Waikato RC 28 October 2013 – R 8 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA11673
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waikato RC - 28 October 2013
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Meet Committee Member 1:
GTankard
Race Date:
2013/10/28
Race Number:
Race 8
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is upheld and the amended placings are now:
1st No.1 BEAUTY SHOW
2nd No. 5 HOT IN PINK
3rd No. 3 STITCHENTYNE
4th No. 9 LADY CHAPEL
In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 8, Cambridge Training Complex 1200, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Oatham, alleged that LADY CHAPEL placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of STITCHENTYNE placed 4th by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred near the 250 metres.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 1 BEAUTY SHOW
2nd No. 9 LADY CHAPEL
3rd No. 5 HOT IN PINK
4th No. 3 STITCHENTYNE
The official margin between 2nd and 4th was half a head and a head.
Rule 642(1) states: “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”.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Williamson demonstrated on the head on film that near the 250 metres LADY CHAPEL was held up for a run. He said that Mr Hills came off his running line and in doing so made heavy contact with STITCHENTYNE which was forced outwards by 2 to 3 horse widths. At that point STITCHENTYNE became unbalanced and lost momentum which allowed LADY CHAPEL to gain a length advantage.
Mr Pender submitted that the films speak for themselves and he agreed with Mr Williamson's interpretation of the incident.
Mr Innes submitted that Mr Hills had caused severe contact with his mount which resulted in her being pushed out 3 to 4 horse widths. He said his mare became unbalanced and noted STITCHENTYNE took ground off LADY CHAPEL over the final stages of the race.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Innes stated that if the interference had not occurred STITCHENTYNE would have beaten LADY CHAPEL.
Mr Hawtin acknowledged that LADY CHAPEL did shift out but noted Mr Innes did not stop riding his horse in the run to the winning post. He believed the interference cost STITCHENTYNE half a head. He added that LADY CHAPEL put ¾ of a length on STITCHENTYNE in a short space of time because of the speed his mare possesses.
Mr Hills submitted that it was not heavy contact and Mr Innes did not stop riding his mount out to the winning post.
Mr Oatham in summing up submitted that LADY CHAPEL was clearly held up for a run and Mr Hills angled out abruptly when not entitled to. In doing so he moved out 3 horse widths which resulted in SITCHENTYNE losing considerable momentum. He believed this cost STITCHENTYNE approximately 1 length. Finally he added that the Stewards believed the protest should be upheld given the official margins of a half head and a head.
All other parties when given the opportunity to sum up said they had nothing further to add.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed the video films several times. Near the 250 metres Mr Hills pushed Mr Innes out from his rightful running line and created a run for LADY CHAPEL that otherwise would not have been available. This is a clear breach of the interference Rule and it was very clear on the films that LADY CHAPEL caused interference to STITCHENTYNE. This resulted in STITCHENTYNE receiving a significant bump which put her off balance and caused her to lose momentum. The films show that STITCHENTYNE was taking ground off LADY CHAPEL over the concluding stages of the race.
Therefore, given the official margins at the finish we are satisfied that STITCHENTYNE would have beaten LADY CHAPEL had such interference not occurred.
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: 21d731feec05b5b5dcddf852cb8d4909
informantnumber: A2909
horsename: LADY CHAPEL
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 09/10/2013
hearing_title: Waikato RC 28 October 2013 - R 8 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 8, Cambridge Training Complex 1200, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Oatham, alleged that LADY CHAPEL placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of STITCHENTYNE placed 4th by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred near the 250 metres.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 1 BEAUTY SHOW
2nd No. 9 LADY CHAPEL
3rd No. 5 HOT IN PINK
4th No. 3 STITCHENTYNE
The official margin between 2nd and 4th was half a head and a head.
Rule 642(1) states: “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”.
All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Williamson demonstrated on the head on film that near the 250 metres LADY CHAPEL was held up for a run. He said that Mr Hills came off his running line and in doing so made heavy contact with STITCHENTYNE which was forced outwards by 2 to 3 horse widths. At that point STITCHENTYNE became unbalanced and lost momentum which allowed LADY CHAPEL to gain a length advantage.
Mr Pender submitted that the films speak for themselves and he agreed with Mr Williamson's interpretation of the incident.
Mr Innes submitted that Mr Hills had caused severe contact with his mount which resulted in her being pushed out 3 to 4 horse widths. He said his mare became unbalanced and noted STITCHENTYNE took ground off LADY CHAPEL over the final stages of the race.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Innes stated that if the interference had not occurred STITCHENTYNE would have beaten LADY CHAPEL.
Mr Hawtin acknowledged that LADY CHAPEL did shift out but noted Mr Innes did not stop riding his horse in the run to the winning post. He believed the interference cost STITCHENTYNE half a head. He added that LADY CHAPEL put ¾ of a length on STITCHENTYNE in a short space of time because of the speed his mare possesses.
Mr Hills submitted that it was not heavy contact and Mr Innes did not stop riding his mount out to the winning post.
Mr Oatham in summing up submitted that LADY CHAPEL was clearly held up for a run and Mr Hills angled out abruptly when not entitled to. In doing so he moved out 3 horse widths which resulted in SITCHENTYNE losing considerable momentum. He believed this cost STITCHENTYNE approximately 1 length. Finally he added that the Stewards believed the protest should be upheld given the official margins of a half head and a head.
All other parties when given the opportunity to sum up said they had nothing further to add.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed the video films several times. Near the 250 metres Mr Hills pushed Mr Innes out from his rightful running line and created a run for LADY CHAPEL that otherwise would not have been available. This is a clear breach of the interference Rule and it was very clear on the films that LADY CHAPEL caused interference to STITCHENTYNE. This resulted in STITCHENTYNE receiving a significant bump which put her off balance and caused her to lose momentum. The films show that STITCHENTYNE was taking ground off LADY CHAPEL over the concluding stages of the race.
Therefore, given the official margins at the finish we are satisfied that STITCHENTYNE would have beaten LADY CHAPEL had such interference not occurred.
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is upheld and the amended placings are now:
1st No.1 BEAUTY SHOW
2nd No. 5 HOT IN PINK
3rd No. 3 STITCHENTYNE
4th No. 9 LADY CHAPEL
In conclusion we order the payment of stakes and dividends.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr M Hills - Rider of LADY CHAPEL, Mr L Innes - Rider of STITCHENTYNE, Mr J Pender - Trainer of STITCHENTYNE
Respondent: Mr B Hawtin - Trainer of LADY CHAPEL
StipendSteward:
raceid: e715b217e625329151d23831a0f361d4
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 3d99e6470397667c1435aa79b97768bf
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 28/10/2013
meet_title: Waikato RC - 28 October 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikato-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: GTankard
meet_pm2: none
name: Waikato RC