Timaru HRC 12 May 2013 – R 11 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA16733
Meet Title:
Timaru HRC - 12 May 2013
Meet Chair:
JPhelan
Meet Committee Member 1:
KHales
Race Date:
2013/05/12
Race Number:
R7
Decision:
On resuming the hearing we advised the parties that more detailed reasons for our decision would be set out in our written decision (see above), gave brief reasons for our decision, and advised that the protest was upheld and “Major Moment” relegated from 3rd to 5th place.
The amended placings were as follows:
1st – Mac Bubbles (12)
2nd – Ajaye (7)
3rd – Fiery Lustre (3)
4th – Alliwantforxmas (10)
5th – Major Moment (11)
6th – Revel Yell (1)
There was an order that dividends and stake money be paid in accordance with the amended placings.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 11, the Lis Mara Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S. P. Renault alleging interference by “Major Moment” (11), which finished 3rd in the race, to “Alliwantforxmas” (10), which finished 5th in the race.
The Judge’s placings in this race were as follows:
1st – Mac Bubbles (12)
2nd – Ajaye (7)
3rd – Major Moment (11)
4th – Fiery Lustre (3)
5th – Alliwantforxmas (10)
6th – Revel Yell (1)
The Information reads as follows:
“I the above named informant allege that horse number (11) or its driver placed 3rd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number (10) placed 5th by the Judge – “Major Moment” shifted down the track after the start and checked “Alliwantforxmas” which galloped and lost ground.”
Rule 869(8) provides as follows:
“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.”
The drivers of “Major Moment” (Mr Smith) and “Alliwantforxmas” (Mr Hay) agreed that they would represent the interests of the connections of their horses. Both drivers agreed that they understood Rule 869(8) and the nature of the protest.
Submissions for Decision:
This was a 2600 metre standing start race with a front line of ten starters. “Major Moment” started from the outside of the front line with “Alliwantforxmas” next to that horse on its inside.
Mr Renault gave evidence and used video coverage to show that when the tapes were released “Major Moment” ducked inwards sharply on to “Alliwantforxmas”. As a result both horses broke from their correct gaits, but regained their correct gaits after galloping for a short distance. By the time the field reached the winning post with about 2400 metres to run both horses were pacing. “Alliwantforxmas” was in third to last position with “Major Moment” in last position.
At the end of the race “Major Moment” was in 3rd position and “Alliwantforxmas” was in 5th position. The Judge’s official margins were 3½ lengths between 1st and 2nd, 5¾ lengths between 2nd and 3rd, 2¼ lengths between 3rd and 4th, and a ½ length between 4th and 5th.
Mr Hay gave evidence that the video showed very much what happened. He also said that his horse was a “bit of a sook” and may have overreacted more than he should have. As a result of the interference he was back in the field and said that his chances were affected. He also said that he intended to race handy, but that this intention couldn’t be attained because of what happened at the start.
Mr Smith gave evidence that it was hard to say where Mr Hay’s horse would have finished had this incident not occurred. He agreed that there had been interference to Mr Hay’s horse, but said that there was no certainty it would have finished in a better place. He also said that his horse was also affected by the incident as it settled 30 metres behind the field.
Mr Smith also said that there had been a similar incident, or worse, at Forbury on Thursday night, and that in that case the protest had been dismissed. Mr Smith also submitted that there should be consistency in cases such as this. In response to this submission we advised that it was not relevant what decision might have been made in other cases.
In answer to a question from Mr Hales Mr Smith agreed that there had been interference, but qualified this by repeating that no one could know what might have happened after this incident.
In conclusion Mr Renault summarised the Stipendiary Stewards’ case and said that it was clear that Mr Smith’s horse had shifted inwards and that contact had been made causing Mr Hay’s horse to gallop. As a result Mr Renault said, Mr Hay’s horse’s chances had been affected.
We adjourned to consider our decision.
Reasons for Decision:
We carefully considered the evidence and the video coverage of this incident. We were satisfied that Mr Smith’s horse ducked in sharply when the tapes were released. As a result Mr Hay’s horse broke from its correct gate and lost considerable ground. We were satisfied that “Alliwantforxmas” lost a minimum of 5 lengths as a result of the interference, and most likely much more than that. We do not accept that “Alliwantforxmas” contributed in any way to the ground that it lost.
This protest was brought under the provisions of Rule 869(8). In accordance with the provisions of this Rule we find that that “Major Moment” did cause interference to “Alliwantforxmas” when the race began. We also find that because of this interference the “progress or chance” of “Alliwantforxmas” was seriously affected. The fact that “Major Moment” also lost ground as a result of the incident is not relevant.
What we have to consider in this case is the effect this interference had on the chances of “Alliwantforxmas” in relation to the rest of the field. We are quite convinced that but for this interference “Alliwantforxmas” would have finished in a better place. It is very relevant that “Alliwantforxmas” was only a ½ length behind the 4th horse at the end of the race.
For all the reasons set out above we decided to exercise our discretion to uphold the protest and relegate “Major Moment” from 3rd to 5th place.
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: d9d0e9d78b54095738d457cd491874ff
informantnumber: A1978
horsename: Major Moment
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 07/05/2013
hearing_title: Timaru HRC 12 May 2013 - R 11 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 11, the Lis Mara Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S. P. Renault alleging interference by “Major Moment” (11), which finished 3rd in the race, to “Alliwantforxmas” (10), which finished 5th in the race.
