Gore HRC 11 October 2014 – R 2 (request for a ruling)
ID: JCA10906
Meet Title:
Gore HRC - 11 October 2014
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
NSkelt
Race Date:
2014/10/11
Race Number:
R2
Decision:
As the connections of GUGGENHEIM will receive a losing runners payment of $86, we order that the connections of ROCKAHULA ARDEN pay the sum of $389 from the stake for 2nd to the connections of GUGGENHEIM.
Facts:
Mrs K Price has filed an information requesting a ruling pursuant to r 869A(4) in respect of race 2, the NEVELE R STUD FILLIES & MARES MOBILE PACE 3YO+ F&M C0 1700 m. Mrs Price is the co-trainer and part owner of GUGGENHEIM which finished last. She has alleged that “our horse GUGGENHEIM was interfered with on the home turn and we believe the horse would have finished in a stake bearing position.”
Official placings were:
1st TWICE THE DELIGHT
2nd ROCKAHULA ARDEN
3rd CANASTA
4th SWEET AS
The margin between 1st and 2nd was 1 ¼ lengths with a similar margin between 2nd and 3rd.
Relevantly r 869A states: (1) For the purpose of this rule: …
(b) “interference” means any conduct referred to in rule 869 which interferes or is likely to interfere with the progress of any horse in a race.
(4) If the Judicial Committee is satisfied, as a result of interference, the horse interfered with was denied a higher finishing place it may order that the stake monies, or a portion of the stake monies, payable in respect of the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference be paid to the owners of the horse interfered with.
We understand that this is the first time an application has been made pursuant to r 869A(4). We record that the approach of the RIU was that this was a matter between the parties and other than assisting with the viewing of the videos, the RIU took no active role in the hearing.
We believe the correct approach is to establish first whether or not GUGGENHEIM suffered interference as a consequence of any action by ROCKAHULA ARDEN or its driver in breach of r 869. Significantly r 869(4A) states:
“No horse shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with any other horse or its progress.”
This is the applicable rule in this particular case.
We informed Mrs Price that she would need to satisfy the Committee to the standard of the balance of probabilities that Mr Stratford’s horse ROCKAHULA ARDEN had interfered with GUGGENHEIM and that as a result of this interference GUGGENHEIM was denied a higher finishing place.
Both Mrs Price and Mr Stratford confirmed that they understood the procedure the Committee was adopting.
Submissions for Decision:
Mrs Price spoke first and alleged that ROCKAHULA ARDEN had impeded the progress of GUGGENHEIM by coming into contact with the leg of that horse as they turned for home. She said the fact that there was contact was supported by the fact that GUGGENHEIM had a gash on its leg at the conclusion of the race. She said the horse was denied a higher finishing position. She believed it would clearly have run in the first three and more likely first or second.
Mr N Williamson, the driver of GUGGENHEIM, told the Committee that the horse was running into the race when ROCKAHULA ARDEN, driven by Mr D Dunn shifted out on the bend and came into contact with GUGGENHEIM, which broke. He said his horse was “travelling well enough” and was making its run 3 wide to the outside of ROCKAHULA ARDEN. He stated he believed GUGGENHEIM would have finished in the first three. He acknowledged his horse was green but it was responding to his urgings and was running into the race. He confirmed to the Committee that in his opinion GUGGENHEIM had not contributed to the incident.
Mr Stratford stated the stays of the carts of the two horses had touched and had perhaps even hooked. He pointed out ROCKAHULA ARDEN was wearing a murphy blind and had a pole. He said the wheel of Mr Dunn was in front of that of Mr Williamson. He agreed that ROCKAHULA ARDEN had ducked out but he questioned whether this was before or after the contact between the stays. He was firmly of the view contact was before and that this may have contributed to his horse ducking out. He disputed that Mr Dunn had shifted wider on the track before the contact.
Mr Dunn acknowledged ROCKAHULA ARDEN had shifted out abruptly and there had been contact with GUGGENHEIM. He said ROCKAHULA ARDEN was “travelling good”, had not tired and had finished close to the winner. He said he believed GUGGENHEIM and ROCKAHULA ARDEN were “both travelling as good as each other” before GUGGENHEIM broke.
Mrs Price replied by pointing out the widening gap between ROCKAHULA ARDEN and the horse on its inner, TWICE THE DELIGHT, before the contact with GUGGENHEIM. She said there was no evidence of pressure on the outside rein from Mr Williamson, which is what you would expect to see if his horse was running in.
With respect to the exercise of our discretion concerning the quantum of any award, Mrs Price reiterated she believed the interference had at least cost GUGGENHEIM 2nd place. She emphasised the difference in stake money between 2nd ($1055) and 3rd ($475). Mr Stratford emphasised ROCKAHULA ARDEN had run 2nd and asked us to consider whether his horse was entirely at fault. He said the touching of the stays prior to GUGGENHEIM galloping must have affected the chances of both horses.
