You are here: Home / Race Days / NZ Metro TC - 2 August 2020 / NZ Metro TC 2 August 2020 - R 1 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr D Anderson

NZ Metro TC 2 August 2020 - R 1 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr D Anderson

Created on 04 August 2020

Rules:
869(A)(2)
Committee:
DAnderson (chair)
Respondent(s):
Ms S Wigg - Driver of RAZCAL ALLEY
Informant:
Mrs C Negus - Driver of FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ
Information Number:
A13273
Horse Name:
RAZCAL ALLEY
Persons present:
Mr P Williams - Stipendiary Steward
Mr N Ydgren - Chief Stipendiary Steward
Mrs C Negus - Driver of FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ
Mr D O'Connell - Trainer of FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ
Ms S Wigg - Driver of RAZCAL ALLEY
Evidence:

Following the running of Race 1, a protest was lodged by Mrs C Negus the Driver of FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ placed fifth by the Judge against the winner of the race RAZCAL ALLEY driven by Ms S Wigg. The details of the alleged interference were that RAZCAL ALLEY shifted inwards over the final stages of the run home interfering with FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ.

The Judge's placings were:

1st  5    RAZCAL ALLEY
2nd 10  JIMMY CANNON
3rd  4   C R GOLD
4th  12  JENABELLA
5th  2    FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ

Rule 869(A) provides:

(1) For the purpose of this Rule:

(a) “placed horse” means a horse placed by the Judge 1ST, 2nd 3rd, 4th or 5th.

(b) “interference” means any conduct referred to in Rule 869 which interferes or is likely to interfere with the progress of any horse in a race.

(2) “When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse and the Judicial Committee is satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference the Judicial Committee must, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, place that, or whose driver, caused the interference immediately after the horse interfered with.”

At the commencement of the hearing the protest rule was read out on the request of Mr O’Connell, after which, all connections present acknowledged that they understood the rule, the process, and what was expected of them at the hearing.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Williams showed the race video replay of the last 200 metres of the race from the side on and head on angles. He identified RAZCAL ALLEY and Ms Wigg leading the race. He then pointed to FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ, who had improved onto the back of RAZCAL ALLEY, and continued playing the videos to the finish.

Mrs Negus said she was traveling well but Ms Wigg had not left enough room in the passing lane for her to safely take a run and stopped her chance of winning the race.

Mr O’Connell said the shift into and out of the passing lane by Miss Wigg was plain to see but, in his opinion, there was enough inwards movement by RAZCAL ALLEY later to deny his horse its chance.

Ms Wigg stated her horse’s racing line was corrected in plenty of time for Mrs Negus to take a run and there had always been room to do so.

Mr Williams said the Stewards' interpretation of the incident was that Miss Wigg and RAZCAL ALLEY had caused no interference to Mrs Negus and FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ. He said Mrs Negus had room to lodge a run for a considerable distance and could be seen driving her horse out. He informed the Committee the margin between 5th and 1st was approximately 2 lengths and these combined factors form the Stewards' opinion that the Protest had no merit.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and viewed the available films.

We acknowledge that at approximately the 200 metres RAZCAL ALLEY has run into the passing lane but consider that Miss Wigg pulled out of it immediately. At this juncture Mrs Negus, who had been improving between CALYPSO ROCK, who was in the passing lane and tiring and C R GOLD to her outside, has been presented with a clear run.

Under the circumstances, with the advantage of the front on film, the Committee considers FOUR STARZZZ SHIRAZ was not hampered by RAZCAL ALLEY and the protest to be bordering on frivolous.

Decision:

In accordance with the Rule the protest is dismissed and the Judge’s placings stand.

The Committee authorise the payment of dividends and stakes in accordance with its decision.

Document Actions