Invercargill HRC 18 December 2012 – R 7 (Instigating a Protest)
ID: JCA18012
Meet Title:
Invercargill HRC - 18 December 2012
Meet Chair:
NSkelt
Meet Committee Member 1:
GHall
Race Date:
2012/12/18
Race Number:
R7
Decision:
The committee in this instance have used their discretion and dismissed the protest. Although satisfied that interference did take place, we do not believe the affected horses would have finished in a dividend or stakes bearing position. We have carefully assessed the manner in which the 2nd, 3rd and 4th horses finished off the race. Mr Hunter’s horse clearly finished the best of the three. The committee was satisfied that had Mr Hunter waited, a gap was going to open up for him (it was opening at the time he moved) and he would have obtained a run in accordance with the rules that would have resulted in his horse finishing 2nd.
The protest is dismissed and the placings are as the horses were called by the Judge. Stakes and dividends are to be paid accordingly.
Facts:
At the conclusion of Race 7 The CRT Real Estate/ Protein Plus Fillies and Mares Mobile Pace a protest was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr N Ydgren, into the horse placed second by the judge, alleging that Mr P Hunter the driver of McArdle Meg shifted down the track interfering with the chances of Lady Suffragette, Extremelea, and Under Cover Art, passing the 200 metres.
Rule 869(8)(a) and (b) reads:
The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses,-
immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.
The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses,-
immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.
The Judges placings were:
1st Snazzy Jaccka (6)
2nd McArdle Meg (13)
3rd Ganesh Bromac (1)
4th Real Faith (14)
5th Kensal Green (12)
2nd McArdle Meg (13)
3rd Ganesh Bromac (1)
4th Real Faith (14)
5th Kensal Green (12)
The Judges margins were:
1 ½ lengths, 2 ¼ length, a nose.
1 ½ lengths, 2 ¼ length, a nose.
Mrs Barclay was very late arriving at the hearing hearing due to her being unaware she was required for the protest. The committee delayed the hearing awaiting her arrival, however with the consent of the parties, the hearing commenced in her absence 12 minutes prior to official start time of race 8.
Submissions for Decision:
Stipendiary Steward Mr Ydgren outlined the basis of the protest to the committee and then asked Stipendiary Steward Mr Allison to highlight the alleged incident by the use of video clips (both side on and head on) of the incident.
Mr Allison stated that Mr Hunter had shifted down and tightened three drivers, Mrs Barclay, Mr Armour and Mr Walkinshaw, with Mr Walkinson eventually running out of room all together about 200 metres from the winning post.
Mrs Barclay came into the room as Mr Ydgren was about to call his witnesses.
Mr Armour (Extremelea) stated that his horse had “led up” and had been attacked during the race and that his horse was a spent force at the time of the incident. When questioned by the committee, he stated that his horse had not contributed to the alleged incident, but his horse would not have finished in a dividend bearing or stakes bearing place.
Mrs Barclay (Lady Suffragette) stated that initially she thought her horse was going “okay” but prior to the incident she had given it a flick with the whip, and there was no response. When questioned, she stated that her horse had not contributed to the alleged incident and that her horse would not have finished in a dividend or stakes bearing place.
Mr Walkinshaw (Under Cover Art) stated that there was a little bit of tightening from the horses racing on his inside (Lady Suffragette and Extremelea) but the pressure had come from the outside, in this case Mr Hunter. Mr Walkinshaw said that Mr Hunter’s horse was finishing much better than his horse, and that his horse was not going to run into a stakes or dividend bearing place.
Mr Hunter (McArdle Meg) stated that the alleged incident looked worse that it was. His horse was finishing faster than all three of the other horses affected and because they were tiring the incident appeared worse.
Mr Ydgren concluded stating that in his opinion Mr Hunter had got a run that he was not entitled to get therefore his horse gained an advantage which enabled it to run into second placing.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee was satisfied that interference did take place, and that the source of this interference was McArdle Meg. Mr Hunter has come from behind Mrs Barclay’s, Mr Armour’s and Mr Walkinshaw’s horses and has tightened all three. We agree there was a little tightening between the three prior to Mr Hunter moving but this was significantly exacerbated by his inwards movement.
The evidence of all three affected drivers was compelling. They were adamant that their horses would not have run into a dividend or stakes bearing place. This was backed up by the video evidence which highlighted the horses were well tried and were not looking to run on. It was also clear from the video and oral evidence that Mr Hunter’s horse was finishing the race off at a much quicker rate than the affected horses. This was also supported by all of the horsemen and by Mrs Barclay.
We are satisfied after repeatedly viewing the videos that Mr Hunter’s horse would have received a run in accordance with the rules very soon after Mr Hunter had moved down on the track as his horse was coming through the gap very quickly at the time of the interference. Significantly, in our opinion the horse would still have finished in 2nd placing.
