Waikato RC 20 July 2019 – R 6 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr G Jones
ID: JCA15062
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waikato RC - 20 July 2019
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2019/07/20
Race Number:
R 6
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings stand.
1st No. 4 JOHNNIE REDMOND
2nd No. 2 KAPALKA
3rd No. 11 ARABIAN GIFT
4th No. 5 OVERTHEMARK
The Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with our decision.
Facts:
Following the running of Race No 6, the Happy 60th Birthday Andy 1400, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, co-trainer Mr G Rogerson of KAPALKA, alleged that horse number 4 (JOHNNIE REDMOND) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his horse number 2 (KAPALKA) placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's provisional placings were as follows:
1st No. 4 JOHNNIE REDMOND
2nd No. 2 KAPALKA
3rd No. 11 ARABIAN GIFT
4th No. 5 OVERTHEMARK
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a short neck.
Rule 642(1) provides:
“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”.
For the purposes of Rule 642 “interference” is defined as:
(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
At the commencement of the hearing the essence of the ‘Protest Rule’ - Rule 642(1) was explained to all parties as well as the necessary standard of proof.
Submissions for Decision:
At the request of the Committee prior to submissions being heard, Stipendiary Steward Mr Coles demonstrated the incident and identified the affected horses using available video footage.
The Informant, Mr Rogerson said that interference did occur in the final 100 metres. He said JOHNNIE REDMOND made contact with KAPALKA on two occasions which “knocked the stuffing” out of his horse. He maintained that KAPALKA was holding JOHNNIE REDMOND until the interference occurred and this denied his horse the opportunity to win the race.
Mr Jones said it was clear that interference occurred at the 100 metres. He concurred with Mr Rogerson's submission that at the time KAPALKA was holding JOHNNIE REDMOND. He estimated that after the first contact he lost half a neck and as a result of the second contact he lost a further neck which he said equated to half a length in total. He further stated Mr Danis did not stop riding his mount out when contact was made and under the rules he had an obligation to do so.
The Respondent Mr O’Sullivan pointed out that near the 300 metres KAPALKA shifted out into the running line of JOHNNIE REDMOND and he submitted had KAPALKA beaten JOHNNIE REDMOND he would have lodged a counter protest. Mr O’Sullivan accepted that interference did occur close to the winning post and he said it is of note that JOHNNIE REDMOND came from behind KAPALKA.
Mr Danis said his running line was “blocked by KAPALKA near the 300 metres”. He also accepted that JOHNNIE REDMOND did interfere with KAPALKA near the 50 metre mark. He said however, his mount was slightly in front when the interference occurred, and there was no doubt in his mind; KAPALKA would not have beaten his mount.
On behalf of Stewards Mr Williamson submitted that JOHNNIE REDMOND shifted out 1 horse width in the final 60 metres and did interfere with KAPALKA. He said that Mr Danis did attempt to correct his mount. He said the issue to consider is that given the margin of a short neck would KAPALKA have beaten the winner. In that point he submitted it is the stewards' view that it was unlikely KAPALKA would have beaten JOHNNIE REDMOND. In conclusion he noted it was of significance that JOHNNIE REDMOND was 1 ½ lengths behind KAPALKA at the 300 metres and continued to steadily make ground.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of submissions presented and reviewed the available video footage several times in real-time and slow motion, frame by frame.
The protest rule requires the Committee to establish two limbs. First, we must find that interference occurred; and second, that the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.
The evidence established that JOHNNIE REDMOND made contact with KAPALKA on two occasions near the 50 metres. The films clearly showed that the two points of contact were in quick succession. The second in our view was quite firm contact. As a result KAPALKA was briefly inconvenienced, but Mr Jones continued to ride his mount forward strongly with the whip to the finish. Loss of momentum was minimal considering the interference occurred close to the finish line. On the other hand following contact Mr Danis did make an effort to straighten his mount and then rode his mount out hands and heels to the finish. At all times from the point of contact until the finish line, JOHNNIE REDMOND comfortably held ascendency over KAPALKA. Further, in our view it is also noteworthy that after being hampered and having to switch to the inside of KAPALKA near the 300 metres JOHNNIE REDMOND continued to take ground off KAPALKA and was always finishing the race off the stronger of the two. Notwithstanding the incident at the 300 metres was not a determinative factor in relation to our consideration of the interference that occurred inside the final 50 metres.
The Committee is satisfied that JOHNNIE REDMOND did interfere with the chances of KAPALKA. However, we cannot be comfortably satisfied that had the interference not occurred KAPALKA would have beaten JOHNNY REDMOND to the finish. On that basis we dismiss the protest.
