Reefton TC – 14 March 2010 –
ID: JCA18401
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 14545 (Instigating a Protest)
--Meeting: Reefton Trotting Club
--Date: 14 March 2010
--Venue: Reefton Racecourse
--Race 10: Recreation Hotel Junior Drivers Pace
--Rule: 869(4) and (8)
--Judicial Chairman: J. M. Phelan, Committee: P. J. Rosanowski
Appearing Informant: Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott
Defendant: Mr C. McDowell – Junior Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 10, the Recreation Hotel Junior Drivers Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) and (8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (2) against horse number (13) placed 1st by the judge on the grounds of interference.”
--
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 14545 (Instigating a Protest)
--Meeting: Reefton Trotting Club
--Date: 14 March 2010
--Venue: Reefton Racecourse
--Race 10: Recreation Hotel Junior Drivers Pace
--Rule: 869(4) and (8)
--Judicial Chairman: J. M. Phelan, Committee: P. J. Rosanowski
Appearing Informant: Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott
Defendant: Mr C. McDowell – Junior Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 10, the Recreation Hotel Junior Drivers Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) and (8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (2) against horse number (13) placed 1st by the judge on the grounds of interference.”
--Rules 869(4) and (8) read as follows.
--“(4) No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.
--(8) The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses, -
immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.”
Present at the hearing were Mr C. McDowell, the driver of “Sonnetsson” (13), and he was assisted by Mr P. J. Davis, Open Horseman. Mr Davis advised that he would represent the interests of the trainer and owners of the horse. Also present was Mr T. M. Williams the driver of “Mels Dream” (2).
--Video replays of the race were shown several times and it could be seen that “Sonnetsson’s” sulky wheel had been struck.
--Mr Williams gave evidence that he was leading in the race and travelling well, with “Sonnetsson” in the trail. At about the 600 metre mark his sulky wheel was struck by “Sonnetsson” resulting in the tyre coming off and wrapping around the wheel. Mr Williams said he lost all momentum and that his chances were severely affected as this wheel was not able to spin properly.
--In answer to a question from Mr Davis, Mr Escott confirmed that this sulky wheel had been examined after the race, and it was confirmed that the wheel had been damaged as described and the wheel was not spinning properly.
--Mr Davis gave evidence and pointed out that “Sonnetsson” had won very easily by an official margin of 3½ lengths. He also said that there was no certainty that “Mels Dream” would have won the race.
--We adjourned to consider our decision.
--After seeing the video coverage, and after hearing the evidence, we were satisfied that “Mels Dream” was in the lead and travelling well at about the 600 metre mark. We accept that the contact by “Sonnetsson” with the wheel of “Mels Dream” caused the latter to lose its momentum, and consequently its chance in the race.
--The Rules do not require us to find that “Mels Dream” would have finished in front of “Sonnetsson” but for the interference. What we are required to find is whether or not “Sonnetsson” may have gained an advantage because of the interference, and/or whether such interference may have affected the chances or progress of “Mels Dream”.
--After reviewing the evidence we were satisfied that there was interference which severely affected the progress and chances of “Mels Dream” and that the protest should be upheld.
--On resuming the hearing we advised that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that “Mels Dream” sulky wheel was struck by “Sonnetsson” at about the 600 metre mark, which effectively put it out of the race. We uphold the protest and “Sonnetsson” is relegated to 8th place. The amended places are as follows.
--1st – Cullen’s Finest (5)
2nd – Viktorias Secret (9)
3rd – Julius Bardon (11)
4th – Strawbs Fire Chip (10)
5th – Helicon (3)
6th – Rangi Rule (7).”
