Waikato RC 3 February 2021 – R 3 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Hon J W Gendall QC
ID: JCA16437
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waikato RC - 3 February 2021
Meet Chair:
WGendall
Race Date:
2021/02/03
Race Number:
R 3
Decision:
As a result the Committee found that there was interference caused to DARCI DIVA, but for which that horse would have finished ahead of CAPTAIN TOM, and exercising the discretion available in the Rule, the protest was upheld. As a result CAPTAIN TOM was relegated to 3rd place and DARCI DIVA consequently promoted to 2nd place. (Whilst some might say that it was a "fortuitous" outcome for TINA AGAIN to be promoted to 1st place, the films and margin (½ a head from first) illustrate the reality that she was seriously interfered with and would have likewise finished ahead of the winner).
The Judge's amended placings were:
1st TINA AGAIN (6)
2nd DARCI DIVA (10)
3rd CAPTAIN TOM (4)
4th ENCIERRO (5)
5th SACRED OPTION (12)
6th RIP VAN GOGH (3)
Authorisation was given for dividends and prize money to be paid in accordance with those placings.
Facts:
Folllowing the running of Race 3, "The Bidding Ends at 3pm on Gavelhouse Plus 3yo" an Information was filed by Mr Marsh instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant alleged that the horse CAPTAIN TOM provisionally placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of DARCI DIVA placed 3rd by the Judge. The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's provisional placings were:
1st No. 4 CAPTAIN TOM
2nd No. 6 TINA AGAIN
3rd No. 10 DARCI DIVA
The official margins between 1st and 2nd was ½ a head, and between 2nd and 3rd, a ½ head.
The Committee was advised that a protest was also intended, and pending, by the trainer of TINA AGAIN (2nd) against CAPTAIN TOM (1st) but the proper procedure adopted was to first determine the outcome of this protest.
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, or
(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 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.
Submissions for Decision:
At the request of the Committee the films covering the alleged incident were shown to those present without any comment being made. Ms S Collett said that as she was mounting a challenge to CAPTAIN TOM about 200 metres from the finish it began to drift outwards forcing her off line and making contact, she said, twice, so as to knock her horse off balance and hindered to cost her finishing ahead of it. Mr Marsh said the films clearly show that DARCI DIVA was, as a consequence, "sandwiched" between CAPTAIN TOM and TINA AGAIN to its outside, and causing itself to hinder that horse.
Mr Calder said that he accepted that CAPTAIN TOM shifted outwards at the 200 metre point, but said that the only contact was when it shied at the winning post. He said he "always had had DARCI DIVA covered, he had "all the straight to pass the winner and could not do so."
Mr R Collett said that it was clear CAPTAIN TOM drifted away from the rail but that in his opinion the only time contact occurred was 1 stride from the winning post. He said DARCI DIVA had every opportunity to pass CAPTAIN TOM, could not do so, and "the best horse won the race." He said Ms Collett never stopped riding.
Mr B Jones, Stipendiary Steward gave expert opinion evidence as to the interpretation of the facts disclosed on the race films. He was not asked to express any opinion as to the merits of the protest as it is the ultimate function of the Committee to determine the final outcome. He said that initially CAPTAIN TOM drifted outwards by one horse width but then continued and exacerbating to 4 horse widths.
Reasons for Decision:
In determining the outcome of a protest under this Rule, the Committee has to determine two limbs. First, was it satisfied that "interference" occurred. Second, and if interference was established, would the horse interfered with, have beaten the offending horse had such interference not occurred.
The Committee reached the following factual findings and was comfortably satisfied from all the evidence and submissions presented.
(i) CAPTAIN TOM, whilst leading agains the rail, commenced to drift outwards approaching the 100 metre point. This continued until it had moved 4 widths from its line. Horses are not required to "run in lanes" but if movements caused interference in terms of the Rule, the first limb of it commence into effect. Of course, the crucial second limb remains.
(ii) DARCI DIVA was mounting a challenge 100 metres from the finish. So, too, was TINA AGAIN on its outside. DARCI DIVA did not get past CAPTAIN TOM but was clearly hampered by it and being forced over extra ground, and off its rightful line. It was significantly inconvenienced through being sandwiched between CAPTAIN TOM and TINA AGAIN as the latter was issuing its strong challenge outside of DARCI DIVA.
(iii) The first limb of the Rule, namely interference occurred, was established.
(iv) The Committee gave very careful consideration to the second limb; that is would DARCI DIVA have beaten CAPTAIN TOM, the Committee found this was established to its comfortable satisfaction. The evidence of Ms S Collett was accepted, and the degree of hampering caused by CAPTAIN TOM, including contact, the distance to the finish, the margin (1 head between 1st and 3rd), was persuasive.
(v) Incidentally, there appeared to be clear interference also to TINA AGAIN but that was not material in this separate hearing.
(vi) The Committee notes the arguments (often made in protest hearings) that the affected horse "had the whole straight" to pass CAPTAIN TOM, so would therefore not have beaten it. But that overlooks the fact that it is because of the interference, and but for that the affected horse could not pass the offending horse, and would have done so otherwise. Likewise the sometimes claim that "the best horse won the race" is an opinion that has no relevance or ?? the issue. No matter how much a horse may, in the opinion of its connections, be "the best" if is subject to the Rules of the contest, as are all of its competitors, the opinion that his/her horse was "the best" may be understandable, but such a view has no application in a protest case.
