Masterton RC 8 March 2015 – R 4 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA10780
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Masterton RC - 8 March 2015
Meet Chair:
PWilliams
Meet Committee Member 1:
TCastles
Race Date:
2015/03/08
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
The protest is dismissed.
The confirmed placing's as called by the Judge are:-
1st = Shankly (1)
1st = Brillante Brigitte (9)
3rd Perran Beach (10)
4th Docket (4)
5th Lykabettus (3)
Authorisation is given for the payment of all dividends and stakes.
Facts:
Following the running of race 4, the “Stihl Shop Maiden” Information A2706 instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Trainer Mr A Campbell alleging a breach of Rule 642(1). The information stated that “Brillante Brigitte” or its rider Ms K Myers interfered with the chances of “Shankly” ridden by Mr J Parkes “over the final stage”.
The judge’s placing's were:-
1st = Shankly (1)
1st = Brillante Brigitte (9)
3rd Perran Beach (10)
4th Docket (4)
5th Lykabettus (3)
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”.
Submissions for Decision:
Stipendiary Steward Mr Tidmarsh used the head-on film at approximately the 250m point to identify the two horses concerned for all the parties at the hearing. He said “Shankly” was racing approximately 3-4 horse widths out from the rail and to its inside and slightly in front was “Brillante Brigitte”.
Mr Campbell said the film showed that as the race progressed down the straight ‘Shankly” got up alongside “Brillante Brigitte” and then received a bad check close to post. He said “Shankly” had come up to win the race and prior to the post he received a bad check which could be confirmed by looking at the way the horses’ outside legs were moved. He said after that check his horse had come again and managed to win the race in a dead heat with the other horse. He said it was clear to him that the bump his horse received had cost him the race.
Mr Parkes said he drifted in slightly near the 200m point but did not make contact with Ms Myers' horse. He said he then straightened his horse and when contact was made closer to the post he was running out and away from Ms Myers’ horse. He said he believed Ms Myers had moved out 2 horse widths and then bumped him and that cost him his chance to win the race outright.
Mr Barnao (on behalf of several of the owners of “Shankly” present at the hearing) said the most significant issue for him was that the bump to his horse was so severe that Ms Myers was almost dislodged from her horse.
Ms Myers said Mr Parkes moved in moved in approximately 1 horse width as the horses raced down the home straight. She said she was headed by Mr Parkes but her horse came back and put a good half head on his horse just before the post. She said when the horses came together it was correct to say she nearly came off but that was because it was her horse and not Mr Parkes’ that became unbalanced. She said this was because Mr Parkes’ horse was leaning in on her and, as a result, she felt she lost a good half head in distance which enabled the other horse to get up and dead heat the race.
Mrs Zimmerman said she felt her horse was most affected by the incident and the film showed that Mr Parkes did not stop hitting his horse all the way to the post whilst Ms Myers did momentarily have to stop riding and was still able to get up and dead heat the race.
To a question from the Committee Mr Parkes said the two horses came together about 20m from the post and Ms Myers said she thought it was about 2 strides off the line.
Mr Goodwin said it was a difficult issue to determine given there was a dead heat for 1st place involving the two runners. He said at the 200m point “Shankly” was a head in front of “Brillante Brigitte”. He said “Brillante Brigitte” had then fought back and the two horses had come together under pressure 2 strides from the line. He said “Brillante Brigitte” had moved out slightly but in his view both horses had been affected by the bump that occurred.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee has reviewed the head-on and side-on films of the incident several times. It is clear the two horses came together twice in the final stages of the race. On the first occasion the horses hardly brushed each other and what contact there was had no impact on either runner. On the second occasion, which was only 2 strides from the line the film shows the horses did make contact with Ms Myers moving slightly outward but also Mr Parkes moving slightly inwards. On the basis that the contact made was attributable to both horses, with both being momentarily affected, (although both jockeys were able to ride out to the line) and the fact that the contact occurred so close to the finish line the Committee is not convinced that had the horses not made contact with each other that “Shankly” would have won the race outright.
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: 019280e5d0b6d380bd65e889acb7a63d
informantnumber: A2706
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 02/03/2015
hearing_title: Masterton RC 8 March 2015 - R 4 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 4, the “Stihl Shop Maiden” Information A2706 instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Trainer Mr A Campbell alleging a breach of Rule 642(1). The information stated that “Brillante Brigitte” or its rider Ms K Myers interfered with the chances of “Shankly” ridden by Mr J Parkes “over the final stage”.
