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.

Wanganui JC 12 May 2011- R 5 (Instigating a Protest)

ID: JCA12085

Applicant:
Licensed Jockey D Walker (Rider of Share The Blame)

Respondent(s):
Licensed Jockey - R Hannam (Rider of Lucky We Leica)

Information Number:
31056

Hearing Type:
Protest

Rules:
642(1)

Code:
Thoroughbred

Meet Title:
Wanganui JC - 12 May 2011

Meet Chair:
ISmith

Meet Committee Member 1:
TCastles

Race Date:
2011/05/12

Race Number:
R5

Decision:

Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the Judge’s placing shall stand. Dividends and stakes shall be paid in accordance with the decision.
 

Facts:

Rule: 642 (1) was read as “If a placed horse or it’s 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.

Following the running of race 5 D Walker the rider of Share the Blame placed 3rd by the Judge filed a protest alleging that Lucky We Leica or it’s rider placed first by the Judge interfered with the chances of Share the Blame over the concluding stages of the race.
Official placings by the Judge were
1st Lucky We Leica (9)
2nd Tindill (2)
3rd Share the Blame (3)
4th Themoneyzmine (13)
5th Varinia (10)
Margins: three quarters of a length and a neck.

Submissions for Decision:

Mr Goodwin identified the horses concerned, with Lucky We Leica in the lead racing approximately two to three horse widths off the outside running rail with Share the Blame on its outside and behind over the concluding 100m of the race.

Mr Walker used the head and side rear films of the home straight to demonstrate where over the last 100m of the race highlighting the last seven strides. Robert Hannam on Lucky We Leica moved out taking his line and forcing Share the Blame to be eased out of the gap between Lucky We Leica and the outside rail. In doing so D Walker alleged the interference had definitely cost him second placing.
When questioned by the committee in regard to how much the interference had cost him Mr Walker then intimated it also had affected his chances of winning the race.

Mr Hannam after viewing the film stated Mr Walker had plenty of room available earlier if his horse was good enough and although Lucky We Leica has moved out ever so slightly Mr Walker could still have ridden his mount out with more vigour. At no stage was he ever going to beat Lucky We Leica to the finish line.
 
 
Mr Innes stated to the committee it was clear Share the Blame would have finished second. Mr Innes was then reminded again of the wording of Rule 642 (1).

Mr Goodwin Stipendiary Steward when asked for his submissions on the incident gave a clear summation of Mr Hannam’s mount moving out over the concluding stages forcing Mr Walker to take a hold of his mount and whilst he may have beaten the second horse home there is doubt that he would have beaten the winner taking into account the proximity of the finish line.
 

Reasons for Decision:

The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. It was clear as shown on the video films that Mr Hannam had allowed his mount to move outwards over the concluding stages of the race and in particular the last seven or eight strides prior to the finish. Mr Walker’s mount has been inconvenienced in it’s run to the line both Mr Hannam and Mr Walker were riding out a vigorous finish with Mr Hannam’s mount in front of, and traveling the better of the two. The committee must be satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred.

The committee are satisfied that considering the margins of three quarters of a length plus a neck was too great a margin taking into account the manner in which both horses were finishing, even though Share the Blame’s momentum was interrupted, and the distance from the finish line. Share the Blame in the opinion of the committee would not have beaten Lucky We Leica if interference had 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: 2f500cf28b5f9fba3e5998ad1444b11e

informantnumber: 31056

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 14/04/2011

hearing_title: Wanganui JC 12 May 2011- R 5 (Instigating a Protest)

charge:

facts:

Rule: 642 (1) was read as “If a placed horse or it’s 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.

Following the running of race 5 D Walker the rider of Share the Blame placed 3rd by the Judge filed a protest alleging that Lucky We Leica or it’s rider placed first by the Judge interfered with the chances of Share the Blame over the concluding stages of the race.
Official placings by the Judge were
1st Lucky We Leica (9)
2nd Tindill (2)
3rd Share the Blame (3)
4th Themoneyzmine (13)
5th Varinia (10)
Margins: three quarters of a length and a neck.

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

Mr Goodwin identified the horses concerned, with Lucky We Leica in the lead racing approximately two to three horse widths off the outside running rail with Share the Blame on its outside and behind over the concluding 100m of the race.

Mr Walker used the head and side rear films of the home straight to demonstrate where over the last 100m of the race highlighting the last seven strides. Robert Hannam on Lucky We Leica moved out taking his line and forcing Share the Blame to be eased out of the gap between Lucky We Leica and the outside rail. In doing so D Walker alleged the interference had definitely cost him second placing.
When questioned by the committee in regard to how much the interference had cost him Mr Walker then intimated it also had affected his chances of winning the race.

Mr Hannam after viewing the film stated Mr Walker had plenty of room available earlier if his horse was good enough and although Lucky We Leica has moved out ever so slightly Mr Walker could still have ridden his mount out with more vigour. At no stage was he ever going to beat Lucky We Leica to the finish line.
 
 
Mr Innes stated to the committee it was clear Share the Blame would have finished second. Mr Innes was then reminded again of the wording of Rule 642 (1).

Mr Goodwin Stipendiary Steward when asked for his submissions on the incident gave a clear summation of Mr Hannam’s mount moving out over the concluding stages forcing Mr Walker to take a hold of his mount and whilst he may have beaten the second horse home there is doubt that he would have beaten the winner taking into account the proximity of the finish line.
 

reasonsfordecision:

The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. It was clear as shown on the video films that Mr Hannam had allowed his mount to move outwards over the concluding stages of the race and in particular the last seven or eight strides prior to the finish. Mr Walker’s mount has been inconvenienced in it’s run to the line both Mr Hannam and Mr Walker were riding out a vigorous finish with Mr Hannam’s mount in front of, and traveling the better of the two. The committee must be satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred.

The committee are satisfied that considering the margins of three quarters of a length plus a neck was too great a margin taking into account the manner in which both horses were finishing, even though Share the Blame’s momentum was interrupted, and the distance from the finish line. Share the Blame in the opinion of the committee would not have beaten Lucky We Leica if interference had not occurred.
 

Decision:

Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the Judge’s placing shall stand. Dividends and stakes shall be paid in accordance with the decision.
 

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Protest

Rules: 642(1)

Informant: Licensed Jockey D Walker (Rider of Share The Blame)

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward, Mr G Innes (Trainer of Share The Blame), Nr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward, N Hurley (Lucky We Leica), Mr V Wilkinson (Observer)

Respondent: Licensed Jockey - R Hannam (Rider of Lucky We Leica)

StipendSteward:

raceid: 36522245ad1bf9b4498e7d28c9437c89

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R5

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: eb7af82202cde87ce0b9cffbc16aadfc

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 12/05/2011

meet_title: Wanganui JC - 12 May 2011

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: wanganui-jc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair: ISmith

meet_pm1: TCastles

meet_pm2: none

name: Wanganui JC