Back to decisions search

Archive Decision

This decision has been migrated from the JCA website. Information is accurate but formatting may differ from contemporary decisions. Please contact us for any further enquiries.

Waimate RC – 13 July 2008 – Race 7

ID: JCA20213

Hearing Type:
Old Hearing

Rules:
876.1

Code:
Thoroughbred

Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing

Meet Title:
Waimate RC - 13 July 2008

Race Date:
2008/07/13

Race Number:
Race 7

Decision: Following the running of race number 7 an information was lodged by Mr S Marr, the trainer of Bradnor (J Todd) alleging that Gasnier (R Bishop), placed first by the Judge, caused interference to Bradnor, placed second by the Judge

DECISION & REASON

--

 

--

Following the running of race number 7 an information was lodged by Mr S Marr, the trainer of Bradnor (J Todd) alleging that Gasnier (R Bishop), placed first by the Judge, caused interference to Bradnor, placed second by the Judge, over the concluding stages of the race.

--

 

--

Present at the hearing were Mr Marr, the trainer of Bradnor; Mr Todd, the jockey on Bradnor; Mr P J Corner, the owner of Bradnor; Mr D Champion, the trainer of Gasnier; and Mr R Bishop, the rider of Gasnier. The protest was not admitted.

--

 

--

Rule 876 (1) reads:

--

If a 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.

--

 

--

Subclause (3)  defines interference as:

--

            For the purpose of this Rule 876 “interference” is defined as:

--

(i)                 a horse crossing, or jostling with, another horse so as to interfere with that, or any other horse; or

--

(ii)               a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or its Rider.

--

 

--

In his evidence Mr Marr said that his horse was racing behind and on the inside of Gasnier and over the last part of the race Mr Todd moved Bradnor out on to better ground and then made ground on Gasnier and in his view Gasnier appeared to interfere with the chances of Bradnor by moving out. He also noted that the  distance at the end of the race was a neck.

--

 

--

Mr Todd said that he moved out on Bradnor to get a better footing and as he did so Gasnier moved out which he said caused some inconvenience to Bradnor. Both Mr Marr and Mr Todd used the video evidence available in an attempt to show not only interference but that how, in their opinion, the chances of Bradnor were effected by that interference.

--

 

--

Mr Champion said that it was his view that there was movement from both horses and that Bradnor was beaten on its merits by Gasnier.

--

 

--

Mr Bishop said that there was always room for both horses and that he was entitled to take the line he had and that Bradnor had every chance to beat his horse.

--

 

--

Mr Ching, Stipendiary Steward, was asked to comment on the incident and he said that the matters that would concern him were the margin – a neck – and secondly that there was no evidence of Mr Todd having had to stop riding his horse during the period the interference was alleged.

--

 

--

The Committee, after considering the evidence of all parties and the video evidence, is not satisfied that it has been established that there was interference by Gasnier to Bradnor.  In arriving at that decision the Committee noted that Gasnier appeared to keep a straight course to the finish as Bradnor made its challenge and that Mr Todd did not stop riding Bradnor out over the concluding stage of the race.  The Committee also accepts Mr Bishop’s view, which was supported by the video evidence, in that there was always room for both horses.   Accordingly the protest is dismissed.

--

 

--

 

--

 

--

 

--

 

--

…………………………

--

 

--

B Coombes

--

 

--

CHAIRMAN

--

 

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: 4af99546296d09120048aef69f8af709

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 13/07/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Waimate RC - 13 July 2008 - Race 7

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of race number 7 an information was lodged by Mr S Marr, the trainer of Bradnor (J Todd) alleging that Gasnier (R Bishop), placed first by the Judge, caused interference to Bradnor, placed second by the Judge

DECISION & REASON

--

 

--

Following the running of race number 7 an information was lodged by Mr S Marr, the trainer of Bradnor (J Todd) alleging that Gasnier (R Bishop), placed first by the Judge, caused interference to Bradnor, placed second by the Judge, over the concluding stages of the race.

--

 

--

Present at the hearing were Mr Marr, the trainer of Bradnor; Mr Todd, the jockey on Bradnor; Mr P J Corner, the owner of Bradnor; Mr D Champion, the trainer of Gasnier; and Mr R Bishop, the rider of Gasnier. The protest was not admitted.

--

 

--

Rule 876 (1) reads:

--

If a 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.

--

 

--

Subclause (3)  defines interference as:

--

            For the purpose of this Rule 876 “interference” is defined as:

--

(i)                 a horse crossing, or jostling with, another horse so as to interfere with that, or any other horse; or

--

(ii)               a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or its Rider.

--

 

--

In his evidence Mr Marr said that his horse was racing behind and on the inside of Gasnier and over the last part of the race Mr Todd moved Bradnor out on to better ground and then made ground on Gasnier and in his view Gasnier appeared to interfere with the chances of Bradnor by moving out. He also noted that the  distance at the end of the race was a neck.

--

 

--

Mr Todd said that he moved out on Bradnor to get a better footing and as he did so Gasnier moved out which he said caused some inconvenience to Bradnor. Both Mr Marr and Mr Todd used the video evidence available in an attempt to show not only interference but that how, in their opinion, the chances of Bradnor were effected by that interference.

--

 

--

Mr Champion said that it was his view that there was movement from both horses and that Bradnor was beaten on its merits by Gasnier.

--

 

--

Mr Bishop said that there was always room for both horses and that he was entitled to take the line he had and that Bradnor had every chance to beat his horse.

--

 

--

Mr Ching, Stipendiary Steward, was asked to comment on the incident and he said that the matters that would concern him were the margin – a neck – and secondly that there was no evidence of Mr Todd having had to stop riding his horse during the period the interference was alleged.

--

 

--

The Committee, after considering the evidence of all parties and the video evidence, is not satisfied that it has been established that there was interference by Gasnier to Bradnor.  In arriving at that decision the Committee noted that Gasnier appeared to keep a straight course to the finish as Bradnor made its challenge and that Mr Todd did not stop riding Bradnor out over the concluding stage of the race.  The Committee also accepts Mr Bishop’s view, which was supported by the video evidence, in that there was always room for both horses.   Accordingly the protest is dismissed.

--

 

--

 

--

 

--

 

--

 

--

…………………………

--

 

--

B Coombes

--

 

--

CHAIRMAN

--

 

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 876.1

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 6e83d3557da78964e36c6142c2fc08e4

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 7

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 5166ffc07066bdbbf3a835854c7086af

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 13/07/2008

meet_title: Waimate RC - 13 July 2008

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: waimate-rc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Waimate RC