You are here: Home / Race Days / Canterbury Racing - 17 November 2012 / Canterbury R 17 November 2012 - R 6 (instigating a protest)

Canterbury R 17 November 2012 - R 6 (instigating a protest)

Created on 21 November 2012

NMoffatt (chair)
J McVean and E L Brown - Licensed Trainers
L Innes - Licensed Rider
Information Number:
Horse Name:
Persons present:
Mr R Neal - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
Mr N McIntyre - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward
Mrs E L Brown - Trainer of ROLLOUT THE CARPET
Mr M Du Plessis - Rider of ROLLOUT THE CARPET
Mr J Cameron - Part-Owner of ROLLOUT THE CARPET
Mr L Innes - Rider of WATERFORD
Mr W Pike - Owner (and Trainer's representative) of WATERFORD
Mr B Lichter - Journalist
Mr M Markham - Christchurch Press
Mr G O'Connor - Trackside
Mr Dennis Ryan - The Informant

Following Race 6, The New Zealand Bloodstock 1000 Guineas, a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1).

Mr L Innes alleged that horse number 1 (ROLLOUT THE CARPET) or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 7 (WATERFORD) placed 2nd by the Judge. He alleged interference over the concluding stages when ROLLOUT THE CARPET shifted out onto WATERFORD.

Judge's placings were:



3rd FIX



The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a nose.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Innes initiated the protest and was invited to put forward his case using the available videos. He began with the head-on view which showed ROLLOUT THE CARPET racing to the inside of WATERFORD. Mr Innes said he maintained a straight line on WATERFORD but over the final 10 - 15 metres ROLLOUT THE CARPET shifted outwards bumping his horse which moved him half a horse width off his line of running. He said the rear-view film showed "daylight" between the two horses prior to ROLLOUT THE CARPET shifting ground. Mr Innes said he did not have to stop riding but taking into account the narrowest of nose margins he believed the interference prevented WATERFORD from winning the Group 1 race.

Mr W Pike did not wish to add anything further to Mr Innes’ case.

Mr Du Plessis told the committee WATERFORD had every opportunity to win the race and any interference between the horses was minimal. He disagreed that ROLLOUT THE CARPET bumped WATERFORD saying if that had been the case WATERFORD would have lost momentum and been moved right off her line of running. While conceding his mount did roll out slightly he maintained that Mr Innes moved inwards and caused his own problems.

Mrs Brown agreed with Mr Du Plessis saying there had been movement from both fillies. Mr Cameron (part owner of ROLLOUT THE CARPET) said he believed WATERFORD was responsible for the initial movement and ROLLOUT THE CARPET was merely resisting that movement. He concluded by saying at no stage down the length of the straight did Mr Innes have to stop riding and in fact Mr Du Plessis may have been the rider more hampered.

For the Stewards Mr Neal said while there had been some nominal movement from ROLLOUT THE CARPET there had also been inward movement from WATERFORD at the same time. He said it was significant that ROLLOUT THE CARPET came from behind WATERFORD and the contact between the two horses could be described as a "slight brush" rather than a bump. Mr Innes remained able to ride with vigour and they did not believe his chances of winning the race had had been compromised.

Reasons For Decision:

The committee carefully considered all of the evidence and replayed the three views of the concluding stages of the race. The films clearly showed that ROLLOUT THE CARPET and WATERFORD did come together and make contact when fighting out a very close finish. For Mr Innes to succeed with his protest he had to firstly prove that ROLLOUT THE CARPET had caused the incident and secondly that the resultant interference was of such a degree that WATERFORD’S chances of beating ROLLOUT THE CARPET had been affected. Using the mowing strips as a guide we were not satisfied that ROLLOUT THE CARPET was solely to blame. It was our opinion that WATERFORD contributed to the incident by moving off its respective line of running at the same time. We were therefore not satisfied that the interference influenced the final placings.


Accordingly the protest was dismissed and placings allowed to stand as called by the Judge.

Dividends were directed to be paid accordingly.

Document Actions