Greg Sugars was a Champion harness racing person
Warnie was the human star of the show. He worked his **** in a promotional capacity all day and is acknowledged by the club for having brought in many many more than even the usual throngs of non regulars to make the day. It is recognised by adinistrators that his presence took the day back to earlier times when such celebrities were used to draw the crowds to the track...something not done in the past 15-20 years. So good on him!!!
Check out the video of Race 2 at Gore last month - beautiful Gore with the sheep and the green grass, the sheep and the horses, the sheep and the track, sheep everywhere over there Tony
Anyway watch them enter the straight then read the Stewards Report - not even a warning issued and what sort of Protest is that Tony?
"JCA request payment of $475" from 2nd horse to last horse. Is JCA the Stewards? $475 would have been 3rd prizemoney so I am figuring they reckon the 2nd horse cost Guggy 3rd place. It says Request for a Ruling, so how do we find out if it was actually paid?
I think you have sussed out where you can find out the details of hearing transcripts but I will provide some background.
At the annual conference of clubs and kindred bodies back in August, a remit was put up to change the protest / relegation rules.
Previously the rules allowed for a horse to be relegated to a position behind another runner that it had interfered with. All the stewards had to prove was interference prevented a victim runner from finishing in a higher position. This meant the prospect of a winner losing a race due to interference at the start and this was the possible case in the Group 1 Sires Stakes 2yo Final back in April. Stewards protested (as they were required to do) against the winner for running out at barrier rise and knocking another runner out of the race. In this particular case the victim's own barrier manners contributed and reason prevailed.
This rule has now been changed and the onus is now on the victim connections (or stewards) to prove that the victim horse would have beaten the victor is NO interference had occurred.
As the rules do not allow for appeals against the JCA decisions on race incidents (driver penalties can only be appealed) some bright spark came up with this idea of compensating the victim if interference is deemed to have occurred but insufficient to change the placings.
The case you mention Kev is the first such ruling under the new rules.
I say "some bright spark" because IMO it wont last long. It's okay when it's a race at a little country track with relatively insignificant amounts. Can you imagine if e.g. Adore Me had interfered with some other unplaced runner in the Cup (they were never going to beat her but she did interfere) and had to pay that horses connections e.g. $20K. All hell would break loose. It will be interesting to see if it lasts past next year's conference!!!!
Teecee, I take your point...........it opens up a major "can of worms".........but in your example, "what if" Adore Me does cause the interference, don't you think those connections have a right to compensation?.......or is it just a racing incident?
Kev, is also right, for the Gore incident, a lot of man/woman hours for a $389 result......if they want this, it should be for a minimum amount of say $1,000 , and if they lose they pay the costs of the JCA!
As long as you can survive on roast lamb dinners, abalone, snapper, Steinlager & Savignon Blanc for the rest of your life, you will probably be OK!