Waipa RC 8 April 2015 – R 8 (instigating a protest)
ID: JCA12504
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waipa RC - 8 April 2015
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Race Date:
2015/04/08
Race Number:
R8
Decision:
Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placing’s shall stand. In conclusion the Committee orders the payment of stakes and dividends.
Facts:
Following the running of race 8, NZB Insurance Pearl Series Race 1150, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Apprentice Rider - Mr Hutchings, alleged that LADY JAY placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of SHESELUSIVE placed 3rd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No.5 LADY JAY
2nd No.6 PATTICAN
3rd No.2 SHESELUSIVE
4th No.4 LEGANI
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a long head and between 2nd and 3rd was ¾ of a length.
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:
Prior to the commencement of the protest the Committee outlined the process of the hearing.
Mr Hutchings submitted that near the 100 metres LADY JAY ran out into the line of his mount SHESELUSIVE for 3 strides. He said Ms Schwerin made no attempt to straighten her mount. He said this cost SHESELUSIVE momentum and after the incident his mount attacked the line. He believed if the interference had not occurred SHESELUSIVE would have won by ½ a length.
Mr Scott identified on the head- on video film that LADY JAY did take the line of SHESELUSIVE when his horse was just starting to make up ground. He said Mr Hutchings had to take evasive action and then regain momentum. He was of the opinion the interference cost SHESELUSIVE winning the race.
Mr Chippendale submitted that he didn’t think that SHESELUSIVE would have won and LADY JAY fought on a lot stronger than SHESELUSIVE. He added that Mr Hutchings did not stop riding SHESELUSIVE.
Ms Schwerin admitted she moved out a horse width near the 100 metres but identified on the film that she took corrective action. She added that Mr Hutchings did not stop riding his mount and believed it did not cost SHESELUSIVE the win.
Mr Coles submitted the films clearly show that LADY JAY has rolled out into the line of SHESELUSIVE for 3 strides. He described them as 1 reasonable stride and 2 quiet strides. He noted that Ms Schwerin does correct her mount. He said the interference was minimal and in his opinion it did not affect the chances of SHESELUSIVE. Mr Coles said therefore the Stewards do not support the protest.
Mr Hutchings was given the opportunity to add anything new and had nothing further to say.
Mr Chippendale was given the opportunity to add anything new and had nothing further to say.
Mr Scott asked the Committee to consider that it was a tight turning track and SHESEULISVE had lost all momentum.
All parties present were asked if they had a fair hearing and there were no issues or concerns raised at that point.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video films several times. The first part of rule 642(1) requires a Committee to determine if any interference occurred. The head – on film showed that LADY JAY did shift out about 1 horse width momentarily near the 100 metres and interfere with SHESELUSIVE for 2 strides. Ms Schwerin took corrective action to straighten her mount promptly and over the final 75 metres SHESELUSIVE had a clear run to the finish line.
The Committee then had to be satisfied that, free of interference, SHESELUSIVE would have beaten LADY JAY.
After the very slight interference SHESELUSIVE was ridden with vigour and ran on but failed to make up any significant ground on LADY JAY. The Committee note that SHESELUSIVE finished 1 length behind LADY JAY at the finish and the video films do not support that the interference cost SHESELUSIVE anywhere near that margin.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee is clearly not satisfied that SHESELUSIVE would have beaten LADY JAY 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: 641b7c3448e96a79b01fa14aaa218471
informantnumber: A4372
horsename: LADY JAY
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 02/04/2015
hearing_title: Waipa RC 8 April 2015 - R 8 (instigating a protest)
charge:
facts:
Following the running of race 8, NZB Insurance Pearl Series Race 1150, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Apprentice Rider - Mr Hutchings, alleged that LADY JAY placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of SHESELUSIVE placed 3rd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No.5 LADY JAY
2nd No.6 PATTICAN
3rd No.2 SHESELUSIVE
4th No.4 LEGANI
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a long head and between 2nd and 3rd was ¾ of a length.
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:
Prior to the commencement of the protest the Committee outlined the process of the hearing.
Mr Hutchings submitted that near the 100 metres LADY JAY ran out into the line of his mount SHESELUSIVE for 3 strides. He said Ms Schwerin made no attempt to straighten her mount. He said this cost SHESELUSIVE momentum and after the incident his mount attacked the line. He believed if the interference had not occurred SHESELUSIVE would have won by ½ a length.
Mr Scott identified on the head- on video film that LADY JAY did take the line of SHESELUSIVE when his horse was just starting to make up ground. He said Mr Hutchings had to take evasive action and then regain momentum. He was of the opinion the interference cost SHESELUSIVE winning the race.
Mr Chippendale submitted that he didn’t think that SHESELUSIVE would have won and LADY JAY fought on a lot stronger than SHESELUSIVE. He added that Mr Hutchings did not stop riding SHESELUSIVE.
Ms Schwerin admitted she moved out a horse width near the 100 metres but identified on the film that she took corrective action. She added that Mr Hutchings did not stop riding his mount and believed it did not cost SHESELUSIVE the win.
Mr Coles submitted the films clearly show that LADY JAY has rolled out into the line of SHESELUSIVE for 3 strides. He described them as 1 reasonable stride and 2 quiet strides. He noted that Ms Schwerin does correct her mount. He said the interference was minimal and in his opinion it did not affect the chances of SHESELUSIVE. Mr Coles said therefore the Stewards do not support the protest.
Mr Hutchings was given the opportunity to add anything new and had nothing further to say.
Mr Chippendale was given the opportunity to add anything new and had nothing further to say.
Mr Scott asked the Committee to consider that it was a tight turning track and SHESEULISVE had lost all momentum.
All parties present were asked if they had a fair hearing and there were no issues or concerns raised at that point.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video films several times. The first part of rule 642(1) requires a Committee to determine if any interference occurred. The head – on film showed that LADY JAY did shift out about 1 horse width momentarily near the 100 metres and interfere with SHESELUSIVE for 2 strides. Ms Schwerin took corrective action to straighten her mount promptly and over the final 75 metres SHESELUSIVE had a clear run to the finish line.
The Committee then had to be satisfied that, free of interference, SHESELUSIVE would have beaten LADY JAY.
After the very slight interference SHESELUSIVE was ridden with vigour and ran on but failed to make up any significant ground on LADY JAY. The Committee note that SHESELUSIVE finished 1 length behind LADY JAY at the finish and the video films do not support that the interference cost SHESELUSIVE anywhere near that margin.
After taking into account all the above factors the Committee is clearly not satisfied that SHESELUSIVE would have beaten LADY JAY had such interference not occurred.
Decision:
Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placing’s shall stand. In conclusion the Committee orders the payment of stakes and dividends.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Mr R Hutchings - Apprentice Rider of SHESELUSIVE
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr A Scott - Co Trainer of SHESELUSIVE, Members of SHESELUSIVE Syndicate - as observers only, Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward, Ms A Schwerin - Apprentice Rider of LADY JAY, Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr N Harris - Apprentice Jockey Mentor
Respondent: Mr E Chippendale - Stable Representative
StipendSteward:
raceid: d3b334995d52d83130228283fe9f3621
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 0b212b58ffbaff3fbe856ca2527f9983
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 08/04/2015
meet_title: Waipa RC - 8 April 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waipa-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Waipa RC