R Tauranga 14 November 2020 – R 3 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr BJ Scott
ID: JCA18177
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Racing Tauranga - 14 November 2020
Meet Chair:
BScott
Meet Committee Member 1:
WGendall
Race Date:
2020/11/14
Race Number:
R3
Decision:
Having found interference in terms of the Rule we were of the opinion that given the nature of the interference and the narrow margin between the 2 horses at the finish that but for the interference SOPHISTICAL would have beaten DEVOTIONINMOTION.
The Protest is accordingly upheld and DEVOTIONINMOTION is relegated from first to second and SOPHISTICAL is promoted to first.
The amended placings are now :
First - (9) SOPHISTICAL
Second - (7) DEVOTIONINMOTION
Third - (1) PHELAN THE POWER
Fourth - (17) MAENAD
Fifth - (8) EL ROSEAY
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the amended placings.
Facts:
Following the running of the O'CONNOR WARREN INSURANCE BROKERS MAIDEN, an Information instigating a Protest was lodged by Mr N Tiley the Trainer of the second placed horse SOPHISTICAL against the first placing of DEVOTIONINMOTION. The Protest was pursuant to Rule 642(1) and was based on interference in the final straight.
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.
For the purposes of Rule 642 interference is defined as :
(1) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.
(2) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(3) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partially at fault.
Mr Tiley and Mr Calder the Trainer and Rider respectively of SOPHISTICAL were present representing the connections and in support of the Protest.
Mr Richardson and Mr Colgan, the Trainer and Rider respectively of DEVOTIONINMOTION were present representing the connections and contesting the Protest.
The Committee explained that there were two parts to a Protest that had to be satisfied if the Protest was to be successful. The first was that the Committee had to be satisfied that interference had occurred and the second was that but for the interference the horse interfered with would have beaten the horse that caused the interference.
The parties acknowledged that they understood the Protest requirements.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Tiley (using the race films) showed where in the home straight his horse was on the outside of DEVOTIONINMOTION and back slightly but his horse was moving up alongside that horse. He said that DEVOTIONINMOTION came out at the 250 metres mark and made strong contact with his filly and as a result it was screwed sideways and its hindquarters were bumped out. He said that his horse became unbalanced as a result and had to pick itself up and press on. He then pointed to the second contact at about the 100 metres mark and said that as a result the hindquarters of his filly were again bumped out and again it became unbalanced.
He said that Mr Calder could not ride SOPHISTICAL out because DEVOTIONINMOTION was leaning all over it. He further submitted that Mr Colgan did not stop riding DEVOTIONINMOTION at any stage in the home straight.
Mr Calder said that the first contact pushed his horse sideways and as a result it became unbalanced. He then said that he gave Mr Colgan some room but he came out again and (referring to the race films) he said in respect to the second contact "you can see my horse's hind quarters bumped out".
Mr Calder further said "he (Mr Colgan) came into my line twice. I was pushed sideways and he knocked her off her line to which she was entitled".
Mr Calder also said that because DEVOTIONINMOTION was leaning all over his horse he was unable to use his whip and unable to properly ride her out.
Mr Colgan said that the first contact was at the 300 metres mark. He then said that at the 100 metres mark he passed me and my horse came again and won the race. He said that the best horse won the race.
Mr Richardson said that the 2 horses touched for 1 stride at the 300 metres mark. He then said that at the 100 metres mark SOPHISTICAL was in front but his horse came from behind and beat it. He said his horse was the best.
Mr Jones said that the first contact was at the 250 metres mark and the second at about the 150 metres mark and after that the 2 horses raced in a relatively straight line.
Mr Jones did point out to the Committee that on the turn SOPHISTICAL was racing about 6 horse widths off the fence but as a result of the actions of DEVOTIONINMOTION it ended up 8 or 9 horse widths out.