Reasons for Decision:
We are satisfied that as the field turned for home ROCKAHULA ARDEN, which was racing to the outside of the leading horse, TWICE THE DELIGHT, shifted ground abruptly outwards, and the horse came into contact with GUGGENHEIM, which was racing on the outside of ROCKAHULA ARDEN. GUGGENHEIM broke and galloped out of the race. At this time GUGGENHEIM was making a concerted run from near the rear of the field and was coming into the finish. GUGGENHEIM had made up significant ground on ROCKAHULA ARDEN and Mr Williamson the driver of GUGGENHEIM, said although the horse was green, it was responding to his urgings and had not contributed to the incident. We accept there was contact between the stays of the carts of GUGGENHEIM and ROCKAHULA ARDEN prior to the contact with a leg of GUGGENHEIM but in our view Mrs Price is correct when she says there was a widening gap between ROCKAHULA ARDEN and TWICE THE DELIGHT, which was continuing to race on the running line. Thus we believe ROCKAHULA ARDEN was shifting wider on the track immediately prior to and at the time of the contact with the leg of GUGGENHEIM.
We are satisfied that GUGGENHEIM was denied a higher finishing place through being interfered with by ROCKAHULA ARDEN as a consequence of that horse shifting wider on the track in breach of r 869(4A).
We have a broad discretion to order that the stake monies, or a portion of the stake monies payable to ROCKAHULA ARDEN be paid to the connections of GUGGENHEIM. We do not believe we are required to determine whether GUGGENHEIM would have won the race or indeed finished 2nd before making an order but merely that the horse was denied a higher finishing place. The stake for 2nd was $1055 and the stake for 3rd was $475. GUGGENHEIM was running 3rd at the time the horse suffered interference and was continuing to progress. As Mr Dunn stated in his evidence both horses were travelling as good as each other. In these circumstances we believe it is appropriate to make an award from the stake for 2nd that is the equivalent to the stake for 3rd.
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: 1670ff59903408b91cf0290dc807f39c
informantnumber: A1402
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 03/10/2014
hearing_title: Gore HRC 11 October 2014 - R 2 (request for a ruling)
charge:
facts:
Mrs K Price has filed an information requesting a ruling pursuant to r 869A(4) in respect of race 2, the NEVELE R STUD FILLIES & MARES MOBILE PACE 3YO+ F&M C0 1700 m. Mrs Price is the co-trainer and part owner of GUGGENHEIM which finished last. She has alleged that “our horse GUGGENHEIM was interfered with on the home turn and we believe the horse would have finished in a stake bearing position.”
Official placings were:
1st TWICE THE DELIGHT
2nd ROCKAHULA ARDEN
3rd CANASTA
4th SWEET AS
The margin between 1st and 2nd was 1 ¼ lengths with a similar margin between 2nd and 3rd.
Relevantly r 869A states: (1) For the purpose of this rule: …
(b) “interference” means any conduct referred to in rule 869 which interferes or is likely to interfere with the progress of any horse in a race.
(4) If the Judicial Committee is satisfied, as a result of interference, the horse interfered with was denied a higher finishing place it may order that the stake monies, or a portion of the stake monies, payable in respect of the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference be paid to the owners of the horse interfered with.
We understand that this is the first time an application has been made pursuant to r 869A(4). We record that the approach of the RIU was that this was a matter between the parties and other than assisting with the viewing of the videos, the RIU took no active role in the hearing.
We believe the correct approach is to establish first whether or not GUGGENHEIM suffered interference as a consequence of any action by ROCKAHULA ARDEN or its driver in breach of r 869. Significantly r 869(4A) states:
“No horse shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with any other horse or its progress.”
This is the applicable rule in this particular case.
We informed Mrs Price that she would need to satisfy the Committee to the standard of the balance of probabilities that Mr Stratford’s horse ROCKAHULA ARDEN had interfered with GUGGENHEIM and that as a result of this interference GUGGENHEIM was denied a higher finishing place.
Both Mrs Price and Mr Stratford confirmed that they understood the procedure the Committee was adopting.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mrs Price spoke first and alleged that ROCKAHULA ARDEN had impeded the progress of GUGGENHEIM by coming into contact with the leg of that horse as they turned for home. She said the fact that there was contact was supported by the fact that GUGGENHEIM had a gash on its leg at the conclusion of the race. She said the horse was denied a higher finishing position. She believed it would clearly have run in the first three and more likely first or second.
