You are here: Home / Race Days / Hawkes Bay RI - 27 August 2011 / Hawke's Bay R 27 August 2011 - R 1 (instigating a protest)

Hawke's Bay R 27 August 2011 - R 1 (instigating a protest)

Created on 29 August 2011

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
NMoffatt (chair)
NMcCutcheon
Respondent(s):
A Fieldes - Licensed Trainer
Informant:
R Lockett - Trainer's Representative
Information Number:
31059
Persons present:
Ms L Whelan - Rider of MICKEN
Mr P Holmes - Rider of GINNER HART
Mr A Fieldes - Trainer of GINNER HART
Ms R Lockett - Trainer's Rep MICKEN
Mr A Rodley - Waikato Times
Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
Evidence:

Following Race 1 a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1).
Ms R Lockett representing MICKEN alleged that GINNER HART or its rider placed 1st by the judge interfered with the chances of MICKEN placed 2nd by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.
Judges placings were:

1st GINNER HART (2)
2ND MICKEN (3)
3rd GOLDEN GLOBE (5)
4th SCARLET O’HARA (4)
5th QUEEN BOUDICCA (1)
6th WAINUI PRINCE (6)

The official margin between 1st and 2nd horses was ¾ length.

Submissions For Decision:

Ms Lockett showed the head and side on films of the race down the final straight. She said that MICKEN was pushed inwards by GINNER HART and as a result Ms Whelan had to check her mount. MICKEN then had to shift outwards and make a run down the outside of GINNER HART. Ms Whelan was finishing strongly on MICKEN and was only beaten by ¾ length margin. The rear camera angle was shown but Ms Lockett had nothing further to add.

Ms Whelan said that GINNER HART lay in on her horse pushing MICKEN onto the heels of QUEEN BOUDICCA. She was forced to check her mount and said that, had she not been bumped, she would have won the race. She asked the committee to take particular notice of the side-on film which showed how well MICKEN was finishing over the last 50 meters.

Mr Fieldes was adamant that his horse GINNER HART would have won the race regardless. He conceded that some interference occurred but said it was a minor bump and that MICKEN overreacted. The situation that it found itself in was of its own accord. Mr Holmes, the rider of GINNER HART, said that he came from behind MICKEN and only moved inwards for one stride. In his opinion he was always going to win the race.

For the Stewards Mr George said that while GINNER HART did move inwards on MICKEN another horse, QUEEN BOUDICCA, shifted outwards slightly which contributed to the interference suffered by MICKEN. He asked the committee to consider the ¾ length margin between the two horses at the finish.
 

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 interference occurred as a result of GINNER HART briefly dictating the line of MICKEN. The head-on view clearly showed MICKEN being tightened for room and having to check off heels and change its line of running. It recovered well and the side-on view confirmed that it made up some ground on the winner although we note that GINNER HART was also finishing the race strongly. The head-on view showed that QUEEN BOUDICCA did shift out and contribute to the incident. Taking into account the margin of ¾ length and the contributing action from another horse the committee was not satisfied that MICKEN would have beaten GINNER HART if interference had 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