You are here: Home / Race Days / Marlborough RC - 26 April 2015 / Marlborough RC 26 April 2015 - R 3 (instigating a protest)

Marlborough RC 26 April 2015 - R 3 (instigating a protest)

Created on 29 April 2015

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
PWilliams (chair)
KHales
Respondent(s):
Mr L Robinson - Trainer of "Placid Princess"
Informant:
Mr T Moseley - Licensed Jockey & rider of "Wanderin Star"
Information Number:
A1465
Horse Name:
PLACID PRINCESS
Persons present:
Ms S Wynne - Licensed Apprentice Jockey & rider of "Placid Princess"
Mr J McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward
Evidence:

Information A1466 instigating a protest was filed by Jockey Mr T Moseley alleging a breach of Rule 642(1). The Information stated that “Placid Princess” or its rider Ms S Wynne interfered with the chances of “Wanderin Star” ridden by Mr Moseley “in the final straight”.

The judge’s placings were:-

1st Placid Princess (8)
2nd Wanderin Star (6)
3rd Miss Maka (5)
4th Galaxy Gardens (14)
5th Wanderin Along (1)

The margin between the winner and the second horse was a half neck.

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”.

Submissions For Decision:

Stipendiary Steward Mr McLaughlin used the head-on film from the top of the final straight point to identify the two horses concerned. Mr Moseley was the widest on the track with Ms Wynne to his inside and in front of him. This view and a side on view of the final 250m of the race were replayed several times during the hearing as the parties spoke.

Mr Moseley said just after turning for home he was approximately 1 length behind and outside of Ms Wynne. He said as both riders went for their whips Ms Wynne moved out and gave his horse a small bump. She then continued to move out dictating his horse outwards and he then received another bump which put him off stride and he became unbalanced. He said whilst he didn’t put his whip away when he got the second bump he did have to change his whip action because of the interference he received. Mr Moseley said that he was only beaten by a half neck and that the distance he had been dictated outwards meant that had he been able to maintain a straight line he would have beaten Ms Wynne. Finally, he asked the Committee to note he was carrying equal top weight after winning at the course 2 days earlier.

To a question from the Committee Mr Neal estimated that the first bump happened near the 150m mark and second near the 50m mark.

Using the side on film Ms Wynne said that whilst she had moved out under pressure she thought Mr Moseley had also moved in. She said she tried her best to straighten her horse and maintain a straight line to the finish which included not using her whip over several strides from the 150m to the 50m mark and not over the final 50m of the race. She said Mr Moseley’s horse had every chance to get by her over the concluding stage of the race.

Mr Robinson said Mr Moseley’s horse was under a very vigorous ride over the final 200m and at the point where the first contact was made he had moved marginally inwards at the same time as Ms Wynne had moved outwards. He said from that point Mr Moseley had every chance to go past Ms Wynne but was unable to do so. He said the second contact was also a result of Mr Moseley moving in for half to one stride although he conceded there was a slight outward movement from Ms Wynne. He said Mr Moseley was never going to beat Ms Wynne and asked the Committee to note that Ms Wynne rode hands and heels in the final stages of the race whereas Mr Moseley had been able to use his whip throughout the final 200m of the race. Mr Robinson concluded by saying that the weight carried by Mr Moseley’s horse had no bearing on the outcome of the race.

To a question from the Committee as to whether he thought he was making ground on Ms Wynne over the final 200m Mr Moseley said the gradual dictating outwards by Ms Wynne and the fact that he was carrying top weight was the reason he could not get past Ms Wynne. He commented that the two contacts were “not the worst” but did say the second one did hinder him.

Mr Neal was invited to comment on the incident. He said he believed the first contact was because Ms Wynne had moved out and made contact with Mr Moseley and if there was any inwards movement on his part it was negligible. He said the films clearly showed, however, that Mr Moseley rode his horse with vigour all the way down the final straight and that near the 200m he had every opportunity to level up to Ms Wynne and did get to within a neck of her. He said that margin of advantage was then maintained by Ms Wynne to the end of the race and that over the final 50m in particular Mr Moseley did not make up any ground on Ms Wynne. He said that whilst it was possible that Mr Moseley’s mount may have finished ahead of Ms Wynne’s in the Stewards' view it was not a probable outcome.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee has reviewed the head-on and side-on films of the incident several times. It is not in dispute between any of the parties that contact occurred between Ms Wynne on “Placid Princess” and Mr Moseley on “Wanderin Star” on two occasions in the final 200m of the race – once at the 150m mark and again at the 50m mark. The Committee believes the main reason for both contacts was the outward movement of Ms Wynne rather than the minor inwards movement of Mr Moseley.

Mr Moseley was behind Ms Wynne when the first contact happened – described by Mr Moseley as “a small bump”. By the time the second contact occurred both horses had move outwards and therefore whilst Mr Moseley is correct to say he covered some extra ground the same can be said for Ms Wynne. Mr Moseley said he had to change his whip action at that point but, if he did, the change was not clearly visible to the Committee and as such we do not believe he rode any less vigorously from that point to the finish of the race. Indeed, the films clearly show that from a point just prior to the first contact Mr Moseley’s mount was ridden with the whip all the way to the finish. Further, we can see no real evidence that Mr Moseley became unbalanced as a result of either contact. The films also show Ms Wynne took immediate corrective action twice to straighten her mount causing her to momentarily lose momentum. On the first occasion she also briefly stopped using her whip. However, after the second contact she rode hands and heels to the finish whereas Mr Moseley continued to use his whip as he had from prior to the 150m mark.

For the Committee to uphold the protest we must be sure that had Ms Wynne not made contact with Mr Moseley twice inside the final 150m he would have beaten her. The closest Mr Moseley got to Ms Wynne down the entire home straight was the half neck margin at the finish which was that close because Ms Wynne rode hands and heels over the final 50m whereas Mr Moseley rode using his whip. Taking that into account and all the matters detailed above, on balance we do not believe that had the contact between the two horses not occurred Mr Moseley would have beaten Ms Wynne and won the race.

Decision:

The protest is dismissed and authorisation is given for the payment of all dividends and stakes based on the judge’s placings above.

Document Actions