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: e208de48bd1276dda488c59a1ed5a3c3
informantnumber: 1335
horsename: MCARDLE MEG
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 18/12/2012
hearing_title: Invercargill HRC 18 December 2012 - R 7 (Instigating a Protest)
charge:
facts:
At the conclusion of Race 7 The CRT Real Estate/ Protein Plus Fillies and Mares Mobile Pace a protest was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr N Ydgren, into the horse placed second by the judge, alleging that Mr P Hunter the driver of McArdle Meg shifted down the track interfering with the chances of Lady Suffragette, Extremelea, and Under Cover Art, passing the 200 metres.
Rule 869(8)(a) and (b) reads:
The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses,-
immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.
The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses,-
immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.
The Judges placings were:
1st Snazzy Jaccka (6)
2nd McArdle Meg (13)
3rd Ganesh Bromac (1)
4th Real Faith (14)
5th Kensal Green (12)
2nd McArdle Meg (13)
3rd Ganesh Bromac (1)
4th Real Faith (14)
5th Kensal Green (12)
The Judges margins were:
1 ½ lengths, 2 ¼ length, a nose.
1 ½ lengths, 2 ¼ length, a nose.
Mrs Barclay was very late arriving at the hearing hearing due to her being unaware she was required for the protest. The committee delayed the hearing awaiting her arrival, however with the consent of the parties, the hearing commenced in her absence 12 minutes prior to official start time of race 8.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Stipendiary Steward Mr Ydgren outlined the basis of the protest to the committee and then asked Stipendiary Steward Mr Allison to highlight the alleged incident by the use of video clips (both side on and head on) of the incident.
Mr Allison stated that Mr Hunter had shifted down and tightened three drivers, Mrs Barclay, Mr Armour and Mr Walkinshaw, with Mr Walkinson eventually running out of room all together about 200 metres from the winning post.
Mrs Barclay came into the room as Mr Ydgren was about to call his witnesses.
Mr Armour (Extremelea) stated that his horse had “led up” and had been attacked during the race and that his horse was a spent force at the time of the incident. When questioned by the committee, he stated that his horse had not contributed to the alleged incident, but his horse would not have finished in a dividend bearing or stakes bearing place.
Mrs Barclay (Lady Suffragette) stated that initially she thought her horse was going “okay” but prior to the incident she had given it a flick with the whip, and there was no response. When questioned, she stated that her horse had not contributed to the alleged incident and that her horse would not have finished in a dividend or stakes bearing place.
Mr Walkinshaw (Under Cover Art) stated that there was a little bit of tightening from the horses racing on his inside (Lady Suffragette and Extremelea) but the pressure had come from the outside, in this case Mr Hunter. Mr Walkinshaw said that Mr Hunter’s horse was finishing much better than his horse, and that his horse was not going to run into a stakes or dividend bearing place.
Mr Hunter (McArdle Meg) stated that the alleged incident looked worse that it was. His horse was finishing faster than all three of the other horses affected and because they were tiring the incident appeared worse.
Mr Ydgren concluded stating that in his opinion Mr Hunter had got a run that he was not entitled to get therefore his horse gained an advantage which enabled it to run into second placing.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee was satisfied that interference did take place, and that the source of this interference was McArdle Meg. Mr Hunter has come from behind Mrs Barclay’s, Mr Armour’s and Mr Walkinshaw’s horses and has tightened all three. We agree there was a little tightening between the three prior to Mr Hunter moving but this was significantly exacerbated by his inwards movement.
The evidence of all three affected drivers was compelling. They were adamant that their horses would not have run into a dividend or stakes bearing place. This was backed up by the video evidence which highlighted the horses were well tried and were not looking to run on. It was also clear from the video and oral evidence that Mr Hunter’s horse was finishing the race off at a much quicker rate than the affected horses. This was also supported by all of the horsemen and by Mrs Barclay.
We are satisfied after repeatedly viewing the videos that Mr Hunter’s horse would have received a run in accordance with the rules very soon after Mr Hunter had moved down on the track as his horse was coming through the gap very quickly at the time of the interference. Significantly, in our opinion the horse would still have finished in 2nd placing.
Decision:
The committee in this instance have used their discretion and dismissed the protest. Although satisfied that interference did take place, we do not believe the affected horses would have finished in a dividend or stakes bearing position. We have carefully assessed the manner in which the 2nd, 3rd and 4th horses finished off the race. Mr Hunter’s horse clearly finished the best of the three. The committee was satisfied that had Mr Hunter waited, a gap was going to open up for him (it was opening at the time he moved) and he would have obtained a run in accordance with the rules that would have resulted in his horse finishing 2nd.
The protest is dismissed and the placings are as the horses were called by the Judge. Stakes and dividends are to be paid accordingly.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 869(a)&(b)
Informant: Mr N Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr P Hunter (Driver/Trainer of McArdle Meg), Mrs K Barclay (Driver Lady Suffragette), Mr A Armour (Driver Extremelea), Mr S Walkinshaw (Driver Under Cover Art), Mr C Allison - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: e67a8bd7c20b3b43732e551d4579f982
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 31eb8cdaa2073115cbf8ddfdf5e4ad38
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 18/12/2012
meet_title: Invercargill HRC - 18 December 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: invercargill-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: NSkelt
meet_pm1: GHall
meet_pm2: none
name: Invercargill HRC