You are here: Home / Race Days / Racing Te Aroha - 25 June 2017 / R Te Aroha 25 June 2017 - R 3 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

R Te Aroha 25 June 2017 - R 3 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Created on 26 June 2017

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
ADooley (chair)
ASmith
Respondent(s):
Ms S Logan - Trainer of FAST CATCH
Informant:
Mr M Roustoby - Rider of TUTENSE
Information Number:
A7312
Horse Name:
FAST CATCH
Persons present:
Mrs M Leifting - representing TUTENSE
Mr R Cole - Rider of FAST CATCH
Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Mr B Jones - Stipendiary Steward
Evidence:

Following the running of race 3, Waihou Tavern Maiden Hurdle, an Information was filed Instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Roustoby, alleged that FAST CATCH or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of his mount TUTENSE placed 3rd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.

The Judge's placing were as follows:

1st - No. 4 EL CORBY
2nd - No. 5 FAST CATCH
3rd - No. 9 TUTENSE
4th - No. 6 HIGH IN DEMAND

The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was a head.

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”.

All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Williamson showed the available video footage and identified the 2 horses prior to any submissions were made.

Mr Roustoby said that under the Rules of Racing Mr Cole should have stopped riding FAST CATCH when it shifted out 3 horse widths. He said that the outward shift affected TUTENSE’s momentum and had that not occurred he believed his mount would have beaten FAST CATCH.

Mrs Leifting said that TUTENSE was making up a lot of ground on FAST CATCH prior to it receiving a significant bump near the 100 metres when FAST CATCH shifted out. She said although Mr Roustoby did not stop riding TUTENSE it was hard to make up ground in the wet conditions.

Ms Logan said that EL CORBY dictated FAST CATCH outwards just prior to jumping the last fence which resulted in FAST CATCH making an error at that hurdle. She stated that Mr Roustoby did not stop riding TUTENSE at any time in the final straight. Ms Logan was of the view that TUTENSE had plenty of opportunity to get past FAST CATCH and was unable to do so.

Mr Cole said that just prior to jumping the last fence EL CORBY dictated FAST CATCH off its running line which resulted in his mount making a mistake at that hurdle. He said that there was no bump between the 2 horses and in his opinion FAST CATCH was “shadowing” TUTENSE as opposed to shifting outwards. He said that TUTENSE had plenty of time to get past FAST CATCH.

Mr Jones on behalf of the Stewards submitted that FAST CATCH made a mistake when jumping that last fence which affected its momentum. He said that TUTENSE did make up some margin on FAST CATCH after jumping the last hurdle and it was up to the Committee to determine how much actual interference occurred.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video footage several times. We established that FAST CATCH bungled the last hurdle and landed awkwardly losing momentum. At approximately the 75 metres we observed that FAST CATCH briefly shifted out into the running line of TUTENSE. In doing so Mr Roustoby was seen to quickly switch TUTENSE to the outside of FAST CATCH and in our opinion no momentum was lost. There was no video evidence of any contact or bump between the 2 horses and it was also evident that Mr Roustoby did not stop riding TUTENSE forward.

After taking into account all the above factors the Committee was not satisfied that TUTENSE would have finished ahead of FAST CATCH.

Decision:

The protest was dismissed and the Judge's placing’s shall stand.

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

Document Actions