Marton JC 4 July 2020 – R 10 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
ID: JCA12130
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Marton JC - 4 July 2020
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Race Date:
2020/07/04
Race Number:
R 6
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest was dismissed and authorisation to pay dividends on the Judge's placings and stake money was approved.
Facts:
Following Race 10 (BJW Motors/Rayner Building 1400) a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr Vile alleging that horse number 5 (RELDA) or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 12 (DOUBLE ACT) placed 4th by the Judge.
The Information alleged interference in the home straight.
Judge's placings were:
1st - SUPER FLASH (14)
2nd - RELDA (5)
3rd - ARLINGTON GOLD (9)
4th - DOUBLE ACT (12)
The official margins were a head, 1½ lengths and 2½ lengths.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Vile explained that he lodged the protest because the 2nd placed horse came across in front of his runner and checked DOUBLE ACT out of the race. He said his horse lost momentum, and in heavy track conditions horses must be kept going. The Committee asked Mr Vile if he thought DOUBLE ACT would have beaten RELDA if it had received a clear run to the line. Mr Vile said it might have done but he could not be sure as it had been denied that opportunity.
Mr Johnson said the interference forced him to stop riding, and he believed DOUBLE ACT still had “a bit to give”. He was just getting busy on his horse when he was checked.
Mr Mudhoo, the rider of RELDA, said his horse ran inwards when he used his whip, but he tried to straighten it up. He said the winner of the race caused some of the interference when it ran outwards, and in his opinion both his horse and the winner were travelling better than DOUBLE ACT.
Mrs Kay agreed with her jockey and said the result would have been the same even without any interference.
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.
The Committee considered all submissions. It was clear that Mr Vile’s runner DOUBLE ACT received a check soon after passing the 200m mark. Prior to the interference the rider of DOUBLE ACT, Mr Johnson, was mounting a run and had used his whip on two occasions.
The Committee determined that both the 1st and 2nd placed horses failed to maintain straight lines and contributed to the gap closing on DOUBLE ACT, however RELDA was the principle offender.
Taking into account the manner in which the horses were racing before the incident and the combined margin of four lengths between 2nd and 4th placing, we were not satisfied that DOUBLE ACT would have beaten RELDA with an unimpeded run.
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: 362b48c690f47fe99827655bba063318
informantnumber: A12322
horsename: RELDA
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 06/07/2020
hearing_title: Marton JC 4 July 2020 - R 10 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
charge:
facts:
Following Race 10 (BJW Motors/Rayner Building 1400) a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr Vile alleging that horse number 5 (RELDA) or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 12 (DOUBLE ACT) placed 4th by the Judge.
The Information alleged interference in the home straight.
Judge's placings were:
1st - SUPER FLASH (14)
2nd - RELDA (5)
3rd - ARLINGTON GOLD (9)
4th - DOUBLE ACT (12)
The official margins were a head, 1½ lengths and 2½ lengths.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Vile explained that he lodged the protest because the 2nd placed horse came across in front of his runner and checked DOUBLE ACT out of the race. He said his horse lost momentum, and in heavy track conditions horses must be kept going. The Committee asked Mr Vile if he thought DOUBLE ACT would have beaten RELDA if it had received a clear run to the line. Mr Vile said it might have done but he could not be sure as it had been denied that opportunity.
Mr Johnson said the interference forced him to stop riding, and he believed DOUBLE ACT still had “a bit to give”. He was just getting busy on his horse when he was checked.
Mr Mudhoo, the rider of RELDA, said his horse ran inwards when he used his whip, but he tried to straighten it up. He said the winner of the race caused some of the interference when it ran outwards, and in his opinion both his horse and the winner were travelling better than DOUBLE ACT.
Mrs Kay agreed with her jockey and said the result would have been the same even without any interference.
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.
The Committee considered all submissions. It was clear that Mr Vile’s runner DOUBLE ACT received a check soon after passing the 200m mark. Prior to the interference the rider of DOUBLE ACT, Mr Johnson, was mounting a run and had used his whip on two occasions.
The Committee determined that both the 1st and 2nd placed horses failed to maintain straight lines and contributed to the gap closing on DOUBLE ACT, however RELDA was the principle offender.
Taking into account the manner in which the horses were racing before the incident and the combined margin of four lengths between 2nd and 4th placing, we were not satisfied that DOUBLE ACT would have beaten RELDA with an unimpeded run.
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest was dismissed and authorisation to pay dividends on the Judge's placings and stake money was approved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr G Vile - Trainer of DOUBLE ACT
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr C Johnson - Rider of DOUBLE ACT, Mr A Mudhoo - Rider of RELDA, Mr N Goodwin - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr S Kay - Trainer of RELDA
StipendSteward:
raceid: b08cc88c422bbfd0947ea8b68c3234a6
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 13350fd0fa96b278b442edd271b0bd4e
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 04/07/2020
meet_title: Marton JC - 4 July 2020
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: marton-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Marton JC