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: a1af4bc5f2ad6f7f294510fc658674f0
informantnumber: A11318
horsename: JOHNNIE REDMOND
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 22/07/2019
hearing_title: Waikato RC 20 July 2019 - R 6 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr G Jones
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race No 6, the Happy 60th Birthday Andy 1400, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, co-trainer Mr G Rogerson of KAPALKA, alleged that horse number 4 (JOHNNIE REDMOND) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his horse number 2 (KAPALKA) placed 2nd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's provisional placings were as follows:
1st No. 4 JOHNNIE REDMOND
2nd No. 2 KAPALKA
3rd No. 11 ARABIAN GIFT
4th No. 5 OVERTHEMARK
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a short neck.
Rule 642(1) provides:
“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”.
For the purposes of Rule 642 “interference” is defined as:
(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
At the commencement of the hearing the essence of the ‘Protest Rule’ - Rule 642(1) was explained to all parties as well as the necessary standard of proof.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
At the request of the Committee prior to submissions being heard, Stipendiary Steward Mr Coles demonstrated the incident and identified the affected horses using available video footage.
The Informant, Mr Rogerson said that interference did occur in the final 100 metres. He said JOHNNIE REDMOND made contact with KAPALKA on two occasions which “knocked the stuffing” out of his horse. He maintained that KAPALKA was holding JOHNNIE REDMOND until the interference occurred and this denied his horse the opportunity to win the race.
Mr Jones said it was clear that interference occurred at the 100 metres. He concurred with Mr Rogerson's submission that at the time KAPALKA was holding JOHNNIE REDMOND. He estimated that after the first contact he lost half a neck and as a result of the second contact he lost a further neck which he said equated to half a length in total. He further stated Mr Danis did not stop riding his mount out when contact was made and under the rules he had an obligation to do so.
The Respondent Mr O’Sullivan pointed out that near the 300 metres KAPALKA shifted out into the running line of JOHNNIE REDMOND and he submitted had KAPALKA beaten JOHNNIE REDMOND he would have lodged a counter protest. Mr O’Sullivan accepted that interference did occur close to the winning post and he said it is of note that JOHNNIE REDMOND came from behind KAPALKA.
Mr Danis said his running line was “blocked by KAPALKA near the 300 metres”. He also accepted that JOHNNIE REDMOND did interfere with KAPALKA near the 50 metre mark. He said however, his mount was slightly in front when the interference occurred, and there was no doubt in his mind; KAPALKA would not have beaten his mount.
On behalf of Stewards Mr Williamson submitted that JOHNNIE REDMOND shifted out 1 horse width in the final 60 metres and did interfere with KAPALKA. He said that Mr Danis did attempt to correct his mount. He said the issue to consider is that given the margin of a short neck would KAPALKA have beaten the winner. In that point he submitted it is the stewards' view that it was unlikely KAPALKA would have beaten JOHNNIE REDMOND. In conclusion he noted it was of significance that JOHNNIE REDMOND was 1 ½ lengths behind KAPALKA at the 300 metres and continued to steadily make ground.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all of submissions presented and reviewed the available video footage several times in real-time and slow motion, frame by frame.
The protest rule requires the Committee to establish two limbs. First, we must find that interference occurred; and second, that the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.
The evidence established that JOHNNIE REDMOND made contact with KAPALKA on two occasions near the 50 metres. The films clearly showed that the two points of contact were in quick succession. The second in our view was quite firm contact. As a result KAPALKA was briefly inconvenienced, but Mr Jones continued to ride his mount forward strongly with the whip to the finish. Loss of momentum was minimal considering the interference occurred close to the finish line. On the other hand following contact Mr Danis did make an effort to straighten his mount and then rode his mount out hands and heels to the finish. At all times from the point of contact until the finish line, JOHNNIE REDMOND comfortably held ascendency over KAPALKA. Further, in our view it is also noteworthy that after being hampered and having to switch to the inside of KAPALKA near the 300 metres JOHNNIE REDMOND continued to take ground off KAPALKA and was always finishing the race off the stronger of the two. Notwithstanding the incident at the 300 metres was not a determinative factor in relation to our consideration of the interference that occurred inside the final 50 metres.
The Committee is satisfied that JOHNNIE REDMOND did interfere with the chances of KAPALKA. However, we cannot be comfortably satisfied that had the interference not occurred KAPALKA would have beaten JOHNNY REDMOND to the finish. On that basis we dismiss the protest.
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings stand.
1st No. 4 JOHNNIE REDMOND
2nd No. 2 KAPALKA
3rd No. 11 ARABIAN GIFT
4th No. 5 OVERTHEMARK
The Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with our decision.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr G Rogerson - Co-Trainer of KAPALKA
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr G and Mrs D Rogerson - Co-Trainers of KAPALKA, Mr D Danis - Rider of JOHNNIE REDMOND, Mr L O'Sullivan - Co-Trainer of JOHNNIE REDMOND, Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward, Mr B Jones - Rider of KAPALKA
Respondent: Mr L O'Sullivan - Co-Trainer of JOHNNIE REDMOND
StipendSteward:
raceid: bce028d898c0e68ed18ca0988935668e
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 3edf5f8f91a806687eecbcf7e37567d3
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 20/07/2019
meet_title: Waikato RC - 20 July 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikato-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Waikato RC