You are here: Home / Race Days / Egmont RC - 1 July 2011 / Egmont RC 1 July 2011 - R 7 (instigating a protest)

Egmont RC 1 July 2011 - R 7 (instigating a protest)

Created on 05 July 2011

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
NMoffatt (chair)
ISmith
Respondent(s):
K Gray - Licensed Trainer
Informant:
B Lammas Licensed Rider
Information Number:
31058
Persons present:
Mrs L Allpress RiderI PAY
Mr J Alexander Owner I PAY
Mr M Dixon Trainer HANDINHAND
Mr C MacLeod Owner HANDINHAND
Mr R Neal StipendiarySteward
Mr N Goodwin Stipendiary Steward
Evidence:

Following Race 7 a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1).
Mr B Lammas the rider of HANDINHAND alleged that I PAY or its rider placed 3rd by the judge interfered with the chances of HANDINHAND placed 4th by the judge. The interference occurred in the home straight.
Judges placings were:
1st - ZEINA ROYALE (6)
2nd - RIVERMAN JACK (5)
3rd - I PAY(4)
4th - HANDINHAND (8)
5th - RHAPSODY RULES (2)
6th - CHEWY LUIS (1)
Official margins were: 1 length, 1 length and ½ neck

Submissions For Decision:

Firstly Mr Goodwin identified the horses involved in the enquiry and Mr Lammas continued by outlining the incident he was concerned about using all the available video angles.
He said that as he came around the corner to enter the home straight he moved up to the outside of I PAY (Mrs Allpress). She then moved gradually outwards (approximately 2 horse widths) which forced him to stop riding and he ended up switching to an inside run. He went on to get within ½ neck of Mrs Allpress at the finish line and said there was no doubt that he would have run 3rd if she had not moved into his line of running on the home bend.
Mr Dixon the trainer of HANDINHAND agreed with Mr Lammas and said that he had tried to go around I PAY but had no choice in changing to an inside run after Mrs Allpress moved out. He said taking into account the ½ neck margin at the finish they would have definitely run 3rd.
Mr Gray, the trainer of I PAY, said that Mr Lammas made the choice to go wide and there was plenty of room for him to improve into the gap on the outside of Ms Allpress if his horse had been going well enough.
Mrs Allpress said that Mr Lammas had tracked her horse the whole way and was of the same opinion that the track was better towards the outside. She insisted that Mr Lammas was trying to blame her for taking his line of running when in fact he was not travelling well enough to go past. She said that HANDINHAND was struggling and being ridden hard with the stick.
For the Stewards Mr Goodwin asked Mr Lammas if he had been dictated outwards by Mrs Allpress to which he replied he had. He also said that he was forced to stop riding for one stride. Mr Goodwin’s assessment of the incident was that Mr Lammas had to momentarily check his mount when Mrs Allpress took his line of running forcing him over extra ground. He then had to angle to the inside and got within ½ neck of Mrs Alpress at the finish. He said there was some merit in the protest.

Reasons For Decision:

The committee very carefully considered all of the evidence and reviewed all the video angles of the incident. We were satisfied that Mr Lammas was inconvenienced and did have to change ground as a result of I PAY moving outwards soon after entering the straight. It was our opinion that the interference was minimal in that Mr Lammas only lost momentum for one stride and then had the whole length of the straight to make up ground.
Taking into account the distance from the finish that the incident happened, the degree of interference, the margins and the manner in which both horses were finishing we were left with some doubt that HANDINHAND would have finished ahead of I PAY had the interference not occurred.

Decision:

Accordingly the protest was dismissed and judge’s placings were allowed to stand.

We directed that all dividends were to be paid accordingly.

Document Actions