Nelson HRC 9 January 2011 – R 1 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA13896
Meet Title:
Nelson HRC - 9 January 2011
Meet Chair:
JPhelan
Meet Committee Member 1:
PWilliams
Race Date:
2011/01/09
Race Number:
R 1
Decision:
The amended places are as follows.
1st – Evander D Go (10)
2nd – Ugly Betty (1)
3rd – Gold Invasion (12)
4th – Fire In The Night (13)
5th – Mamselle (8)
6th – Master Harbour (11)
Facts:
Following the running of Race 1, the More FM 3YO+ Trot, an information Instigating a Protest was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging a breach of Rule 870(3) and the “Breaking Horses” Regulation by “Sunchita” (4) driven by Mr B. N. Orange. The Judge’s placings were as follows.
1st – Evander D Go (10)
2nd – Ugly Betty (1)
3rd – Gold Invasion (12)
4th – Sunchita (4)
5th – Fire In The Night (13)
6th – Mamselle (8)
The Information reads as follows.
“This is a protest against horse number (4) placed 4th by the Judge on the grounds of breaking over concluding stages – approx. 70 metres..”
Rule 870(3) provides as follows.
“(3) Any horse which breaks from its gait shall promptly regain its proper gait.”
The “Breaking Horses” Regulation, so far as it is relevant to the present case, provides as follows.
“For the avoidance of doubt and in order to clarify the situation for all parties concerned, the following shall apply with regard to breaking horses:
(a) ……
(b) Any horse which breaks from its gait within the final 200 metres of any race and continues on in the break for a distance of 50 metres or greater, shall be deemed to be in breach of Rule 870(3) in that it has failed to promptly regain its proper gait.
Where a protest has been duly lodged against the placing of an offending horse, the Judicial Committee shall either:
(i) relegate such horse under Rule 870(4) to behind any other horse in respect of which an advantage may have been gained; or
(ii) disqualify it from the race under Rule 1003(2).
Provided that where such first mentioned horse is not in the correct gait as a result of interference to such horse or its horseman, then [subject to Rule 869(8)] such relegation or disqualification of the horse shall be at the discretion of the Judicial Committee.
This regulation shall not preclude a protest being lodged against a horse’s placing when such horse has been in a break for a lesser distance than stipulated above.”
The driver of “Sunchita”, Open Horseman Mr B. N. Orange, on behalf of trainer Mr B. J. Hill, had endorsed the Information “I do not contest the protest.”, and he did not attend the hearing.
Mr Escott gave evidence and used video coverage to show that well into the final 200 metres “Sunchita” had broken from its correct gait, had continued in a gallop for about 70 metres, and returned to its correct gait just short of the winning post.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Escott made submissions that “Sunchita” should be disqualified from its 4th placing.
Reasons for Decision:
We were satisfied that “Sunchita” should be disqualified.
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: 7df1c72af5bfbf2a7f3053faac9c572c
informantnumber: 13811
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 31/12/2010
hearing_title: Nelson HRC 9 January 2011 - R 1 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 1, the More FM 3YO+ Trot, an information Instigating a Protest was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging a breach of Rule 870(3) and the “Breaking Horses” Regulation by “Sunchita” (4) driven by Mr B. N. Orange. The Judge’s placings were as follows.
1st – Evander D Go (10)
2nd – Ugly Betty (1)
3rd – Gold Invasion (12)
4th – Sunchita (4)
5th – Fire In The Night (13)
6th – Mamselle (8)
The Information reads as follows.
“This is a protest against horse number (4) placed 4th by the Judge on the grounds of breaking over concluding stages – approx. 70 metres..”
Rule 870(3) provides as follows.
“(3) Any horse which breaks from its gait shall promptly regain its proper gait.”
The “Breaking Horses” Regulation, so far as it is relevant to the present case, provides as follows.
“For the avoidance of doubt and in order to clarify the situation for all parties concerned, the following shall apply with regard to breaking horses:
(a) ……
(b) Any horse which breaks from its gait within the final 200 metres of any race and continues on in the break for a distance of 50 metres or greater, shall be deemed to be in breach of Rule 870(3) in that it has failed to promptly regain its proper gait.
Where a protest has been duly lodged against the placing of an offending horse, the Judicial Committee shall either:
(i) relegate such horse under Rule 870(4) to behind any other horse in respect of which an advantage may have been gained; or
(ii) disqualify it from the race under Rule 1003(2).
Provided that where such first mentioned horse is not in the correct gait as a result of interference to such horse or its horseman, then [subject to Rule 869(8)] such relegation or disqualification of the horse shall be at the discretion of the Judicial Committee.
This regulation shall not preclude a protest being lodged against a horse’s placing when such horse has been in a break for a lesser distance than stipulated above.”
The driver of “Sunchita”, Open Horseman Mr B. N. Orange, on behalf of trainer Mr B. J. Hill, had endorsed the Information “I do not contest the protest.”, and he did not attend the hearing.
Mr Escott gave evidence and used video coverage to show that well into the final 200 metres “Sunchita” had broken from its correct gait, had continued in a gallop for about 70 metres, and returned to its correct gait just short of the winning post.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Escott made submissions that “Sunchita” should be disqualified from its 4th placing.
reasonsfordecision:
We were satisfied that “Sunchita” should be disqualified.
Decision:
The amended places are as follows.
1st – Evander D Go (10)
2nd – Ugly Betty (1)
3rd – Gold Invasion (12)
4th – Fire In The Night (13)
5th – Mamselle (8)
6th – Master Harbour (11)
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 870(3) and Breaking Horses Regulations
Informant: Mr NR Escott - Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 5a0215eb4e6fe9114e84b8ae722745b6
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: b70e35391c888204d92c9093826ad30b
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 09/01/2011
meet_title: Nelson HRC - 9 January 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nelson-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: JPhelan
meet_pm1: PWilliams
meet_pm2: none
name: Nelson HRC