Manawatu HRC 17 May 2013 – R 10 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA13693
Meet Title:
Manawatu HRC - 17 May 2013
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
NMcCutcheon
Race Date:
2013/05/17
Race Number:
R10
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and placings were confirmed as:
1st (4) SUNSHIELD
2nd (1) LATENT
3rd (7) MEGS FIRST
4th (2) DOOR SLAMMER
5th (9) TWO WISHES
The committee authorised the immediate payment of dividends in accordance with its decision.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 10 (Visique Naylor Palmer Optometrists Handicap Trot 2500m) an Information Instigating a Protest was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr N Ydgren. The Information stated: “That SUNSHIELD was in an incorrect gait as its nose reached the finishing line and was lapped on by LATENT.”
The Protest was contested.
Rule 870(5) states : Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-rule (4) hereof any horse which is not in the correct gait when its nose reaches the finishing line and which is lapped on by any other horse or horses in the correct gait shall be placed by the Judicial Committee behind such horse or horses provided that where such first mentioned horse is not in its correct gait as a result of interference to such horse or its horseman, then (subject to Rule 869(8)) such relegation of the horse shall be at the discretion of the Judicial Committee.”
Rule 870(5) was read and Mrs Neal confirmed she understood the rule.
The Judge’s placings were:
1st (4) SUNSHIELD
2nd (1) LATENT
3rd (7) MEGS FIRST
4th (2) DOOR SLAMMER
5th (9) TWO WISHES
Submissions for Decision:
Using the side-on film, Mr Ydgren identified Mrs Neal’s horse (SUNSHIELD), racing on the inside near the running rail. Just prior to the winning post, SUNSHIELD started to trot roughly. He felt the stride before it crossed the line was when the horse broke from its trotting gait into a gallop. Mr Ydgren could not say with total confidence that the horse had galloped before the finishing line. He believed it was a very close call as to whether the horse had galloped just before, or on the line. He submitted that the stride on the off-side front leg was the first galloping stride. Further, he stated that the question was whether SUNSHIELD had remained in a trot when its nose reached the winning post. The committee requested the back-straight film also be viewed in addition to the head-on view.
Mrs Neal stated that it was very difficult to establish where the finishing line was located on the films in relation to the incident. She also submitted that visibility on the track did not make it any easier to ascertain where the finishing line was. She conceded that her horse had galloped, but that the judicial committee needed to decide whether or not it had got its nose to the line before it had progressed into a full gallop or whether it had got a ‘rough stride’ in, and its nose had got to the line. Mr Ydgren reiterated his view that this was a very close call and that he could not be sure that the horse in question had galloped before the line.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee considered all evidence placed before it, and reviewed all camera angles available. It was accepted that SUNSHIELD did progress into a gallop, however an element of doubt and an aspect of uncertainty as to whether the horse was actually in a gallop when its nose reached the finishing line still existed. Even though the available camera footage was viewed, it was difficult to identify at what actual point SUNSHIELD went into a gallop in relation to the winning post.
Therefore the committee could not be fully satisfied, in light of such doubt, that a change of placings could be justified in these circumstances.
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: 590d720a2a55c9da5504e1feed4f2fc5
informantnumber: A2327
horsename: SUNFIELD
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 07/05/2013
hearing_title: Manawatu HRC 17 May 2013 - R 10 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 10 (Visique Naylor Palmer Optometrists Handicap Trot 2500m) an Information Instigating a Protest was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr N Ydgren. The Information stated: “That SUNSHIELD was in an incorrect gait as its nose reached the finishing line and was lapped on by LATENT.”
The Protest was contested.
Rule 870(5) states : Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-rule (4) hereof any horse which is not in the correct gait when its nose reaches the finishing line and which is lapped on by any other horse or horses in the correct gait shall be placed by the Judicial Committee behind such horse or horses provided that where such first mentioned horse is not in its correct gait as a result of interference to such horse or its horseman, then (subject to Rule 869(8)) such relegation of the horse shall be at the discretion of the Judicial Committee.”
Rule 870(5) was read and Mrs Neal confirmed she understood the rule.
The Judge’s placings were:
1st (4) SUNSHIELD
2nd (1) LATENT
3rd (7) MEGS FIRST
4th (2) DOOR SLAMMER
5th (9) TWO WISHES
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Using the side-on film, Mr Ydgren identified Mrs Neal’s horse (SUNSHIELD), racing on the inside near the running rail. Just prior to the winning post, SUNSHIELD started to trot roughly. He felt the stride before it crossed the line was when the horse broke from its trotting gait into a gallop. Mr Ydgren could not say with total confidence that the horse had galloped before the finishing line. He believed it was a very close call as to whether the horse had galloped just before, or on the line. He submitted that the stride on the off-side front leg was the first galloping stride. Further, he stated that the question was whether SUNSHIELD had remained in a trot when its nose reached the winning post. The committee requested the back-straight film also be viewed in addition to the head-on view.
Mrs Neal stated that it was very difficult to establish where the finishing line was located on the films in relation to the incident. She also submitted that visibility on the track did not make it any easier to ascertain where the finishing line was. She conceded that her horse had galloped, but that the judicial committee needed to decide whether or not it had got its nose to the line before it had progressed into a full gallop or whether it had got a ‘rough stride’ in, and its nose had got to the line. Mr Ydgren reiterated his view that this was a very close call and that he could not be sure that the horse in question had galloped before the line.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee considered all evidence placed before it, and reviewed all camera angles available. It was accepted that SUNSHIELD did progress into a gallop, however an element of doubt and an aspect of uncertainty as to whether the horse was actually in a gallop when its nose reached the finishing line still existed. Even though the available camera footage was viewed, it was difficult to identify at what actual point SUNSHIELD went into a gallop in relation to the winning post.
Therefore the committee could not be fully satisfied, in light of such doubt, that a change of placings could be justified in these circumstances.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed and placings were confirmed as:
1st (4) SUNSHIELD
2nd (1) LATENT
3rd (7) MEGS FIRST
4th (2) DOOR SLAMMER
5th (9) TWO WISHES
The committee authorised the immediate payment of dividends in accordance with its decision.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: Rule 870(5)
Informant: Mr N Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent: L Neal - Driver SUNFIELD
StipendSteward:
raceid: 2d0826e218286199816228d8b1bba345
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 005620a56829ce77b296b98d2d33872e
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 17/05/2013
meet_title: Manawatu HRC - 17 May 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: manawatu-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: NMcCutcheon
meet_pm2: none
name: Manawatu HRC