R Tauranga 20 May 2013 – R 5 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA13459
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Racing Tauranga - 20 May 2013
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Race Date:
2013/05/20
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings shall stand. In conclusion I order the payment of stakes and dividends.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5, Tainui Press Design and Print 1600, an information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Sweeney, alleged that BEAUTY GLOW placed 1st by the Judge interfered with LUCKY RUBY 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 BEAUTY GLOW
2nd No. 8 LUCKY RUBY
3rd No. 4 KATNISS
4th No. 7 KHALEESI
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a short head.
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:
Mr Sweeney submitted that he come from behind Beauty Glow to get within a short head at the post. He pointed out on the video films that approximately with 100 metres to run Beauty Glow ran out and bumped into his mount. He believed the check cost him half a length and noted he was coming back at Beauty Glow prior to the winning post.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Sweeney stated he stopped riding for 2 to 3 strides.
Mr Autridge told the Committee at the point of contact the 2 horses were on level terms. He believed his horse lost half a length from the check which put her off balance.
Mr Jones submitted that Lucky Ruby ran into his mount Beauty Glow at the 100 metre mark which resulted in Beauty Glow's back end being turned around. This then required him to pull his mount off Lucky Ruby. He pointed out on the head on film that both horses contributed to the incident. He summed up by saying Lucky Ruby had plenty of time to beat Beauty Glow.
Mr Noble submitted that the video films show that both horses contributed to the incident. He said Lucky Ruby did run back into Beauty Glow and believed Lucky Ruby had its chance to beat Beauty Glow.
Mr Oatham when asked for the Stewards' interpretation of the alleged interference submitted that there was movement from both horses which resulted in slight contact. The contact unbalanced both horses and the blame could not be placed solely on Beauty Glow. He summed up by submitting there is a level of doubt that Lucky Ruby would have beaten Beauty Glow if no such interference occurred.
Mr Sweeney when given the opportunity to sum up said he believed his mount did not shift into the line of Beauty Glow.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video films several times. It was clear in the head on films viewed in the final straight that both Beauty Glow and Lucky Ruby shifted ground on 3 occasions. The significant contact occurred at approximately the 100 metre mark with both horses contributing to the incident which resulted in both jockeys having to stop riding. It is clear in the head on film that Beauty Glow's hind quarters were twisted around as a result of the incident. Although I accept Mr Sweeney did stop riding for 2 to 3 strides there wasn't sufficient evidence to warrant a change of placings.
For these reasons I am not satisfied that Lucky Ruby would have beaten Beauty Glow if interference had not occurred.
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: 3a5afe4c0ee218af061c71580da3aa6b
informantnumber: A4263
horsename: BEAUTY GLOW
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 07/05/2013
hearing_title: R Tauranga 20 May 2013 - R 5 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 5, Tainui Press Design and Print 1600, an information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Sweeney, alleged that BEAUTY GLOW placed 1st by the Judge interfered with LUCKY RUBY 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 BEAUTY GLOW
2nd No. 8 LUCKY RUBY
3rd No. 4 KATNISS
4th No. 7 KHALEESI
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a short head.
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:
Mr Sweeney submitted that he come from behind Beauty Glow to get within a short head at the post. He pointed out on the video films that approximately with 100 metres to run Beauty Glow ran out and bumped into his mount. He believed the check cost him half a length and noted he was coming back at Beauty Glow prior to the winning post.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Sweeney stated he stopped riding for 2 to 3 strides.
Mr Autridge told the Committee at the point of contact the 2 horses were on level terms. He believed his horse lost half a length from the check which put her off balance.
Mr Jones submitted that Lucky Ruby ran into his mount Beauty Glow at the 100 metre mark which resulted in Beauty Glow's back end being turned around. This then required him to pull his mount off Lucky Ruby. He pointed out on the head on film that both horses contributed to the incident. He summed up by saying Lucky Ruby had plenty of time to beat Beauty Glow.
Mr Noble submitted that the video films show that both horses contributed to the incident. He said Lucky Ruby did run back into Beauty Glow and believed Lucky Ruby had its chance to beat Beauty Glow.
Mr Oatham when asked for the Stewards' interpretation of the alleged interference submitted that there was movement from both horses which resulted in slight contact. The contact unbalanced both horses and the blame could not be placed solely on Beauty Glow. He summed up by submitting there is a level of doubt that Lucky Ruby would have beaten Beauty Glow if no such interference occurred.
Mr Sweeney when given the opportunity to sum up said he believed his mount did not shift into the line of Beauty Glow.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video films several times. It was clear in the head on films viewed in the final straight that both Beauty Glow and Lucky Ruby shifted ground on 3 occasions. The significant contact occurred at approximately the 100 metre mark with both horses contributing to the incident which resulted in both jockeys having to stop riding. It is clear in the head on film that Beauty Glow's hind quarters were twisted around as a result of the incident. Although I accept Mr Sweeney did stop riding for 2 to 3 strides there wasn't sufficient evidence to warrant a change of placings.
For these reasons I am not satisfied that Lucky Ruby would have beaten Beauty Glow if interference had not occurred.
Decision:
Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings shall stand. In conclusion I order the payment of stakes and dividends.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr M Sweeney - Rider of LUCKY RUBY
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr L Noble - Trainer of Beauty Glow, Mr T Autridge - Trainer of Lucky Ruby, Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr BR Jones - Rider of BEAUTY GLOW
StipendSteward:
raceid: acf04ba8a19683376d0a5d9b37f63511
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 102bc12aefb371c761d6cd1b3e40765f
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 20/05/2013
meet_title: Racing Tauranga - 20 May 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: racing-tauranga
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Racing Tauranga