Wellington RC 10 June 2017 – R 2 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
ID: JCA15482
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Wellington RC - 10 June 2017
Meet Chair:
NMoffatt
Meet Committee Member 1:
TBird
Race Date:
2017/06/10
Race Number:
R 2
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was dismissed and placings allowed to stand as called by the judge.
Dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
Facts:
Following Race 2, Confetti Designer Events Hurdle, a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Ms E Farr alleging that horse number 2 (JUSTA CHARLIE) or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 5 (KIPKEINO), placed 2nd by the Judge.
The information alleged interference in the home straight.
Judges placings were:
1st JUSTA CHARLIE (2)
2ND KIPKEINO (5)
3rd SEA KING (1)
4th RED MAFIA (6)
The official margin between first and second placed horses was a long head.
Submissions for Decision:
All three available films (head-on, side and rear views) of the final stages of the race were shown with Stipendiary Steward, Mr Goodwin identifying the horses involved.
Ms Farr outlined two incidents where she believed her chances of winning the race had been affected. The first occurred going into the second to last jump. She showed where she had clear running room on the rail but alleged that JUSTA CHARLIE, racing to her outside, took her line of running when veering inwards. This forced her horse to take an extra two strides before jumping the fence and as a result she suffered a loss of momentum. In addition Ms Farr said she lost her position on the rails. The second incident occurred between the final two jumps when Ms Farr alleged JUSTA CHARLIE pushed her further out over extra ground. Ms Farr said she was gaining ground on the winner over the final stages and there was only a small margin between the two horses at the finish.
Mr Gordon acknowledged that as his horse hit the front it pricked its ears and “ran around a bit”. Despite moving inwards he used the head-on film to show that there was always room remaining on the fence for 1½ horses to go. In his opinion Ms Farr only took a hold of her horse to enable her to get into the correct stride to take the fence. Mr Gordon said from that point on there was plenty of time for KIPKEINO to make up any ground but by running outwards it lost further ground.
Mr Wilson concurred with his rider and said that it looked as if Ms Farr stopped riding because maybe she did not have the stride she wanted. He said there was plenty of room for her to go for the inside run but instead she eased up a little to give her horse an extra stride before the fence.
For the Stewards Mr Goodwin said, in relation to the first incident, there was minimal if any interference to Ms Farr when JUSTA CHARLIE moved inwards. In relation to the second incident raised by Ms Farr, that of the outward shift of KIPKEINO between jumps, Mr Goodwin said KIPKEINO ran outwards of its own accord.
Reasons for Decision:
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.
Rule 641 requires us in the first instance to determine if interference occurred. The head on film confirmed that JUSTA CHARLIE was racing a little erratically heading into the second to last jump. Just prior to the fence he veered slightly inwards towards the running line of KIPKEINO. As a result Ms Farr appeared to ease for a stride and angle to the outside line of JUSTA CHARLIE.
It was our opinion that there was always room remaining for KIPKEINO to the inside of JUSTA CHARLIE but Ms Farr elected to ease and take the wider option. Any interference was minimal.
In the second incident where KIPKEINO ran outwards over extra ground, this was KIPKEINO’s own doing and was not caused by any other runner.
We were not satisfied that KIPKEINO was disadvantaged to any significant degree by the actions of JUSTA CHARLIE.
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: 99b1d4e4109986829fd9b78453cbd985
informantnumber: A8768
horsename: JUSTA CHARLIE
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 11/06/2017
hearing_title: Wellington RC 10 June 2017 - R 2 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt
charge:
facts:
Following Race 2, Confetti Designer Events Hurdle, a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Ms E Farr alleging that horse number 2 (JUSTA CHARLIE) or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 5 (KIPKEINO), placed 2nd by the Judge.
The information alleged interference in the home straight.
Judges placings were:
1st JUSTA CHARLIE (2)
2ND KIPKEINO (5)
3rd SEA KING (1)
4th RED MAFIA (6)
The official margin between first and second placed horses was a long head.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
All three available films (head-on, side and rear views) of the final stages of the race were shown with Stipendiary Steward, Mr Goodwin identifying the horses involved.
Ms Farr outlined two incidents where she believed her chances of winning the race had been affected. The first occurred going into the second to last jump. She showed where she had clear running room on the rail but alleged that JUSTA CHARLIE, racing to her outside, took her line of running when veering inwards. This forced her horse to take an extra two strides before jumping the fence and as a result she suffered a loss of momentum. In addition Ms Farr said she lost her position on the rails. The second incident occurred between the final two jumps when Ms Farr alleged JUSTA CHARLIE pushed her further out over extra ground. Ms Farr said she was gaining ground on the winner over the final stages and there was only a small margin between the two horses at the finish.
Mr Gordon acknowledged that as his horse hit the front it pricked its ears and “ran around a bit”. Despite moving inwards he used the head-on film to show that there was always room remaining on the fence for 1½ horses to go. In his opinion Ms Farr only took a hold of her horse to enable her to get into the correct stride to take the fence. Mr Gordon said from that point on there was plenty of time for KIPKEINO to make up any ground but by running outwards it lost further ground.
Mr Wilson concurred with his rider and said that it looked as if Ms Farr stopped riding because maybe she did not have the stride she wanted. He said there was plenty of room for her to go for the inside run but instead she eased up a little to give her horse an extra stride before the fence.
For the Stewards Mr Goodwin said, in relation to the first incident, there was minimal if any interference to Ms Farr when JUSTA CHARLIE moved inwards. In relation to the second incident raised by Ms Farr, that of the outward shift of KIPKEINO between jumps, Mr Goodwin said KIPKEINO ran outwards of its own accord.
reasonsfordecision:
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.
Rule 641 requires us in the first instance to determine if interference occurred. The head on film confirmed that JUSTA CHARLIE was racing a little erratically heading into the second to last jump. Just prior to the fence he veered slightly inwards towards the running line of KIPKEINO. As a result Ms Farr appeared to ease for a stride and angle to the outside line of JUSTA CHARLIE.
It was our opinion that there was always room remaining for KIPKEINO to the inside of JUSTA CHARLIE but Ms Farr elected to ease and take the wider option. Any interference was minimal.
In the second incident where KIPKEINO ran outwards over extra ground, this was KIPKEINO’s own doing and was not caused by any other runner.
We were not satisfied that KIPKEINO was disadvantaged to any significant degree by the actions of JUSTA CHARLIE.
Decision:
Accordingly the protest was dismissed and placings allowed to stand as called by the judge.
Dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: 642(1)
Informant: Ms E Farr - Rider of KIPKEINO
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mrs K Lawrence - Representing KIPKEINO, Mr W Gordon - Rider of JUSTA CHARLIE, Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward, Mr D Balcombe - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr H Wilson - Trainer of JUSTA CHARLIE
StipendSteward:
raceid: 800717dd09e25d2ad9bbeaaa3b8ecb80
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 20f8e56406da95c6914c485ec3a751ab
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 10/06/2017
meet_title: Wellington RC - 10 June 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wellington-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: NMoffatt
meet_pm1: TBird
meet_pm2: none
name: Wellington RC