Matamata RC 21 February 2015 – R 6 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA18084
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Matamata RC - 21 February 2015
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
RSeabrook
Race Date:
2015/02/21
Race Number:
R6
Decision:
Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placing’s shall stand. In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 6, J Swap Contractors Matamata Breeders Stakes Group 2, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Marsh, alleged that SERENA MISS placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his horse NAHEMA placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 2 SERENA MISS
2nd No. 3 NAHEMA
3rd No. 5 STRATA LADY
4th No. 7 REMINISCE
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a nose.
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”.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Marsh submitted that NAHEMA was keeping her own line in the last 100 metres during which she was pushed inwards half a metre. He said Mr McNab “couldn’t get to his horse” and it was notable that half a stride past the post NAHEMA was in front of SERENA MISS. He added that Mr Innes made no attempt to straighten SERENA MISS and in his opinion the interference cost NAHEMA more than a nose.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Marsh did not wish to comment at which point of the race the alleged interference occurred.
Mr McNab submitted that he was knocked off balance by SERENA MISS which cost him more than a nose. Mr McNab added that he was unable to ride NAHEMA to her full ability.
Mr Perry submitted that he agreed with all that Mr Marsh had said and added that every horse was entitled to fair running room. He said NAHEMA had been squeezed at a crucial part of the race which cost her more than a nose.
Mr Innes submitted that he was following NAHEMA in the final straight. He said that NAHEMA which was racing on his inside had drifted across and SERENA MISS followed it in. He believed that STRATA LADY had moved out as much as he had moved in.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Innes submitted in his view there was no interference in the closing stages of the race.
Mr Rogerson submitted that STRATA LADY moved out two horse widths and contributed to the incident. He believed SERENA MISS followed NAHEMA when that filly had moved in and noted that SERENA MISS had come from behind NAHEMA to win the race. He conceded that there was a brush between the two horses but there was no interference. He added that both horses had their chance to win the race and the best horse had won. He said the fact that NAHEMA was in front past the line was not relevant.
Mr Rogerson did ask for the back – on film to be shown. Mr Oatham advised the hearing there was no back - on film available.
Mrs Rogerson had nothing further to add.
Mr Oatham on behalf of the Stewards submitted that there was interference at the 50 metres when SERENA MISS does appear to shift in under a hard ride. He said this placed Mr McNab in restricted room for eight to nine strides. He noted that SERENA MISS did come from behind NAHEMA and Mr McNab was not able to ride his mount out fully. He said the protest did have merit and submitted the Committee had to be satisfied that NAHEMA would have beaten SERENA MISS if no such interference had occurred.
Mr Marsh when given the opportunity to sum up said that STRATA LADY had held its line. He said Mr McNab was unable to “get to his mount” and NAHEMA was denied her fair running line. He said Mr Innes kept riding his mount out to the line and this hampered NAHEMA. He reiterated the interference cost NAHEMA more than a nose.
Mr Rogerson when given the opportunity to sum up said that STRATA LADY had moved out contributing to the incident. He said it was relevant that SERENA MISS had come from behind NAHEMA to win the race and reiterated the best horse won the race.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and spent considerable time reviewing the available video films frame by frame. The Committee was mindful this protest was lodged in a Group 2 race worth $100,000. It was unfortunate that there was no back on film available for the hearing to view.
We established at the 300 metres NAHEMA was racing in a five wide position with SERENA MISS racing about one and a half lengths behind her in a six wide position. It was clear on the head on film that approaching the 150 metres NAHEMA drifted in approximately two horse widths away from SERENA MISS. It was then noticeable shortly after that point SERENA MISS simply followed NAHEMA in when challenging for the lead. . The head on film showed that STRATA LADY had moved out approximately one horse width earlier in the straight. This happened prior to the alleged interference (50 metres) and in our opinion had no major bearing on the outcome of the race. These facts are significant because this resulted in the first three place getters all racing in tight quarters over the final 50 metres as opposed to earlier in the final straight when all three horses had clear racing room between them.
The head on film showed that near the 50 metres SERENA MISS and NAHEMA came together and brushed for approximately eight strides. We consider the brush to be minimal and when they buffeted for a few strides the impact was neither horse appeared to lose any momentum. While Mr McNab may have been slightly impeded in his whip action we note he struck NAHEMA five times behind the saddle in the final 50 metres and he continued to ride his mount in a forward manner to the winning post. We viewed that over the final 50 metres Mr Innes struck SERENA MISS with the whip five times and we note Mr Innes did endeavour to avoid any inward movement. Finally, the head on film shows that there was a clear gap between SERENA MISS and NAHEMA approximately two strides prior to the winning post.
Although we accept the protest did have merit after taking into account all the above factors the Committee is not fully satisfied that NAHEMA would have beaten SERENA MISS.
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: ec2cd7ed15c9cc5f1cdabb0d145f0f12
informantnumber: A6882
horsename: SERENA MISS
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 11/02/2015
hearing_title: Matamata RC 21 February 2015 - R 6 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 6, J Swap Contractors Matamata Breeders Stakes Group 2, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Marsh, alleged that SERENA MISS placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his horse NAHEMA placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 2 SERENA MISS
2nd No. 3 NAHEMA
3rd No. 5 STRATA LADY
4th No. 7 REMINISCE
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a nose.