Mr N Williamson, the driver of GUGGENHEIM, told the Committee that the horse was running into the race when ROCKAHULA ARDEN, driven by Mr D Dunn shifted out on the bend and came into contact with GUGGENHEIM, which broke. He said his horse was “travelling well enough” and was making its run 3 wide to the outside of ROCKAHULA ARDEN. He stated he believed GUGGENHEIM would have finished in the first three. He acknowledged his horse was green but it was responding to his urgings and was running into the race. He confirmed to the Committee that in his opinion GUGGENHEIM had not contributed to the incident.
Mr Stratford stated the stays of the carts of the two horses had touched and had perhaps even hooked. He pointed out ROCKAHULA ARDEN was wearing a murphy blind and had a pole. He said the wheel of Mr Dunn was in front of that of Mr Williamson. He agreed that ROCKAHULA ARDEN had ducked out but he questioned whether this was before or after the contact between the stays. He was firmly of the view contact was before and that this may have contributed to his horse ducking out. He disputed that Mr Dunn had shifted wider on the track before the contact.
Mr Dunn acknowledged ROCKAHULA ARDEN had shifted out abruptly and there had been contact with GUGGENHEIM. He said ROCKAHULA ARDEN was “travelling good”, had not tired and had finished close to the winner. He said he believed GUGGENHEIM and ROCKAHULA ARDEN were “both travelling as good as each other” before GUGGENHEIM broke.
Mrs Price replied by pointing out the widening gap between ROCKAHULA ARDEN and the horse on its inner, TWICE THE DELIGHT, before the contact with GUGGENHEIM. She said there was no evidence of pressure on the outside rein from Mr Williamson, which is what you would expect to see if his horse was running in.
With respect to the exercise of our discretion concerning the quantum of any award, Mrs Price reiterated she believed the interference had at least cost GUGGENHEIM 2nd place. She emphasised the difference in stake money between 2nd ($1055) and 3rd ($475). Mr Stratford emphasised ROCKAHULA ARDEN had run 2nd and asked us to consider whether his horse was entirely at fault. He said the touching of the stays prior to GUGGENHEIM galloping must have affected the chances of both horses.
reasonsfordecision:
We are satisfied that as the field turned for home ROCKAHULA ARDEN, which was racing to the outside of the leading horse, TWICE THE DELIGHT, shifted ground abruptly outwards, and the horse came into contact with GUGGENHEIM, which was racing on the outside of ROCKAHULA ARDEN. GUGGENHEIM broke and galloped out of the race. At this time GUGGENHEIM was making a concerted run from near the rear of the field and was coming into the finish. GUGGENHEIM had made up significant ground on ROCKAHULA ARDEN and Mr Williamson the driver of GUGGENHEIM, said although the horse was green, it was responding to his urgings and had not contributed to the incident. We accept there was contact between the stays of the carts of GUGGENHEIM and ROCKAHULA ARDEN prior to the contact with a leg of GUGGENHEIM but in our view Mrs Price is correct when she says there was a widening gap between ROCKAHULA ARDEN and TWICE THE DELIGHT, which was continuing to race on the running line. Thus we believe ROCKAHULA ARDEN was shifting wider on the track immediately prior to and at the time of the contact with the leg of GUGGENHEIM.
We are satisfied that GUGGENHEIM was denied a higher finishing place through being interfered with by ROCKAHULA ARDEN as a consequence of that horse shifting wider on the track in breach of r 869(4A).
We have a broad discretion to order that the stake monies, or a portion of the stake monies payable to ROCKAHULA ARDEN be paid to the connections of GUGGENHEIM. We do not believe we are required to determine whether GUGGENHEIM would have won the race or indeed finished 2nd before making an order but merely that the horse was denied a higher finishing place. The stake for 2nd was $1055 and the stake for 3rd was $475. GUGGENHEIM was running 3rd at the time the horse suffered interference and was continuing to progress. As Mr Dunn stated in his evidence both horses were travelling as good as each other. In these circumstances we believe it is appropriate to make an award from the stake for 2nd that is the equivalent to the stake for 3rd.
Decision:
As the connections of GUGGENHEIM will receive a losing runners payment of $86, we order that the connections of ROCKAHULA ARDEN pay the sum of $389 from the stake for 2nd to the connections of GUGGENHEIM.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Request Ruling
Rules: 869A(4)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mrs K Price, licensed trainer, representing the connections of GUGGENHEIM, Mr A Stratford, licensed trainer representing the connections of ROCKAHULA ARDEN
Respondent:
StipendSteward: Mr C Allison - Stipendiary Steward
raceid: 76582d83ea85de4844381410e50cd9cf
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: e59d14b07c9b54d566a9e6c47adf1085
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 11/10/2014
meet_title: Gore HRC - 11 October 2014
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: gore-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: NSkelt
meet_pm2: none
name: Gore HRC