You are here: Home / Race Days / Waikato RC - 12 January 2012 / Waikato RC 12 January 2012 - R 8 (instigating a protest)

Waikato RC 12 January 2012 - R 8 (instigating a protest)

Created on 13 January 2012

GJones (chair)
Mr R Priscott - Trainer of ROAMIN
Mr L Innes - Rider of ROAMIN
Mr J Waddell - Rider of GALLIVANT
Mr G McRae - Trainer of GALLIVANT
Information Number:
Horse Name:
Persons present:
Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward

This is a protest instigated by Mr J Waddell (Licensed Jockey) following the running of race eight. Mr Waddell rode Gallivant who finished second to Roamin, ridden by Mr L Innes. The provisional placings were:

1st – Roamin (No 12)
2nd – Gallivant (No 4)
3rd – Keep Winning (No 9)
4th – Roddick (No 1)

Winning Margins: 1/2 hd, 3/4L, 1-3/4L

Rules 642 (1) and (2) provide that:

(1) 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.

(2) For the purposes of 642:

(a) “placed horse” shall be a horse placed by the Judge in accordance with Rule
641(3); and

(b) “interference” is defined as:

i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.

This rule was read to all parties present.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Waddell told the Judicial Control Authority Committee (the “Committee”) that his mount Gallivant was so severely checked at the 1900 metre mark by Roamin (L Innes) that it cost him the winning of the race. Mr Waddell demonstrated the incident by way of head, side and rear video footage. He indicated general tightening of the field which resulted in his mount being interfered with by Roamin for about 5 strides and that his mount lost at least 3 lengths as a consequence.

Mr Waddell submitted that his riding instructions were to allow Gallivant to settle in the first five or six, but as a result of the check he had to ride his mount back in the field, which ultimately cost him all chance of winning.

Mr McRae made no submissions, but agreed with Mr Waddell’s interpretation.

Mr Innes told the committee that the video evidence clearly showed that Gallivant was interfered with, but did not accept that he or his mount was at fault. He submitted that the primary cause of the incident was due to the fact that Keep Winning ridden by Mr J McDonald came across the field and dictated his mount. He demonstrated this point using the available video footage. Mr Innes submitted that Mr McDonalds mount shifted inwards and at the time he yelled out to Mr McDonald, but he kept coming across.

Mr Priscott agreed with Mr Innes’ assessment of the incident. He submitted that in the run to the post Gallivant clearly headed Roamin by up to half a length, but Roamin fought back and won the race.

Mr Coles was asked by the committee for the steward’s interpretation of the incident. He advised that there was no dispute that Gallivant was interfered with, but it was up to the committee to determine firstly whether fault rested with Mr McDonalds mount shifting inward or whether it was a direct result of Mr Innes’ mount shifting in and secondly, whether Gallivant would have finished ahead of Roamin, but for the interference.

Reasons For Decision:

The committee spent some considerable time independently assessing the submissions of the various parties and reviewing the available video footage. We accept unequivocally that Gallivant was interfered with at about the 1900 metre mark and as a result lost at least three lengths.

On the available evidence the committee was not of the opinion that either Roamin or its rider, Mr Innes were solely responsible for the interference to Gallivant, but it is accepted that Roamin was a contributor due to extenuating circumstances.

The committee took the view that there was some merit in Mr Innes’ submission that his options were limited due to Mr McDonalds mount shifting inwards. The committee’s assessment of the video footage was that although Roamin moved inwards, and continued to do so it was due to at least in part if not fully, due to Keep Winning dictating its position.

Having reached this decision point the committee offers no particular view on the second limb of Rule 642, that is, whether or not Gallivant would have finished ahead of Roamin, but for the interference. However for the sake of completeness we note that the incident that gave rise to the protest occurred at the 1900 metre mark of a 2000 metre race and that there was opportunity for the complexion of the race to change between the 1900 metre mark and the finish. We also noted the margin between first and second placing and considered whether or not in our view Roamin was headed in the run to the post by Gallivant. In our assessment Roamin was never overtaken by Gallivant.


The protest was dismissed and placing were confirmed as follows:

1st – Roamin (No 12)
2nd – Gallivant (No 4)
3rd – Keep Winning (No 9)
4th – Roddick (No 1)

In accordance with its decision the committee authorised payment of dividends.

Document Actions