Reasons for Decision:
After hearing the evidence the Committee spent some time reviewing the race films. The first incident was not just contact but DEVOTIONINMOTION cannoned into SOPHISTICAL and not only was it clear on the films but it was admitted firm contact and interference and knocked SOPHISTICAL'S hind quarters sideways. Mr Calder has told us that his mount became unbalanced and we accept this.
Mr Colgan's mount continued to move out and hampered Mr Calder and as Mr Jones said in evidence SOPHISTICAL'S line was dictated to so as to end up 8-9 horse widths out when it was 6 off the fence at the top of the straight.
At about the 150 metres mark there was further contact and hampering. Mr Calder said that this was because Mr Colgan came into my line. Mr Colgan said she came onto me.
The Committee spent some time reviewing this part of the race films which we watched in normal time, slow motion, forwards and backwards. Our reading of the race was that at this crucial stage the firm contact was against the hind quarters of SOPHISTICAL which can clearly be seen screwing outwards which led to its forequarter turning inwards. That inwards movement was only as a result of SOPHISTiCAL'S hind quarters being pushed out. The contact clearly came from DEVOTIONINMOTION.
Mr Jones said there was contact at the 150 metres mark but quite correctly left it to the Committee to determine where the contact came from.
Mr Colgan (riding vigorously with his whip in his right hand) continued to crowd or hamper Mr Calder to the extent that he could not use his whip over the final stages.
The submission that "he came from behind to win" is flawed because without the double contact and the crowding we believe DEVOTIONINMOTION would not have been able to come from behind and win. Notwithstanding that SOPHISTICAL suffered double contact and crowding that resulted in it becoming unbalanced it was still only beaten by a short head.
We need to say that we accepted the evidence of Mr Calder which was supported by the race films.
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: f776690ce1acbe182541daf60fe8745a
informantnumber: A14003
horsename: DEVOTIONINMOTION
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 16/11/2020
hearing_title: R Tauranga 14 November 2020 - R 3 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr BJ Scott
charge:
facts:
Following the running of the O'CONNOR WARREN INSURANCE BROKERS MAIDEN, an Information instigating a Protest was lodged by Mr N Tiley the Trainer of the second placed horse SOPHISTICAL against the first placing of DEVOTIONINMOTION. The Protest was pursuant to Rule 642(1) and was based on interference in the final straight.
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.
For the purposes of Rule 642 interference is defined as :
(1) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.
(2) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(3) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partially at fault.
Mr Tiley and Mr Calder the Trainer and Rider respectively of SOPHISTICAL were present representing the connections and in support of the Protest.
Mr Richardson and Mr Colgan, the Trainer and Rider respectively of DEVOTIONINMOTION were present representing the connections and contesting the Protest.
The Committee explained that there were two parts to a Protest that had to be satisfied if the Protest was to be successful. The first was that the Committee had to be satisfied that interference had occurred and the second was that but for the interference the horse interfered with would have beaten the horse that caused the interference.
The parties acknowledged that they understood the Protest requirements.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Tiley (using the race films) showed where in the home straight his horse was on the outside of DEVOTIONINMOTION and back slightly but his horse was moving up alongside that horse. He said that DEVOTIONINMOTION came out at the 250 metres mark and made strong contact with his filly and as a result it was screwed sideways and its hindquarters were bumped out. He said that his horse became unbalanced as a result and had to pick itself up and press on. He then pointed to the second contact at about the 100 metres mark and said that as a result the hindquarters of his filly were again bumped out and again it became unbalanced.
He said that Mr Calder could not ride SOPHISTICAL out because DEVOTIONINMOTION was leaning all over it. He further submitted that Mr Colgan did not stop riding DEVOTIONINMOTION at any stage in the home straight.
Mr Calder said that the first contact pushed his horse sideways and as a result it became unbalanced. He then said that he gave Mr Colgan some room but he came out again and (referring to the race films) he said in respect to the second contact "you can see my horse's hind quarters bumped out".
Mr Calder further said "he (Mr Colgan) came into my line twice. I was pushed sideways and he knocked her off her line to which she was entitled".
