson contended that had his run not been so impeded he would have gone on to win the race, notwithstanding the proximity to the finish line. Mr Johnson used the films of the race to demonstrate this to the committee.
----Mr Eales contended that prior to receiving a check his horse was making ground on the winner and he further stated that had his horse not been checked there was sufficient time for it to get up and win the race.
----Mr Bergerson, when making his submission, argued that the interference occurred far closer to the finish than what Mr Johnson had stated. He believed that while CLARENCE had received a check, had it not received the check it would still not have made up ground in time to win the race.
----Mr Tanaka told the committee that his horse had shied at cars on the inside of the track.
--Mr Goodwin, when addressing the committee, acknowledged that CLARENCE had been the recipient of substantial interference, however he believed it had occurred only 30m from the finish of the race and not the distance contended by Mr Johnson.
--This close proximity to the winning post raised significant doubt in his mind as to wether CLARENCE would have won the race notwithstanding the interference.
--Therefore he could not support the protest.
----DECISION AND REASON.
----When determining this protest it is clear that nearing the finish of the race HOW CANNHE has run out sharply and into the line of CLARENCE, and we are satisfied that the check received was a substantial if not dramatic one.
--Therefore what this committee, in essence, must determine is that have the chances of CLARENCE winning the race been so compromised that a change of placing's warranted.
----When looking at what has been submitted to us we are mindful that the incident occurred at a critical point in the race and we are also mindful that the incident was a severe one.
--However, of concern to us is that it has occurred very close to the finish of the race and this, in our minds, is of real significance. This distance being the 30m or so as submitted by Mr Goodwin.
----While we readily acknowledge that HOW CANNHE has interfered with CLARENCE we are not so clear that this interference has affected CLARENCE's chances of winning the race.
--We note from the films that, prior to it ducking out sharply, HOW CANNHE was holding a discernable advantage over CLARENCE, and although CLARENCE was making a little ground we have no reason to believe that this advantage would not have been maintained.
--Therefore given that HOW CANNHE was maintaining an advantage and given that this incident occurred so close to the end of the race we find it doubtful that CLARENCE?S chances of winning the race have been effected to the degree that warrants a change of placing's.
----Because of these factors the committee is dismissing this protest and the judges' placings stand.
----RLH Neal,
--Chairman.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 871.1
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 7a538a1dc8ce51f7a5dc70a756de38e0
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 043fdc950776b2b687260f34fa64bd87
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 10/08/2007
meet_title: Foxton RC - 10 August 2007
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: foxton-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Foxton RC