You are here: Home / Race Days / Waikato RC - 4 July 2020 / Waikato RC 4 July 2020 - R 9 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr N McCutcheon

Waikato RC 4 July 2020 - R 9 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr N McCutcheon

Created on 07 July 2020

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
NMcCutcheon (chair)
GJones
Respondent(s):
Ms P Gerard - Trainer of ALI BABA
Informant:
Mr C Cole - Trainer of VAINGLORY
Information Number:
A12921
Horse Name:
ALI BABA
Persons present:
Mr C Cole - Trainer of VAINGLORY
Mr S Weatherley - Apprentice Rider of VAINGLORY
Ms P Gerard - Trainer of ALI BABA
Mr T Yanagida - Apprentice Rider of ALI BABA
Evidence:

Following the running of Race No 9, the BGP Battlers Cup1000, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant Mr Cole, alleged that horse number 9 (ALI BABA) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 8 (VAINGLORY) placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge's provisional placings were as follows:

1st No. 9 ALI BABA
2nd No. 8 VAINGLORY
3rd No. 13 HATTIE BEE

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was ½ head.

Rule 642(1) provides:

“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”.

For the purposes of Rule 642 “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.

At the request of the Chair, all films covering the alleged incident were shown to all present without any comment being made.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Weatherley submitted that the race was over 2200 metres and the horses were tiring and fighting out a tight finish. He said his mount (VAINGLORY) made up considerable ground on ALI BABA over the concluding stages. He added that movement from ALI BABA onto Mr Lammas’ mount, HATTIE BEE, caused his horse to become unbalanced after being bumped by that runner. He believed the bump cost his horse “a good head” margin and the winning of the race.

Mr Cole submitted that VAINGLORY was making up good ground on the winner when it received a “hefty bump” prior to the finish line.

Mr Yanagida submitted that his mount did shift in and connect with Mr Lammas’ mount, but VAINGLORY was not affected by this.

Ms Gerard submitted that the point of contact was on the winning post or just past it. She said that Mr Weatherley stopped riding his mount just after the post and the third horse (HATTIE BEE) was responsible for inconveniencing Mr Weatherley’s mount.

In response to a query from the Committee, Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones confirmed that 2 strides prior the winning post the winner caused the third horse to bump the second horse.

Reasons For Decision:

In our determination of this protest the rule requires the Committee to establish two limbs. First, we must establish that interference occurred; and second, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.

The Committee was satisfied that interference did occur very close to the winning post. The interference was due to ALI BABA shifting into the line of HATTIE BEE who in turn made contact with the off-hind quarter of VAINGLORY.

In reaching its decision the Committee took into account how both horses were travelling prior to and at the time of the interference, the closeness to the winning post when the interference occurred and the margin between the two horses.

Subsequent to careful and due consideration of all of those matters, the Committee was not satisfied that if interference had not taken place that VAINGLORY would have finished the race in advance of ALI BABA.

Decision:

On account of the Committee’s determination the Protest 2nd v 1st was dismissed with the Judge’s placings confirmed.

Authorisation was given for the dividends and prize money to be paid in accordance with those placings.

Document Actions