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: b504de8fbc79c56284bfa26c16d7a56c
informantnumber: A13394
horsename: CAPTAIN TOM
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 05/02/2021
hearing_title: Waikato RC 3 February 2021 - R 3 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Hon J W Gendall QC
charge:
facts:
Folllowing the running of Race 3, "The Bidding Ends at 3pm on Gavelhouse Plus 3yo" an Information was filed by Mr Marsh instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant alleged that the horse CAPTAIN TOM provisionally placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of DARCI DIVA placed 3rd by the Judge. The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's provisional placings were:
1st No. 4 CAPTAIN TOM
2nd No. 6 TINA AGAIN
3rd No. 10 DARCI DIVA
The official margins between 1st and 2nd was ½ a head, and between 2nd and 3rd, a ½ head.
The Committee was advised that a protest was also intended, and pending, by the trainer of TINA AGAIN (2nd) against CAPTAIN TOM (1st) but the proper procedure adopted was to first determine the outcome of this protest.
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, or
(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 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.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
At the request of the Committee the films covering the alleged incident were shown to those present without any comment being made. Ms S Collett said that as she was mounting a challenge to CAPTAIN TOM about 200 metres from the finish it began to drift outwards forcing her off line and making contact, she said, twice, so as to knock her horse off balance and hindered to cost her finishing ahead of it. Mr Marsh said the films clearly show that DARCI DIVA was, as a consequence, "sandwiched" between CAPTAIN TOM and TINA AGAIN to its outside, and causing itself to hinder that horse.
Mr Calder said that he accepted that CAPTAIN TOM shifted outwards at the 200 metre point, but said that the only contact was when it shied at the winning post. He said he "always had had DARCI DIVA covered, he had "all the straight to pass the winner and could not do so."
Mr R Collett said that it was clear CAPTAIN TOM drifted away from the rail but that in his opinion the only time contact occurred was 1 stride from the winning post. He said DARCI DIVA had every opportunity to pass CAPTAIN TOM, could not do so, and "the best horse won the race." He said Ms Collett never stopped riding.
Mr B Jones, Stipendiary Steward gave expert opinion evidence as to the interpretation of the facts disclosed on the race films. He was not asked to express any opinion as to the merits of the protest as it is the ultimate function of the Committee to determine the final outcome. He said that initially CAPTAIN TOM drifted outwards by one horse width but then continued and exacerbating to 4 horse widths.
reasonsfordecision:
In determining the outcome of a protest under this Rule, the Committee has to determine two limbs. First, was it satisfied that "interference" occurred. Second, and if interference was established, would the horse interfered with, have beaten the offending horse had such interference not occurred.
The Committee reached the following factual findings and was comfortably satisfied from all the evidence and submissions presented.
(i) CAPTAIN TOM, whilst leading agains the rail, commenced to drift outwards approaching the 100 metre point. This continued until it had moved 4 widths from its line. Horses are not required to "run in lanes" but if movements caused interference in terms of the Rule, the first limb of it commence into effect. Of course, the crucial second limb remains.
(ii) DARCI DIVA was mounting a challenge 100 metres from the finish. So, too, was TINA AGAIN on its outside. DARCI DIVA did not get past CAPTAIN TOM but was clearly hampered by it and being forced over extra ground, and off its rightful line. It was significantly inconvenienced through being sandwiched between CAPTAIN TOM and TINA AGAIN as the latter was issuing its strong challenge outside of DARCI DIVA.
(iii) The first limb of the Rule, namely interference occurred, was established.
(iv) The Committee gave very careful consideration to the second limb; that is would DARCI DIVA have beaten CAPTAIN TOM, the Committee found this was established to its comfortable satisfaction. The evidence of Ms S Collett was accepted, and the degree of hampering caused by CAPTAIN TOM, including contact, the distance to the finish, the margin (1 head between 1st and 3rd), was persuasive.
(v) Incidentally, there appeared to be clear interference also to TINA AGAIN but that was not material in this separate hearing.
(vi) The Committee notes the arguments (often made in protest hearings) that the affected horse "had the whole straight" to pass CAPTAIN TOM, so would therefore not have beaten it. But that overlooks the fact that it is because of the interference, and but for that the affected horse could not pass the offending horse, and would have done so otherwise. Likewise the sometimes claim that "the best horse won the race" is an opinion that has no relevance or ?? the issue. No matter how much a horse may, in the opinion of its connections, be "the best" if is subject to the Rules of the contest, as are all of its competitors, the opinion that his/her horse was "the best" may be understandable, but such a view has no application in a protest case.
Decision:
As a result the Committee found that there was interference caused to DARCI DIVA, but for which that horse would have finished ahead of CAPTAIN TOM, and exercising the discretion available in the Rule, the protest was upheld. As a result CAPTAIN TOM was relegated to 3rd place and DARCI DIVA consequently promoted to 2nd place. (Whilst some might say that it was a "fortuitous" outcome for TINA AGAIN to be promoted to 1st place, the films and margin (½ a head from first) illustrate the reality that she was seriously interfered with and would have likewise finished ahead of the winner).
The Judge's amended placings were:
1st TINA AGAIN (6)
2nd DARCI DIVA (10)
3rd CAPTAIN TOM (4)
4th ENCIERRO (5)
5th SACRED OPTION (12)
6th RIP VAN GOGH (3)
Authorisation was given for dividends and prize money to be paid in accordance with those placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr S Marsh - Trainer of DARCI DIVA
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr S Marsh - Trainer and Part Owner of DARCI DIVA, Ms S Collett - Rider of DARCI DIVA, Mr R Collett - Trainer of CAPTAIN TOM, Mr A Calder - Rider of CAPTAIN TOM
Respondent: Mr R Collett - Trainer of CAPTAIN TOM
StipendSteward:
raceid: 9adb406fcab919b43a080b62e21e83bc
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 9765cfbcde7416c44482bdc14dbd85ee
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 03/02/2021
meet_title: Waikato RC - 3 February 2021
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikato-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: WGendall
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Waikato RC