South Canterbury RC – 13 September 2009 –

hearingid: 6bd9bf558b758f9c8e47b9c0ac8e901e

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 13/09/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: South Canterbury RC - 13 September 2009 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Prior to the start of the hearing Mr K. G. Hales declared a conflict and explained that the trainers of “Jack Attack” were clients of his firm.  Mr Hales then withdrew.

Following the running of Race 6, the Coupland’s Bakery Geraldine Cup, Stipendiary Steward Mr S. C. Ching filed an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
 

Prior to the start of the hearing Mr K. G. Hales declared a conflict and explained that the trainers of “Jack Attack” were clients of his firm.  Mr Hales then withdrew.

Following the running of Race 6, the Coupland’s Bakery Geraldine Cup, Stipendiary Steward Mr S. C. Ching filed an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).
 
The information reads as follows.

“I allege that Jack Attack or its rider placed 2ndt by the judge caused interference to Keepitinthefamily  placed 3rd by the judge.  The interference occurred in the final straight.”

Rule 876(1) reads as follows.

“If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 876 to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse 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.”

Present at the hearing were –

On behalf of the protesting horse, “Keepitinthefamily” (10), Jockey Miss K. Williams and trainer and part owner Mr P. D. J. Harris attended the hearing.  On behalf of the horse being protested against, “Jack Attack” (6), Apprentice Jockey Miss N. L. Collett and co-trainer Mr M. C. Stokes attended the hearing.  Mr Stokes agreed that he would represent the owners of “Jack Attack”.

Stipendiary Steward Mr S. C. Ching gave evidence and used video coverage to show that with about 200 metres to run a gap presented itself between “Jack Attack” and the horse inside it.  Miss Williams on “Keepitinthefamily” then took advantage of this gap and started to move in to it.  Mr Ching said that when partially in to the gap “Jack Attack” moved inwards and took the line of Miss Williams’ mount, and there was a resultant check.  As a result of this incident Miss Williams had to stop riding, balance up, and get going again.  This horse then finished strongly and finished 3rd a ½ length behind “Jack Attack”. 

Miss Williams gave evidence and confirmed that she was partially into the gap and making ground when “Jack Attack” moved inwards and closed it.  She also said that because of the interference she lost ground and momentum, and would have beaten “Keepitinthefamily” had her horse not been interfered with. 

Mr Harris gave evidence and was in general agreement with the evidence from Mr Ching and Miss Williams.

Mr Stokes asked Miss Williams if she had actually got into the gap, and she confirmed that she had.  Mr Stokes said that he believed that the video coverage was very inconclusive.  He also said that he did not believe that “Keepitinthefamily” had got in to the gap.  Miss Collett also disputed that there was interference or that “Keepitinthefamily” would have beaten her horse.

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.  We were satisfied that there had been interference as alleged, and we accepted the very clear  evidence from Miss Williams in this respect.  We were also satisfied that, but for this interference “Keepitinthefamily” would have finished ahead of “Jack Attack”.  In particular we were satisfied that the interference suffered by “Keepitinthefamily” had cost that horse much more than the ½ length it was beaten by. We determined that the protest should be upheld.

On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that full reasons would be provided in a later written decision, and we delivered the following oral decision.   This decision was brief as Race 7 was very close to a start.

“There was interference as alleged by the Stipendiary Stewards, and we believe that the interference did cost the third horse more than ½ a length, and therefore the protest is upheld.”

The amended places are as follows.

1st - Coup Callum (5)
2nd - Keepitinthefamily (10)
3rd - Jack Attack (6)
4th  - Eel Win (1)
5th - Never Plead Guilty (3)
6th - Lotus (8)

J. M. Phelan       P. J. Rosanowski
CHAIR                Committee Member
267

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 876.1

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: