You are here: Home / Race Days / Otago RC - 24 September 2011 / Otago RC 24 September 2011 - R 9 (instigating a protest)

Otago RC 24 September 2011 - R 9 (instigating a protest)

Created on 26 September 2011

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
GHall (chair)
PKnowles
Respondent(s):
Mr K Tyler - Licensed Trainer
Informant:
Mr S Muniandy - Licensed Jockey
Information Number:
368
Horse Name:
Missceo
Persons present:
Mrs P Hughes - Part -owner of MISSCEO
Ms L McKay - Rider of TOMMY RULZ
Mr R McKay - assisting Ms McKay
Evidence:

Mr Muniandy alleged that TOMMY RULZ or its rider placed 3rd by the judge in race 9 caused interference to MISSCEO placed 4th by the judge. The interference occurred inside the final 200 metres.

Judge's placings were:

1st FLYING PETAL

2nd MR ZHOU

3rd TOMMY RULZ

4th MISSCEO

The margin between 3rd and 4th was a 1/2 neck.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Muniandy demonstrated on the video that at about the 200 metre mark he went for a run on the inside of TOMMY RULZ which had shifted out to one off the rail. When MISSCEO was part way through the gap that had been presented, he said TOMMY RULZ rolled inwards towards the rail. He had to check his horse and then mount a run on the outer of TOMMY RULZ, which was now on the rail. He said he believed he would have beaten TOMMY RULZ had the interference not occurred.

Mrs Hughes, part-owner of MISSCEO, supported Mr Muniandy's submission and emphasised that MISSCEO had done very well considering the testing track conditions to pick herself up and to get within a 1/2 neck of TOMMY RULZ.

Mr Tyler acknowledged that TOMMY RULZ had moved in. He said the horse had chased the rail. When questioned by this committee, he acknowledged that TOMMY RULZ had interfered with MISSCEO.

Mr McKay pointed out that TOMMY RULZ had rolled in earlier in the run home and he emphasised that the horse was following the rail which he said was not straight and had a kink at the particular point in question.

Mr Davidson, stipendiary steward, when asked to comment on the parties submissons and the video, said there was clearly room for Mr Muniandy to improve on the inside of TOMMY RULZ. When he was into the gap his line was taken and he to steady and lost momentum.

Reasons For Decision:

We are satisfied that MISSCEO suffered interference. The source of that interference was inwards movement from TOMMY RULZ near the 200 metre mark when that horse was not clear of MISSCEO, which was looking a run along the rail. That horse had moved into the gap by the rail that had been presented when TOMMY RULZ had rolled out briefly. The consequence was that Mr Muniandy, the rider of MISSCEO, had to steady and lost considerable momentum. That horse then did extremely well to pick herself up and to mount a strong run on the outer of TOMMY RULZ to the finish. MISSCEO was steadily making ground on TOMMY RULZ to the winning post and the final margin was only a 1/2 neck.

Decision:

We are of the opinion that MISSCEO would have finished ahead of TOMMY RULZ had the interference not occurred. We therefore exercise our discretion and relegate TOMMY RULZ to behind MISSCEO.

Final placings are:

1st FLYING PETAL

2nd MR ZHOU

3rd MISSCEO

4th TOMMY RULZ

We order dividends and stakes to be paid accordingly.

Document Actions