Mr Calder also said that because DEVOTIONINMOTION was leaning all over his horse he was unable to use his whip and unable to properly ride her out.
Mr Colgan said that the first contact was at the 300 metres mark. He then said that at the 100 metres mark he passed me and my horse came again and won the race. He said that the best horse won the race.
Mr Richardson said that the 2 horses touched for 1 stride at the 300 metres mark. He then said that at the 100 metres mark SOPHISTICAL was in front but his horse came from behind and beat it. He said his horse was the best.
Mr Jones said that the first contact was at the 250 metres mark and the second at about the 150 metres mark and after that the 2 horses raced in a relatively straight line.
Mr Jones did point out to the Committee that on the turn SOPHISTICAL was racing about 6 horse widths off the fence but as a result of the actions of DEVOTIONINMOTION it ended up 8 or 9 horse widths out.
reasonsfordecision:
After hearing the evidence the Committee spent some time reviewing the race films. The first incident was not just contact but DEVOTIONINMOTION cannoned into SOPHISTICAL and not only was it clear on the films but it was admitted firm contact and interference and knocked SOPHISTICAL'S hind quarters sideways. Mr Calder has told us that his mount became unbalanced and we accept this.
Mr Colgan's mount continued to move out and hampered Mr Calder and as Mr Jones said in evidence SOPHISTICAL'S line was dictated to so as to end up 8-9 horse widths out when it was 6 off the fence at the top of the straight.
At about the 150 metres mark there was further contact and hampering. Mr Calder said that this was because Mr Colgan came into my line. Mr Colgan said she came onto me.
The Committee spent some time reviewing this part of the race films which we watched in normal time, slow motion, forwards and backwards. Our reading of the race was that at this crucial stage the firm contact was against the hind quarters of SOPHISTICAL which can clearly be seen screwing outwards which led to its forequarter turning inwards. That inwards movement was only as a result of SOPHISTiCAL'S hind quarters being pushed out. The contact clearly came from DEVOTIONINMOTION.
Mr Jones said there was contact at the 150 metres mark but quite correctly left it to the Committee to determine where the contact came from.
Mr Colgan (riding vigorously with his whip in his right hand) continued to crowd or hamper Mr Calder to the extent that he could not use his whip over the final stages.
The submission that "he came from behind to win" is flawed because without the double contact and the crowding we believe DEVOTIONINMOTION would not have been able to come from behind and win. Notwithstanding that SOPHISTICAL suffered double contact and crowding that resulted in it becoming unbalanced it was still only beaten by a short head.
We need to say that we accepted the evidence of Mr Calder which was supported by the race films.
Decision:
Having found interference in terms of the Rule we were of the opinion that given the nature of the interference and the narrow margin between the 2 horses at the finish that but for the interference SOPHISTICAL would have beaten DEVOTIONINMOTION.
The Protest is accordingly upheld and DEVOTIONINMOTION is relegated from first to second and SOPHISTICAL is promoted to first.
The amended placings are now :
First - (9) SOPHISTICAL
Second - (7) DEVOTIONINMOTION
Third - (1) PHELAN THE POWER
Fourth - (17) MAENAD
Fifth - (8) EL ROSEAY
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the amended placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: Rule 642(1)
Informant: Mr N Tiley - Trainer of SOPHISTICAL
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr V Colgan - Rider of DEVOTIONINMOTION, Mr G Richardson - Trainer of DEVOTIONINMOTION, Mr A Calder - Rider of SOPHISTICAL, Mr N Tiley - Trainer of SOPHISTICAL, Mr B Jones-Stipendiary Steward, Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Owners of DEVOTIONINMOTION
StipendSteward:
raceid: 78fc4d8562e9f150d7307e4486cc56b1
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: 00135e0d478ba96770251ae3dce2cfd1
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 14/11/2020
meet_title: Racing Tauranga - 14 November 2020
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: racing-tauranga
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: BScott
meet_pm1: WGendall
meet_pm2: none
name: Racing Tauranga