Oamaru JC 19 July 2015 – R 3 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA16612
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Oamaru JC - 19 July 2015
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
PKnowles
Race Date:
2015/07/19
Race Number:
R3
Decision:
The protest is dismissed.
Dividends and stakes are to be paid out in accordance with the Judge's placings.
Facts:
Mr J Parsons, licensed trainer of SNIPARINDA, which was placed 2nd by the Judge in race 3, the BRACKENS PRINT OAMARU 2YO 12000 metres, sought the relegation of MARGARITA MOVER, which was placed 1st by the Judge, on the ground of interference at the 1000 metres.
Judge’s placings were:
1st MARGARITA MOVER
2nd SNIPARINDA
3rd SALU
4th WILLOW
The margin between 1st and second was a head.
Rule 642(1) provides:
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:
Mr Parsons demonstrated on the video that Ms Wynne, the rider of MARGARITA MOVER, was not sufficiently clear when she crossed to the fence at the 1000 metres mark. As a consequence, he said, SNIPARINDA clipped heels and lost a length to a length and a half. He said Mr Jagoo was one off the rail when MARGARITA MOVER crossed and the horse inside him was also interfered with.
Ms Wynne said she was going forward and had kicked her horse up to cross. She had a “slight look” and thought she was clear. She said when SNIPARINDA clipped her heels she had already crossed to the fence. She demonstrated it was 5 strides later that there had been a clipping of heels. She said SNIPARINDA was racing keenly and that was why there had been the clipping of heels. She stated she had steadied her horse when getting to the fence but not markedly so.
Ms Collett, who was assisting Ms Wynne, emphasised where the interference had occurred. It was a considerable distance from the finish of the race and SNIPARINDA had the full length of the straight to get past MARGARITA MOVER. She added she did not believe that MARGARITA MOVER was the cause of the clipping of heels. This had occurred after Ms Wynne was established on the fence and was due to SNIPARINDA over-racing.
Mr McLaughlin, when asked to comment, stated that the incident had occurred at the 1000 metres mark and SNIPARINDA had plenty of time to make ground on MARGARITA MOVER. He believed SNIPARINDA had clipped heels some time after Ms Wynne had crossed and that SNIPARINDA was over-racing at the time.
Reasons for Decision:
To uphold the appeal, we need to be satisfied first that MARGARITA MOVER has caused interference to SNIPARINDA. We are satisfied that Ms Wynne was not her length and another clear when she crossed SNIPARINDA and went to the fence. While SNIPARINDA was momentarily inconvenienced at this time, the horse lost little or no momentum. The primary check was to SALU, the horse racing on the inside of SNIPARINDA, which had to be restrained. Any interference to SNIPARINDA at this time was minimal in nature.
We are of the view that the clipping of heels occurred some 5 strides after Ms Wynne had crossed and when she commenced to ease the pace. This clipping of heels was due to SNIPARINDA over-racing and getting up on to MARGARITA MOVER’s heels. We thus do not believe this constituted interference by MARGARITA MOVER.
Ms Wynne’s crossing to the fence in breach of the Rules occurred at the 1000 metres. While SNIPARINDA made ground steadily on MARGARITA MOVER in the run home, the horse had every chance and was never able to get past MARGARITA MOVER.
When consideration is given to the minor nature of the interference and that it occurred with 1000 metres to race, we are not of the opinion that SNIPARINDA would have finished ahead of MARGARITA MOVER, had the incident not occurred, as r 642(1) requires before we can order there be a change of placings.
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: cc3acb0824d3efa640b0a74bd769dabb
informantnumber: 5416
horsename: MARGARITA MOVER
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 22/07/2015
hearing_title: Oamaru JC 19 July 2015 – R 3 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
Mr J Parsons, licensed trainer of SNIPARINDA, which was placed 2nd by the Judge in race 3, the BRACKENS PRINT OAMARU 2YO 12000 metres, sought the relegation of MARGARITA MOVER, which was placed 1st by the Judge, on the ground of interference at the 1000 metres.
Judge’s placings were:
1st MARGARITA MOVER
2nd SNIPARINDA
3rd SALU
4th WILLOW
The margin between 1st and second was a head.
Rule 642(1) provides:
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:
Mr Parsons demonstrated on the video that Ms Wynne, the rider of MARGARITA MOVER, was not sufficiently clear when she crossed to the fence at the 1000 metres mark. As a consequence, he said, SNIPARINDA clipped heels and lost a length to a length and a half. He said Mr Jagoo was one off the rail when MARGARITA MOVER crossed and the horse inside him was also interfered with.
Ms Wynne said she was going forward and had kicked her horse up to cross. She had a “slight look” and thought she was clear. She said when SNIPARINDA clipped her heels she had already crossed to the fence. She demonstrated it was 5 strides later that there had been a clipping of heels. She said SNIPARINDA was racing keenly and that was why there had been the clipping of heels. She stated she had steadied her horse when getting to the fence but not markedly so.
Ms Collett, who was assisting Ms Wynne, emphasised where the interference had occurred. It was a considerable distance from the finish of the race and SNIPARINDA had the full length of the straight to get past MARGARITA MOVER. She added she did not believe that MARGARITA MOVER was the cause of the clipping of heels. This had occurred after Ms Wynne was established on the fence and was due to SNIPARINDA over-racing.
Mr McLaughlin, when asked to comment, stated that the incident had occurred at the 1000 metres mark and SNIPARINDA had plenty of time to make ground on MARGARITA MOVER. He believed SNIPARINDA had clipped heels some time after Ms Wynne had crossed and that SNIPARINDA was over-racing at the time.
reasonsfordecision:
To uphold the appeal, we need to be satisfied first that MARGARITA MOVER has caused interference to SNIPARINDA. We are satisfied that Ms Wynne was not her length and another clear when she crossed SNIPARINDA and went to the fence. While SNIPARINDA was momentarily inconvenienced at this time, the horse lost little or no momentum. The primary check was to SALU, the horse racing on the inside of SNIPARINDA, which had to be restrained. Any interference to SNIPARINDA at this time was minimal in nature.
We are of the view that the clipping of heels occurred some 5 strides after Ms Wynne had crossed and when she commenced to ease the pace. This clipping of heels was due to SNIPARINDA over-racing and getting up on to MARGARITA MOVER’s heels. We thus do not believe this constituted interference by MARGARITA MOVER.
Ms Wynne’s crossing to the fence in breach of the Rules occurred at the 1000 metres. While SNIPARINDA made ground steadily on MARGARITA MOVER in the run home, the horse had every chance and was never able to get past MARGARITA MOVER.
When consideration is given to the minor nature of the interference and that it occurred with 1000 metres to race, we are not of the opinion that SNIPARINDA would have finished ahead of MARGARITA MOVER, had the incident not occurred, as r 642(1) requires before we can order there be a change of placings.
Decision:
The protest is dismissed.
Dividends and stakes are to be paid out in accordance with the Judge's placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: Rule 642(1)
Informant: Mr J Parsons, licensed trainer
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr Jagoo, apprentice jockey
Respondent: Ms Wynne, apprentice jockey, Ms Collett, licensed jockey, assisting Ms Wynne
StipendSteward:
raceid: e6aefea8fa5c98c67a98df9bf2696114
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 43abb59d34c37d058c53def61968ed26
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 19/07/2015
meet_title: Oamaru JC - 19 July 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: oamaru-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: PKnowles
meet_pm2: none
name: Oamaru JC