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”.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Marsh submitted that NAHEMA was keeping her own line in the last 100 metres during which she was pushed inwards half a metre. He said Mr McNab “couldn’t get to his horse” and it was notable that half a stride past the post NAHEMA was in front of SERENA MISS. He added that Mr Innes made no attempt to straighten SERENA MISS and in his opinion the interference cost NAHEMA more than a nose.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Marsh did not wish to comment at which point of the race the alleged interference occurred.
Mr McNab submitted that he was knocked off balance by SERENA MISS which cost him more than a nose. Mr McNab added that he was unable to ride NAHEMA to her full ability.
Mr Perry submitted that he agreed with all that Mr Marsh had said and added that every horse was entitled to fair running room. He said NAHEMA had been squeezed at a crucial part of the race which cost her more than a nose.
Mr Innes submitted that he was following NAHEMA in the final straight. He said that NAHEMA which was racing on his inside had drifted across and SERENA MISS followed it in. He believed that STRATA LADY had moved out as much as he had moved in.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Innes submitted in his view there was no interference in the closing stages of the race.
Mr Rogerson submitted that STRATA LADY moved out two horse widths and contributed to the incident. He believed SERENA MISS followed NAHEMA when that filly had moved in and noted that SERENA MISS had come from behind NAHEMA to win the race. He conceded that there was a brush between the two horses but there was no interference. He added that both horses had their chance to win the race and the best horse had won. He said the fact that NAHEMA was in front past the line was not relevant.
Mr Rogerson did ask for the back – on film to be shown. Mr Oatham advised the hearing there was no back - on film available.
Mrs Rogerson had nothing further to add.
Mr Oatham on behalf of the Stewards submitted that there was interference at the 50 metres when SERENA MISS does appear to shift in under a hard ride. He said this placed Mr McNab in restricted room for eight to nine strides. He noted that SERENA MISS did come from behind NAHEMA and Mr McNab was not able to ride his mount out fully. He said the protest did have merit and submitted the Committee had to be satisfied that NAHEMA would have beaten SERENA MISS if no such interference had occurred.
Mr Marsh when given the opportunity to sum up said that STRATA LADY had held its line. He said Mr McNab was unable to “get to his mount” and NAHEMA was denied her fair running line. He said Mr Innes kept riding his mount out to the line and this hampered NAHEMA. He reiterated the interference cost NAHEMA more than a nose.
Mr Rogerson when given the opportunity to sum up said that STRATA LADY had moved out contributing to the incident. He said it was relevant that SERENA MISS had come from behind NAHEMA to win the race and reiterated the best horse won the race.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and spent considerable time reviewing the available video films frame by frame. The Committee was mindful this protest was lodged in a Group 2 race worth $100,000. It was unfortunate that there was no back on film available for the hearing to view.
We established at the 300 metres NAHEMA was racing in a five wide position with SERENA MISS racing about one and a half lengths behind her in a six wide position. It was clear on the head on film that approaching the 150 metres NAHEMA drifted in approximately two horse widths away from SERENA MISS. It was then noticeable shortly after that point SERENA MISS simply followed NAHEMA in when challenging for the lead. . The head on film showed that STRATA LADY had moved out approximately one horse width earlier in the straight. This happened prior to the alleged interference (50 metres) and in our opinion had no major bearing on the outcome of the race. These facts are significant because this resulted in the first three place getters all racing in tight quarters over the final 50 metres as opposed to earlier in the final straight when all three horses had clear racing room between them.
The head on film showed that near the 50 metres SERENA MISS and NAHEMA came together and brushed for approximately eight strides. We consider the brush to be minimal and when they buffeted for a few strides the impact was neither horse appeared to lose any momentum. While Mr McNab may have been slightly impeded in his whip action we note he struck NAHEMA five times behind the saddle in the final 50 metres and he continued to ride his mount in a forward manner to the winning post. We viewed that over the final 50 metres Mr Innes struck SERENA MISS with the whip five times and we note Mr Innes did endeavour to avoid any inward movement. Finally, the head on film shows that there was a clear gap between SERENA MISS and NAHEMA approximately two strides prior to the winning post.
Although we accept the protest did have merit after taking into account all the above factors the Committee is not fully satisfied that NAHEMA would have beaten SERENA MISS.
Decision:
Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placing’s shall stand. In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642
Informant: Mr S Marsh - Trainer of NAHEMA
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr B Perry - Syndicate Manager of NAHEMA, Mr M McNab - Rider of NAHEMA, Mr B Lichter - Journalist, Mr B Popplewell - Trackside TV, Mr L Innes - Rider of SERENA MISS, Mrs D Rogerson - Co Trainer of SERENA MISS, Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr G Rogerson - Co Trainer of SERENA MISS
StipendSteward:
raceid: 6d84688ac7bbc2e87c4eff0aad6ba798
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: c442e0de569a5b2830729b6a9f62a3c8
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 21/02/2015
meet_title: Matamata RC - 21 February 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: matamata-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: RSeabrook
meet_pm2: none
name: Matamata RC