The Judge’s placings in this race were as follows:
1st – Mac Bubbles (12)
2nd – Ajaye (7)
3rd – Major Moment (11)
4th – Fiery Lustre (3)
5th – Alliwantforxmas (10)
6th – Revel Yell (1)
The Information reads as follows:
“I the above named informant allege that horse number (11) or its driver placed 3rd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number (10) placed 5th by the Judge – “Major Moment” shifted down the track after the start and checked “Alliwantforxmas” which galloped and lost ground.”
Rule 869(8) provides as follows:
“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.”
The drivers of “Major Moment” (Mr Smith) and “Alliwantforxmas” (Mr Hay) agreed that they would represent the interests of the connections of their horses. Both drivers agreed that they understood Rule 869(8) and the nature of the protest.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
This was a 2600 metre standing start race with a front line of ten starters. “Major Moment” started from the outside of the front line with “Alliwantforxmas” next to that horse on its inside.
Mr Renault gave evidence and used video coverage to show that when the tapes were released “Major Moment” ducked inwards sharply on to “Alliwantforxmas”. As a result both horses broke from their correct gaits, but regained their correct gaits after galloping for a short distance. By the time the field reached the winning post with about 2400 metres to run both horses were pacing. “Alliwantforxmas” was in third to last position with “Major Moment” in last position.
At the end of the race “Major Moment” was in 3rd position and “Alliwantforxmas” was in 5th position. The Judge’s official margins were 3½ lengths between 1st and 2nd, 5¾ lengths between 2nd and 3rd, 2¼ lengths between 3rd and 4th, and a ½ length between 4th and 5th.
Mr Hay gave evidence that the video showed very much what happened. He also said that his horse was a “bit of a sook” and may have overreacted more than he should have. As a result of the interference he was back in the field and said that his chances were affected. He also said that he intended to race handy, but that this intention couldn’t be attained because of what happened at the start.
Mr Smith gave evidence that it was hard to say where Mr Hay’s horse would have finished had this incident not occurred. He agreed that there had been interference to Mr Hay’s horse, but said that there was no certainty it would have finished in a better place. He also said that his horse was also affected by the incident as it settled 30 metres behind the field.
Mr Smith also said that there had been a similar incident, or worse, at Forbury on Thursday night, and that in that case the protest had been dismissed. Mr Smith also submitted that there should be consistency in cases such as this. In response to this submission we advised that it was not relevant what decision might have been made in other cases.
In answer to a question from Mr Hales Mr Smith agreed that there had been interference, but qualified this by repeating that no one could know what might have happened after this incident.
In conclusion Mr Renault summarised the Stipendiary Stewards’ case and said that it was clear that Mr Smith’s horse had shifted inwards and that contact had been made causing Mr Hay’s horse to gallop. As a result Mr Renault said, Mr Hay’s horse’s chances had been affected.
We adjourned to consider our decision.
reasonsfordecision:
We carefully considered the evidence and the video coverage of this incident. We were satisfied that Mr Smith’s horse ducked in sharply when the tapes were released. As a result Mr Hay’s horse broke from its correct gate and lost considerable ground. We were satisfied that “Alliwantforxmas” lost a minimum of 5 lengths as a result of the interference, and most likely much more than that. We do not accept that “Alliwantforxmas” contributed in any way to the ground that it lost.
This protest was brought under the provisions of Rule 869(8). In accordance with the provisions of this Rule we find that that “Major Moment” did cause interference to “Alliwantforxmas” when the race began. We also find that because of this interference the “progress or chance” of “Alliwantforxmas” was seriously affected. The fact that “Major Moment” also lost ground as a result of the incident is not relevant.
What we have to consider in this case is the effect this interference had on the chances of “Alliwantforxmas” in relation to the rest of the field. We are quite convinced that but for this interference “Alliwantforxmas” would have finished in a better place. It is very relevant that “Alliwantforxmas” was only a ½ length behind the 4th horse at the end of the race.
For all the reasons set out above we decided to exercise our discretion to uphold the protest and relegate “Major Moment” from 3rd to 5th place.
Decision:
On resuming the hearing we advised the parties that more detailed reasons for our decision would be set out in our written decision (see above), gave brief reasons for our decision, and advised that the protest was upheld and “Major Moment” relegated from 3rd to 5th place.
The amended placings were as follows:
1st – Mac Bubbles (12)
2nd – Ajaye (7)
3rd – Fiery Lustre (3)
4th – Alliwantforxmas (10)
5th – Major Moment (11)
6th – Revel Yell (1)
There was an order that dividends and stake money be paid in accordance with the amended placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: Rule 869(8)
Informant: Mr S. P. Renault - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent: Mr G. D. Smith - driver of "Major Moment", Mr J. C. Hay - Driver of "Alliwantforxmas"
StipendSteward:
raceid: 8d9426f58e59628dceb486ee6f52cca2
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 12f85eb4eb478aeecaeecf402e007e77
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 12/05/2013
meet_title: Timaru HRC - 12 May 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: timaru-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: JPhelan
meet_pm1: KHales
meet_pm2: none
name: Timaru HRC