You are here: Home / Race Days / Auckland RC - 30 March 2019 / Auckland RC 30 March 2019 - R 7 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Auckland RC 30 March 2019 - R 7 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Created on 01 April 2019

ADooley (chair)
Mr T Yanagida - Rider of IGNORED
Mr P Williams - Co Trainer of JIP JIP ROCK
Information Number:
Horse Name:
Persons present:
Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Ms A Paterson - Representing the connections of IGNORED
Mrs T Thornton - Rider of JIP JIP ROCK
Mr P Walker - Observer for JIP JIP ROCK connections

Following the running of race 7, Beko Appliances 3YO Mile, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr P Williams, Co Trainer of JIP JIP ROCK, alleged that IGNORED or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of his horse JIP JIP ROCK placed 2nd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.

The Judge's placing were as follows:

1st No. 5 IGNORED
2nd No. 3 JIP JIP ROCK
3rd No. 1 THE BUZZ

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was ½ 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:

Mr Williams submitted that 100 yards into the straight IGNORED shifted out onto JIP JIP ROCK. He said JIP JIP ROCK retaliated and then IGNORED laid out all the way up the final straight.

Mrs Thornton said that IGNORED gradually carted JIP JIP ROCK outwards in the final straight. She said that she was unable to ride her mount out fully and the interference cost her 1 ½ lengths. She added that IGNORED made contact with JIP JIP ROCK on 3 occasions in the final straight.

Ms Paterson said that in the final straight JIP JIP ROCK shifted in onto IGNORED. She said that Mrs Thornton did not have to stop riding her mount and IGNORED won the race clearly.

Mr Yanagida said that both horses shifted ground and over the last 150 metres IGNORED did not cause any interference to JIP JIP ROCK. He said there was not much in it and believed that IGNORED was always going to beat JIP JIP ROCK.

Mr Williamson on behalf of the Stewards said that IGNORED shifted out near the 250 metres and impeded JIP JIP ROCK. He identified that JIP JIP ROCK then shifted in passing the 175 metres and made contact with IGNORED for some distance. He said near the 75 metres IGNORED shifted out slightly and made contact with JIP JIP ROCK. In conclusion he said that the overall interference was minor and the Stewards would have difficulty in accepting that JIP JIP ROCK would have beaten IGNORED.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee carefully considered all of submissions presented and reviewed the video footage several times.

The Committee established that entering the final straight IGNORED was racing on the inside of JIP JIP ROCK and they were on level terms. We found that IGNORED shifted out at approximately the 250 metres and made brief contact with JIP JIP ROCK. Mr Yanagida corrected his mount. It was evident passing the 175 metres that JIP JIP ROCK shifted inwards onto IGNORED and impeded that runner for several strides. Near the 75 metres IGNORED shifted out slightly and made minor contact with JIP JIP ROCK for 2 strides.

The Committee rejects Mrs Thornton’s submission that the alleged interference cost JIP JIP ROCK 1 ½ lengths. There was no video evidence to support this assertion.

Having considered the degree of the interference which we have assessed as minor, the manner in which both horses finished the race off and the ½ length margin at the finish the Committee is not satisfied that JIP JIP ROCK would have beaten IGNORED had the interference not occurred.


The protest was dismissed and the Judge's placing’s shall stand.

The Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.

Document Actions