Hawke’s Bay RI 1 January 2018 – R 5 – Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
ID: JCA14984
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Hawkes Bay RI - 1 January 2018
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
TCastles
Race Date:
2018/01/01
Race Number:
R 5
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was upheld and amended placings read:
1st - SCANDALO (4)
2st - PETITE EN JEU (5)
3rd - MORSE CODE (2)
Dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
Facts:
Following Race 5 (Russell Roads City of Hastings Cup – FastTrack 5K), a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr M Singh alleging that horse number 2 (MORSE CODE) or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 5 (PETITE EN JEU, placed 3rd by the Judge.
The information alleged that MORSE CODE interfered with the chances of PETITE EN JEU in the home straight.
Judges placings were:
1st - SCANDALO (4)
2st - MORSE CODE (2)
3rd - PETITE EN JEU (5)
The official margin between second and third placed horses was a neck.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Singh instigated the protest and told the Committee that he was in the clear at around the 400m mark of the race with his horse travelling well. Shortly after, MORSE CODE began to move outwards and took his line of running. He said he was “checked quite badly” and, as a result of the interference, lost ground to the order of 1.5 -2 lengths.
Mr Auret said it was quite clear that Mr Singh was forced to change ground and lost a lot of momentum. At the finish his horse was coming back at MORSE CODE and, in his opinion, PETITE EN JEU would have beaten MORSE CODE had it not suffered interference. Mr Auret reinforced his argument by showing on the video where Mr Singh had to stop riding for a number of strides and change ground. He said it not only cost PETITE EN JEU second place but probably the winning of the race as well, as she made up at least 1 ½ lengths over the final stages.
Mr Johnson admitted rolling out a little on MORSE CODE but believed that SCANDALO moved in as well. He said that the check suffered by PETITE EN JEU was not a serious one. Upon unsaddling Mr Johnson told Mr Perry that MORSE CODE needed to wear blinkers.
Mr Perry (trainer MORSE CODE) said he thought PETITE EN JEU was under pressure from the top of the straight and had every opportunity from that point to go past his horse. He said over the last 30-40 metres PETITE EN JEU was not making any ground on MORSE CODE.
For the Stewards, Mr Goodwin said that any movement inwards from SCANDALO was insignificant in regards to the protest and 98% of the movement came from the inside horse, MORSE CODE. He said PETITE EN JEU did not receive a fair run to the line and in addition it was accidentally struck across the head by Mr Johnson’s whip. Mr Goodwin said the protest had merit.
Reasons for Decision:
Rule 642(1) states:
If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not
occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with.
Rule 641 requires us, in the first instance, to determine if interference occurred. Mr Johnson moved outwards 3-4 horse widths taking the rightful line of running of PETITE EN JEU. Although Mr Singh did not stop riding, the momentum of his horse was significantly affected and he was forced to change ground and come to the outside of MORSE CODE. We looked carefully to ascertain if SCANDALO contributed to the incident but any movement from that runner was insignificant and occurred after the interference. We were satisfied that the outward movement of MORSE CODE impeded the run of PETITE EN JEU.
Relegation however is not automatic. The Committee looked at the manner in which PETITE EN JEU was travelling prior to, and following, the interference. We found a significant loss of momentum occurred when Mr Singh was forced to change ground and mount a run down the outside of MORSE CODE. Importantly, PETITE EN JEU made up considerable ground over the concluding stages, gaining on MORSE CODE right through until the finish line. Taking into account the amount of ground lost, and the neck margin at the finish, it was our opinion that had PETITE EN JEU received a clear run to the line, that runner would have beaten MORSE CODE.
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: 9521c41fa02f757d9d1dfe755cb2b866
informantnumber: A8805
horsename: MORSE CODE
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 03/01/2018
hearing_title: Hawke's Bay RI 1 January 2018 - R 5 - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
charge:
facts:
Following Race 5 (Russell Roads City of Hastings Cup – FastTrack 5K), a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr M Singh alleging that horse number 2 (MORSE CODE) or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 5 (PETITE EN JEU, placed 3rd by the Judge.
The information alleged that MORSE CODE interfered with the chances of PETITE EN JEU in the home straight.
Judges placings were:
1st - SCANDALO (4)
2st - MORSE CODE (2)
3rd - PETITE EN JEU (5)
The official margin between second and third placed horses was a neck.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Singh instigated the protest and told the Committee that he was in the clear at around the 400m mark of the race with his horse travelling well. Shortly after, MORSE CODE began to move outwards and took his line of running. He said he was “checked quite badly” and, as a result of the interference, lost ground to the order of 1.5 -2 lengths.
Mr Auret said it was quite clear that Mr Singh was forced to change ground and lost a lot of momentum. At the finish his horse was coming back at MORSE CODE and, in his opinion, PETITE EN JEU would have beaten MORSE CODE had it not suffered interference. Mr Auret reinforced his argument by showing on the video where Mr Singh had to stop riding for a number of strides and change ground. He said it not only cost PETITE EN JEU second place but probably the winning of the race as well, as she made up at least 1 ½ lengths over the final stages.
Mr Johnson admitted rolling out a little on MORSE CODE but believed that SCANDALO moved in as well. He said that the check suffered by PETITE EN JEU was not a serious one. Upon unsaddling Mr Johnson told Mr Perry that MORSE CODE needed to wear blinkers.
Mr Perry (trainer MORSE CODE) said he thought PETITE EN JEU was under pressure from the top of the straight and had every opportunity from that point to go past his horse. He said over the last 30-40 metres PETITE EN JEU was not making any ground on MORSE CODE.
For the Stewards, Mr Goodwin said that any movement inwards from SCANDALO was insignificant in regards to the protest and 98% of the movement came from the inside horse, MORSE CODE. He said PETITE EN JEU did not receive a fair run to the line and in addition it was accidentally struck across the head by Mr Johnson’s whip. Mr Goodwin said the protest had merit.
reasonsfordecision:
Rule 642(1) states:
If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not
occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with.
Rule 641 requires us, in the first instance, to determine if interference occurred. Mr Johnson moved outwards 3-4 horse widths taking the rightful line of running of PETITE EN JEU. Although Mr Singh did not stop riding, the momentum of his horse was significantly affected and he was forced to change ground and come to the outside of MORSE CODE. We looked carefully to ascertain if SCANDALO contributed to the incident but any movement from that runner was insignificant and occurred after the interference. We were satisfied that the outward movement of MORSE CODE impeded the run of PETITE EN JEU.
Relegation however is not automatic. The Committee looked at the manner in which PETITE EN JEU was travelling prior to, and following, the interference. We found a significant loss of momentum occurred when Mr Singh was forced to change ground and mount a run down the outside of MORSE CODE. Importantly, PETITE EN JEU made up considerable ground over the concluding stages, gaining on MORSE CODE right through until the finish line. Taking into account the amount of ground lost, and the neck margin at the finish, it was our opinion that had PETITE EN JEU received a clear run to the line, that runner would have beaten MORSE CODE.
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was upheld and amended placings read:
1st - SCANDALO (4)
2st - PETITE EN JEU (5)
3rd - MORSE CODE (2)
Dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr M Singh - Rider of PETITE EN JEU
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr N Auret - Trainer of PETITE EN JEU, Mr T Johnson - Rider of MORSE CODE, Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr T Perry - Trainer of MORSE CODE
StipendSteward:
raceid: 5ee0a529dc46740c1057291526d6ad8e
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 7d6cce446e1716d5bd0000df019451da
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/01/2018
meet_title: Hawkes Bay RI - 1 January 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: hawkes-bay-ri
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: TCastles
meet_pm2: none
name: Hawkes Bay RI