You are here: Home / Race Days / Auckland RC - 11 July 2020 / Auckland RC 11 July – R 10 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr G Jones

Auckland RC 11 July – R 10 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr G Jones

Created on 14 July 2020

Rules:
Rule 642(1)
Committee:
GJones (chair)
BScott
Respondent(s):
Mr N Tiley – Trainer of LUPELANI
Informant:
Mr G Opie – Trainer of BACK IN A FLASH
Information Number:
A13416
Horse Name:
BACK IN A FLASH
Persons present:
Mr A Goindasamy (rider of BACK IN A FLASH)
Mr C Jones (rider of LUPELANI)
Stipendiary Stewards - Mr M Williamson
Mr A Coles and Mr A Dooley
Evidence:

Following the running of Race 10, the Barfoot and Thompson Body Corporate 1200, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Opie, Trainer of BACK IN A FLASH, alleged that LUPELANI or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of BACK IN A FLASH placed 3rd by the Judge.

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

The Judge's provisional placing's were as follows:

1st No. 2 LUPELANI
2nd No. 4 RITANI
3rd No. 1 BACK IN A FLASH

The official margins between 1st and 3rd was 1 length and a long head.

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”.

For the purposes of Rule 642 “interference” is defined as:

(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;

(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or

(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.

Submissions For Decision:

At the commencement of the hearing the protest procedure and the requirements of the protest rule was explained to all parties who acknowledged that they understood the rule. All available race films were also shown.

Mr Opie submitted that his horse, BACK IN A FLASH, was racing directly behind LUPELANI when that runner shifted outward on two occasions. He said that he had no issue with the first shift near the 300-metre mark. He said the second shift, near the 100-metre mark resulted in BACK IN A FLASH having its rightful running line taken and being dictated into the outside running rail when mounting a run between the rail and LUPELANI.

Mr A Goindasamy (rider of BACK IN A FLASH) said that he agreed with Mr Opie’s assessment and he had nothing further to add.

Mr Tiley submitted that his riding instructions to LUPELANI’S rider, Mr Jones, were to get to the outside fence early in the home straight. He said Mr Jones was able to do so with a clear margin and without impeding any other runner. He accepted that BACK IN A FLASH did try for a run between LUPELANI and the outside rail, but there was never a clear run for that horse to take. He added that even if there was a clear run for BACK IN A FLASH it would never have beaten LUPELANI.

Mr Jones accepted that his mount did roll out but said he straightened it up in the run to the post.

On behalf of the Stewards, Mr Williamson submitted that BACK IN A FLASH attempted a marginal run approaching the 100 metres between the outside rail and LUPELANI. He said this resulted in BACK IN A FLASH making contact with the running rail.

Reasons For Decision:

After hearing submissions and viewing the available footage, it was established that near the 300 metres LUPELANI, who was in front, shifted out into a position close to the outside running rail. LUPELANI was entitled to that run and was able to make the outward shift without impeding or inconveniencing any other runner. In particular this shift did not cause any interference to BACK IN A FLASH. In the run up the straight, near the 100-metre mark LUPELANI drifted down, was straightened by its rider and then shifted up again. At that point BACK IN A FLASH who was trailing behind sought to take a narrow gap between LUPELANI and the outside rail. In doing so BACK IN A FLASH made contact with the outside rail. This caused its rider Mr Goindasamy to take hold of his mount and he became unbalanced. The Committee is of the view that there was never a clear run available for BACK IN A FLASH.

In the circumstances the Committee is clearly of the opinion that LUPELANI did not cause interference to BACK IN A FLASH, rather BACK IN A FLASH was hampered due to its rider’s decision to take the marginal gap. In any event LUPELANI finished the race off with clear ascendency; was full of running and given the 1 length and long head margin between 1st and 3rd, BACK IN A FLASH would not have beaten LUPELANI.

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed. 

Decision:

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