The judge’s placing's were:-
1st = Shankly (1)
1st = Brillante Brigitte (9)
3rd Perran Beach (10)
4th Docket (4)
5th Lykabettus (3)
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”.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Stipendiary Steward Mr Tidmarsh used the head-on film at approximately the 250m point to identify the two horses concerned for all the parties at the hearing. He said “Shankly” was racing approximately 3-4 horse widths out from the rail and to its inside and slightly in front was “Brillante Brigitte”.
Mr Campbell said the film showed that as the race progressed down the straight ‘Shankly” got up alongside “Brillante Brigitte” and then received a bad check close to post. He said “Shankly” had come up to win the race and prior to the post he received a bad check which could be confirmed by looking at the way the horses’ outside legs were moved. He said after that check his horse had come again and managed to win the race in a dead heat with the other horse. He said it was clear to him that the bump his horse received had cost him the race.
Mr Parkes said he drifted in slightly near the 200m point but did not make contact with Ms Myers' horse. He said he then straightened his horse and when contact was made closer to the post he was running out and away from Ms Myers’ horse. He said he believed Ms Myers had moved out 2 horse widths and then bumped him and that cost him his chance to win the race outright.
Mr Barnao (on behalf of several of the owners of “Shankly” present at the hearing) said the most significant issue for him was that the bump to his horse was so severe that Ms Myers was almost dislodged from her horse.
Ms Myers said Mr Parkes moved in moved in approximately 1 horse width as the horses raced down the home straight. She said she was headed by Mr Parkes but her horse came back and put a good half head on his horse just before the post. She said when the horses came together it was correct to say she nearly came off but that was because it was her horse and not Mr Parkes’ that became unbalanced. She said this was because Mr Parkes’ horse was leaning in on her and, as a result, she felt she lost a good half head in distance which enabled the other horse to get up and dead heat the race.
Mrs Zimmerman said she felt her horse was most affected by the incident and the film showed that Mr Parkes did not stop hitting his horse all the way to the post whilst Ms Myers did momentarily have to stop riding and was still able to get up and dead heat the race.
To a question from the Committee Mr Parkes said the two horses came together about 20m from the post and Ms Myers said she thought it was about 2 strides off the line.
Mr Goodwin said it was a difficult issue to determine given there was a dead heat for 1st place involving the two runners. He said at the 200m point “Shankly” was a head in front of “Brillante Brigitte”. He said “Brillante Brigitte” had then fought back and the two horses had come together under pressure 2 strides from the line. He said “Brillante Brigitte” had moved out slightly but in his view both horses had been affected by the bump that occurred.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee has reviewed the head-on and side-on films of the incident several times. It is clear the two horses came together twice in the final stages of the race. On the first occasion the horses hardly brushed each other and what contact there was had no impact on either runner. On the second occasion, which was only 2 strides from the line the film shows the horses did make contact with Ms Myers moving slightly outward but also Mr Parkes moving slightly inwards. On the basis that the contact made was attributable to both horses, with both being momentarily affected, (although both jockeys were able to ride out to the line) and the fact that the contact occurred so close to the finish line the Committee is not convinced that had the horses not made contact with each other that “Shankly” would have won the race outright.
Decision:
The protest is dismissed.
The confirmed placing's as called by the Judge are:-
1st = Shankly (1)
1st = Brillante Brigitte (9)
3rd Perran Beach (10)
4th Docket (4)
5th Lykabettus (3)
Authorisation is given for the payment of all dividends and stakes.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr A Campbell - Licensed Trainer of "Shankly"
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward, Mr L Tidmarsh - Stipendiary Steward, Mr J Parkes - Licensed Jockey and rider of "Shankly", Mr J Barnao - representing the owners of "Shankly"
Respondent: Ms K Myers - Licensed Jockey and rider of "Brillante Brigitte", Ms K Zimmerman - Licensed Trainer of "Brillante Brigitte"
StipendSteward:
raceid: e6c64c619bc1fff0c458a63b3960f657
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: f8841756c29a9df0c10b844a0b4426c4
meet_expapproval: approved
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 08/03/2015
meet_title: Masterton RC - 8 March 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "MemberRole": "Chair ", "MemberID": "PWilliams", "Member": "", "OtherExpenses": "0", "KMs": "140", "Total": "86.8", "kmprice": 86.799999999999997, "Approved": "on"}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: masterton-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: PWilliams
meet_pm1: TCastles
meet_pm2: none
name: Masterton RC