Manukau TC 14 September 2010 – R 8 (instigating a protest)

hearingid: 29f4baf7ca3586cb53ae4d551409959b

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 14/09/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Manukau TC 14 September 2010 - R 8 (instigating a protest)

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr J Muirhead, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  N/A

Information No:  13842 (Instigating a protest)

Meeting:  Manukau Trotting Club

Date:  14 September 2010

Venue:  Alexandra Park          

Race:  8

Rule No:  869(8)(b)

Judicial Committee:  B Rowe, Chairman –A Godsalve, Committee Member

Plea:  Not Admitted

Also Present:    Mr R Croon, part owner of LADY LUCK SMILES, Junior Driver Mr S Lawson, Mr P Ferguson, Mr B Mangos driver of FAST E NUFF, Mr A Herlihy driver DANICA PATRICK and Mr G Wolfenden driver of ARJAYEM.

CHARGE(s):

Protest by ARJAYEM placed 9^th by the Judge against LADY LUCK SMILES on the grounds of interference about 400metres from the finish of the race, that interference affecting the chance of ARJAYEM.  

EVIDENCE:

Mr Muirhead showed and interpreted the video film of the incident.  He said LADY LUCK SMILES went to the lead at about the 400metre mark and then suddenly slowed, which caused a check to the following horse FAST E NUFF, which in turn caused a check to DANICA PATRICK, which in turn caused a check to ARJAYEM which broke and lost its chance.  ARJAYEM finished last, 69lengths from the winner. 

Mr Mangos, Mr Herlihy and Mr Wolfenden agreed with the interpretation of the video given by Mr Muirhead. 

Mr Mangos and Mr Herlihy said the chances of their horses finishing in a higher placing were not affected. 

Mr Wolfenden said ARJAYEM would have finished in a higher placing, but he could not say where it would have finished.  In particular, he could not say that ARJAYEM would have finished in the first four placings. 

Mr Croon said the affect of the interference on ARJAYEM was exaggerated by the fact that DANICA PATRICK was weakening at the time. 

Mr Lawson said that if the interference had not occurred, ARJAYEM which was in last position at the time, (in a field of nine) would have been taken back further by the weakening DANICA PATRICK. 

Mr Muirhead said it was impossible to predict where ARJAYEM might have finished.  He said there was interference, the chance of ARJAYEM was affected and LADY LUCK SMILES should be relegated.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The committee accepts LADY LUCK SMILES caused interference to ARJAYEM and thereby affected its chance of finishing in a higher placing.  However at the time of the interference, ARJAYEM was running last in a field of nine. 

The committee has a discretion as to relegation.  Northern Region Committees have in circumstances such as exist in this case (in particular that the interference took place about 400metres from the finish) based their discretion on whether or not the interference affected the chance of the horse interfered with finishing in a stake bearing or dividend bearing position.  In this race only the first four placings were dividend bearing and stake bearing. 

The committee accepts the evidence of Mr Lawson that if there had been no interference ARJAYEM would most likely have been taken further back by DANICA PATRICK.  Mr Wolfenden was most uncertain as to the affect of the interference on ARJAYEM.  The committee does not accept Mr Muirhead’s apparent interpretation of the rule, namely all that is necessary for a horse to be relegated, is to establish that it caused interference to another horse which affected the chance of that horse finishing in a higher placing.  It cannot be excluded that ARJAYEM might only have finished second to last.  To relegate LADY LUCK SMILES would have resulted in ARJAYEM being promoted from last to second to last – which would not have assisted the connections of that horse nor the punters who backed it. 

Rule 869(8) has a number of problems associated with it.  For example it is possible to relegate a horse which MAY have interfered with another horse.  The rule needs to be clarified – for example what does the word “chance” mean?  In summary, the committee accepts LADY LUCK SMILES caused interference to ARJAYEM, but is most uncertain as to the affect of that interference on the chances of that horse, given that the interference occurred only 400metres from the finish of the race and given the uncertainty of Mr Wolfenden.  The evidence does not satisfy the committee that ARJAYEM, but for the interference would have finished in the first four placings.

DECISION:

For the above reasons the protest is dismissed.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869(8)(b)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 460e4ec77bba5a5b304ae2071b7b6338

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R 8

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: c23b8342a12ff533b2d2d09b85e7b8da

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 14/09/2010

meet_title: Manukau TC - 14 September 2010

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: manukau-tc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair: tom

meet_pm1: tom

meet_pm2: tom

name: Manukau TC