You are here: Home / Race Days / Waverley RC - 14 August 2020 / Waverley RC 14 August 2020 - R 6 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt

Waverley RC 14 August 2020 - R 6 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt

Created on 17 August 2020

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
NMoffatt (chair)
Respondent(s):
Mr G Vile
Informant:
Mr C Rauhihi
Information Number:
A12333
Horse Name:
SMOKEY AFFAIR
Persons present:
Mr C Rauhihi - Trainer of MANHATTEN AFFAIR
Ms D Hirini - Rider of MANHATTEN AFFAIR
Mr G Vile - Trainer of SMOKEY AFFAIR
Mr S O'Malley - Rider of SMOKEY AFFAIR
Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
Evidence:

Following Race 6 (FOREST360 1650 Maiden) a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr Rauhihi alleging that horse number 3 or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 6 placed 2nd by the Judge.

The information alleged interference in the home straight.

Judge's placings were:
1st   SMOKEY AFFAIR (3)
2ND MANHATTEN AFFAIR (6)
3rd  BEHIND BLUE EYES (10)
4th  LIZZED (4)

The official margin between 1st and 2nd placed horses was half a head.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Rauhihi lodged a protest on the grounds that SMOKEY AFFAIR dictated the line of running of his horse, MANHATTEN AFFAIR over the length of the straight. He used the head on film to show SMOKEY AFFAIR in a position 4-off the fence then moving outwards to a 6-wide position. Mr Rauhihi showed two occasions where SMOKEY AFFAIR made contact with, and bumped MANHATTEN AFFAIR.

Ms Hirini agreed with her trainer. She showed on the film where the contact occurred and said the interference prevented her from riding her horse out to the finish. When questioned by the Judicial Committee Ms Hirini said she would have come close to winning the race had the interference not occurred.

Mr O’Malley, who rode the winner SMOKEY AFFAIR, also played the films from the top of the straight. He told the Committee he was always travelling better than the 2nd placed horse and said any contact was marginal, and more like a brush than a bump. Mr Vile said Ms Hirini’s mount was running away from the winner and she was not forced to stop riding at all.

For the Stewards Mr Goodwin said the second placed horse MANHATTEN AFFAIR was inclined to shift out away from the winner down the home straight, and 3-4 strides before the finish line racing room became tight but he did not think the placings were affected.

Reasons For Decision:

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.

The Committee accepts that SMOKEY AFFAIR moved out in the home straight. The head-on film quite clearly showed the horse drift out but there was a substantial gap, at least initially, between the two horses. It was the opinion of the committee that this movement did not dictate the line of MANHATTEN AFFAIR, but rather that runner was moving out of its own accord.

Closer to the finish line the two horses came together, and Ms Hirini was hampered in her whip use for two strides. SMOKEY AFFAIR was the cause of the interference and Mr Rauhihi had good reason to lodge a protest against the winner.

In deciding whether or not to relegate SMOKEY AFFAIR the Committee took into account the margin between first and second horses, the manner in which both horses were finishing and the proximity of the incident to the finish line.

SMOKEY AFFAIR was always travelling the better of the two horses over the whole length of the straight, and Ms Hirini was able to ride strongly for most of that time. The contact between the horses was very close to the line and the Committee was not satisfied that MANHATTEN AFFAIR would have beaten SMOKEY AFFAIR had interference not occurred.

Decision:

Accordingly, the protest was dismissed and authorisation to pay dividends on the Judge's placings and stake money was approved.

 

Document Actions