J. M. Phelan P. J. Rosanowski
CHAIR Committee Member
14545
Decision Date: 14/03/2010
Publish Date: 14/03/2010
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: 0904b0b9fab4edd5a1babc2303fb625a
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 14/03/2010
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Reefton TC - 14 March 2010 -
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 14545 (Instigating a Protest)
--Meeting: Reefton Trotting Club
--Date: 14 March 2010
--Venue: Reefton Racecourse
--Race 10: Recreation Hotel Junior Drivers Pace
--Rule: 869(4) and (8)
--Judicial Chairman: J. M. Phelan, Committee: P. J. Rosanowski
Appearing Informant: Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott
Defendant: Mr C. McDowell – Junior Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 10, the Recreation Hotel Junior Drivers Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) and (8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (2) against horse number (13) placed 1st by the judge on the grounds of interference.”
--
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No: 14545 (Instigating a Protest)
--Meeting: Reefton Trotting Club
--Date: 14 March 2010
--Venue: Reefton Racecourse
--Race 10: Recreation Hotel Junior Drivers Pace
--Rule: 869(4) and (8)
--Judicial Chairman: J. M. Phelan, Committee: P. J. Rosanowski
Appearing Informant: Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott
Defendant: Mr C. McDowell – Junior Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 10, the Recreation Hotel Junior Drivers Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) and (8). The information reads as follows.
--“This is a protest by horse number (2) against horse number (13) placed 1st by the judge on the grounds of interference.”
--Rules 869(4) and (8) read as follows.
--“(4) No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.
--(8) The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses, -
immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.”
Present at the hearing were Mr C. McDowell, the driver of “Sonnetsson” (13), and he was assisted by Mr P. J. Davis, Open Horseman. Mr Davis advised that he would represent the interests of the trainer and owners of the horse. Also present was Mr T. M. Williams the driver of “Mels Dream” (2).
--Video replays of the race were shown several times and it could be seen that “Sonnetsson’s” sulky wheel had been struck.
--Mr Williams gave evidence that he was leading in the race and travelling well, with “Sonnetsson” in the trail. At about the 600 metre mark his sulky wheel was struck by “Sonnetsson” resulting in the tyre coming off and wrapping around the wheel. Mr Williams said he lost all momentum and that his chances were severely affected as this wheel was not able to spin properly.
--In answer to a question from Mr Davis, Mr Escott confirmed that this sulky wheel had been examined after the race, and it was confirmed that the wheel had been damaged as described and the wheel was not spinning properly.
--Mr Davis gave evidence and pointed out that “Sonnetsson” had won very easily by an official margin of 3½ lengths. He also said that there was no certainty that “Mels Dream” would have won the race.
--We adjourned to consider our decision.
--After seeing the video coverage, and after hearing the evidence, we were satisfied that “Mels Dream” was in the lead and travelling well at about the 600 metre mark. We accept that the contact by “Sonnetsson” with the wheel of “Mels Dream” caused the latter to lose its momentum, and consequently its chance in the race.
--The Rules do not require us to find that “Mels Dream” would have finished in front of “Sonnetsson” but for the interference. What we are required to find is whether or not “Sonnetsson” may have gained an advantage because of the interference, and/or whether such interference may have affected the chances or progress of “Mels Dream”.
--After reviewing the evidence we were satisfied that there was interference which severely affected the progress and chances of “Mels Dream” and that the protest should be upheld.
--On resuming the hearing we advised that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that “Mels Dream” sulky wheel was struck by “Sonnetsson” at about the 600 metre mark, which effectively put it out of the race. We uphold the protest and “Sonnetsson” is relegated to 8th place. The amended places are as follows.
--1st – Cullen’s Finest (5)
2nd – Viktorias Secret (9)
3rd – Julius Bardon (11)
4th – Strawbs Fire Chip (10)
5th – Helicon (3)
6th – Rangi Rule (7).”
J. M. Phelan P. J. Rosanowski
CHAIR Committee Member
14545
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869.4
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid:
race_expapproval:
racecancelled:
race_noreport:
race_emailed1:
race_emailed2:
race_title:
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid:
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport:
waitingforpublication:
meet_emailed1:
meet_emailed2:
meetdate: no date provided
meet_title:
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation:
meet_racingtype:
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: