Reefton JC 6 January 2016 – R6 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr S Ching
ID: JCA13228
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Reefton JC - 6 January 2016
Meet Chair:
SChing
Meet Committee Member 1:
GClapp
Race Date:
2016/01/06
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
The protest was dismissed.
The Judges placings were confirmed and it was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with that result.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 2, the Greg Daly Real Estate/Tasman Agriculture Rating 75, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Licensed Trainer, Mr B Court, alleging interference by 1st placed PETER PARKER (10), ridden by Miss R Black, to the 2nd placed SUPERIOR COURT (1), ridden by Mr T Moseley, in the home straight.
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a head.
The Judges placings in this race were as follows.
1st - PETER PARKER (10)
2nd - SUPERIOR COURT (1)
3rd - LUKANDER (3)
4th - INA JAM (6)
5th - STORM HOME (5)
6th - ROSHEEN (2)
Rule 642(1) provides as follows.
“If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 to another 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.”
The connections of PETER PARKER were represented at this hearing by Mr G Wright, the trainer and Miss R Black, the rider with the connections of SUPERIOR COURT being represented by Mr B Court, the trainer and Mr T Moseley, the rider.
All parties agreed that they understood the Rule and the nature of the protest.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Court gave evidence and used video coverage to show that near the 150m his horse, SUPERIOR COURT, was racing on the inside of PETER PARKER, with both horses fighting out 1st and 2nd placing. Mr Court alleged that PETER PARKER had shifted in making contact with SUPERIOR COURT causing his horse to lose momentum and his rider unable to ride his horse out fully, for 5 strides in his opinion, at this point. He said that with his horse carrying 60kg, it was difficult for the horse to pick up his momentum again after the interference at an important part of the race. He submitted that SUPERIOR COURT would have won the race but for the interference suffered.
Mr Moseley said that PETER PARKER improved around him at the 300m and had a neck to a ½ length advantage on him at the turn for home. He said shortly after entering the home straight PETER PARKER has shifted in making contact and crowding his horse. He stated that he was unable ride his horse out fully by being unable to use the whip. He said that when clear of PETER PARKER, his horse fought back to within a head of PETER PARKER and believed that had SUPERIOR COURT not been carrying 60kg, may have beaten PETER PARKER with a clear run. Mr Moseley believed that there were 2 points of contact and stated that although he did not have to stop riding his horse out, he was put in such restricted room he could not use his whip to effect.
Mr Wright submitted that Mr Moseley had not stopped riding his horse out in this incident but acknowledged that he could not use his whip fully on one occasion. He said that he could see no appreciable stopping of SUPERIOR COURT’s momentum and apart from Mr Moseley hitting his horse one less time, he continued on riding out in stride with the horse. He also said that Mr Moseley was in restricted room for maybe 1 stride when Mr Moseley could not use his whip to full effect. He stated that the race was a handicap race with the difference in weights irrelevant in this situation.
Miss Black stated that there was no doubt that PETER PARKER had shifted in and made contact with SUPERIOR COURT on one occasion but that she had corrected her mount immediately. She said that she checked her mount when correcting her horse and that her horse’s momentum was also affected in this incident.
Stipendiary Steward, Mr J McLaughlin, in giving his interpretation of the incident stated that, there was no doubt that PETER PARKER had SUPERIOR COURT in tight quarters for a stride, but that the pressure was relieved immediately by Miss Black. He stated that the Stewards would leave it up to the Committee as to whether that was enough interference to uphold the protest.
Reasons for Decision:
We carefully considered the evidence given and the video coverage of the incident. The video evidence was compelling with the head on video replays showing PETER PARKER shifting in near the 150m and making contact for a stride with SUPERIOR COURT. We were satisfied that SUPERIOR COURT was in tight quarters for a stride and that rider T Moseley for that stride could not use his whip fully. However, we found that Mr Moseley despite not being able to use his whip for one stride, continued on using hands and heels and his rhythm in riding the horse out was not affected. We also found that Miss Black immediately straightened PETER PARKER after contact was made and both horses raced to the line unimpeded.
The Committee found that from the 300m where PETER PARKER moved up on the outside of SUPERIOR COURT, PETER PARKER held an advantage and apart from the contact made with SUPERIOR COURT near the 150m, was always travelling better. The Committee was satisfied that the interference suffered to SUPERIOR COURT was minimal and short lived with SUPERIOR COURT having every opportunity despite the contact to improve past PETER PARKER.
We therefore determined that the protest be dismissed.
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: 5582798d16808ab1dcb9653d4bb4600c
informantnumber: A6361
horsename: PETER PARKER
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 10/01/2016
hearing_title: Reefton JC 6 January 2016 - R6 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr S Ching
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 2, the Greg Daly Real Estate/Tasman Agriculture Rating 75, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Licensed Trainer, Mr B Court, alleging interference by 1st placed PETER PARKER (10), ridden by Miss R Black, to the 2nd placed SUPERIOR COURT (1), ridden by Mr T Moseley, in the home straight.
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a head.
The Judges placings in this race were as follows.
1st - PETER PARKER (10)
2nd - SUPERIOR COURT (1)
3rd - LUKANDER (3)
4th - INA JAM (6)
5th - STORM HOME (5)
6th - ROSHEEN (2)
Rule 642(1) provides as follows.
“If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 to another 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.”
The connections of PETER PARKER were represented at this hearing by Mr G Wright, the trainer and Miss R Black, the rider with the connections of SUPERIOR COURT being represented by Mr B Court, the trainer and Mr T Moseley, the rider.
All parties agreed that they understood the Rule and the nature of the protest.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Court gave evidence and used video coverage to show that near the 150m his horse, SUPERIOR COURT, was racing on the inside of PETER PARKER, with both horses fighting out 1st and 2nd placing. Mr Court alleged that PETER PARKER had shifted in making contact with SUPERIOR COURT causing his horse to lose momentum and his rider unable to ride his horse out fully, for 5 strides in his opinion, at this point. He said that with his horse carrying 60kg, it was difficult for the horse to pick up his momentum again after the interference at an important part of the race. He submitted that SUPERIOR COURT would have won the race but for the interference suffered.
Mr Moseley said that PETER PARKER improved around him at the 300m and had a neck to a ½ length advantage on him at the turn for home. He said shortly after entering the home straight PETER PARKER has shifted in making contact and crowding his horse. He stated that he was unable ride his horse out fully by being unable to use the whip. He said that when clear of PETER PARKER, his horse fought back to within a head of PETER PARKER and believed that had SUPERIOR COURT not been carrying 60kg, may have beaten PETER PARKER with a clear run. Mr Moseley believed that there were 2 points of contact and stated that although he did not have to stop riding his horse out, he was put in such restricted room he could not use his whip to effect.
Mr Wright submitted that Mr Moseley had not stopped riding his horse out in this incident but acknowledged that he could not use his whip fully on one occasion. He said that he could see no appreciable stopping of SUPERIOR COURT’s momentum and apart from Mr Moseley hitting his horse one less time, he continued on riding out in stride with the horse. He also said that Mr Moseley was in restricted room for maybe 1 stride when Mr Moseley could not use his whip to full effect. He stated that the race was a handicap race with the difference in weights irrelevant in this situation.
Miss Black stated that there was no doubt that PETER PARKER had shifted in and made contact with SUPERIOR COURT on one occasion but that she had corrected her mount immediately. She said that she checked her mount when correcting her horse and that her horse’s momentum was also affected in this incident.
Stipendiary Steward, Mr J McLaughlin, in giving his interpretation of the incident stated that, there was no doubt that PETER PARKER had SUPERIOR COURT in tight quarters for a stride, but that the pressure was relieved immediately by Miss Black. He stated that the Stewards would leave it up to the Committee as to whether that was enough interference to uphold the protest.
reasonsfordecision:
We carefully considered the evidence given and the video coverage of the incident. The video evidence was compelling with the head on video replays showing PETER PARKER shifting in near the 150m and making contact for a stride with SUPERIOR COURT. We were satisfied that SUPERIOR COURT was in tight quarters for a stride and that rider T Moseley for that stride could not use his whip fully. However, we found that Mr Moseley despite not being able to use his whip for one stride, continued on using hands and heels and his rhythm in riding the horse out was not affected. We also found that Miss Black immediately straightened PETER PARKER after contact was made and both horses raced to the line unimpeded.
The Committee found that from the 300m where PETER PARKER moved up on the outside of SUPERIOR COURT, PETER PARKER held an advantage and apart from the contact made with SUPERIOR COURT near the 150m, was always travelling better. The Committee was satisfied that the interference suffered to SUPERIOR COURT was minimal and short lived with SUPERIOR COURT having every opportunity despite the contact to improve past PETER PARKER.
We therefore determined that the protest be dismissed.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed.
The Judges placings were confirmed and it was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with that result.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr B Court - Licensed Trainer of SUPERIOR COURT
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr T Moseley - Class A Licensed Jockey of SUPERIOR COURT, Mr J McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Miss R Black - Class Licensed Jockey, Mr G Wright - Licensed Trainer representing the connections of PETER PARKER
StipendSteward:
raceid: a08e46dc6f8874882fc436a9be35d7bb
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: 4dbbfc49f3717e37116b1d009afaa160
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 06/01/2016
meet_title: Reefton JC - 6 January 2016
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: reefton-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: SChing
meet_pm1: GClapp
meet_pm2: none
name: Reefton JC