You are here: Home / Race Days / Wellington RC - 26 September 2010 / Wellington RC 26 September 2010 - R 2 (instigating a protest)

Wellington RC 26 September 2010 - R 2 (instigating a protest)



Informant:  Mr B Foote

Defendant:  N/A

Information No:  412 (Instigating a protest)

Meeting:  Wellington Racing Club

Date:  26 September 2010

Venue:  Trentham

Race:  2

Rule No:  642 (1)

Judicial Committee:  Paul Williams, Chairman – Tangi Utikere, Committee Member 

Plea:  N/A

Also Present:  Mr N Goodwin Stipendiary Steward; Mr D Nolan (Rider of Anood Prospect)

Mr R French (Trainer of Zador), Mr B Smith (Rider of Zador)



Following the running of race 2, information 412 was filed by Licensed Trainer Mr B Foote under rule 642 (1).  The information sated that “Mr Foote alleged “that “Zador” or its rider placed second by the judge interfered with the chances of “Anood Prospect” placed third by the judge.  The interference occurred in the home straight”.


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 official placings in the race were:-

1st  -  1 Henry Daniel

2nd  -  11 Zador

3rd  -  3 Anood Prospect

4th  -  10 Micheals Star

5th  -  5 Mr Composed

6th  -  2 I’ll Tell Ya What


The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was 3/4 of a length.


Mr Foote used the rear, side and head on films to show what he described as at least three instances of interference to his horse “Anood Prospect”.  He said the first occurred prior to jumping the fence on the corner at the top of the home straight. He said the second incident happened after the horses had jumped the fence at the top of the straight when “Zador” moved sharply in severely checking “Anood Prospect”.  The third incident happened after the second to last fence had been jumped when “Zador” moved out over considerable ground causing another severe check to “Anood Prospect” and dictating his line for approximately 60-70m.  He said his horse had lost its momentum on three separate occasions and from his previous experience as a jumps jockey he knew that momentum was everything when racing on a heavy track.  He said his horse was only beaten for second by ¾ length and would have run second but for the interference received and the loss of momentum he believed had happened on three separate occasions.


Mr Nolan said he had his line taken after jumping the fence at the top of the straight.  He said his horse was travelling well, had not been hit with the stick and the check he received when “Zador” moved inwards caused him to hit the running rail and lose momentum.  He agreed with Mr Foote that he had also been taken wider on the course by “Zador” after jumping the penultimate fence.


Mr French said his horse was a bit green but that any loss of momentum by Mr Foote’s horse “Anood Prospect” occurred after jumping the last fence when the horse ran out.  He said at the last fence both “Zador” and “Anood Prospect” were racing side by side and the actions of ‘Anood Prospect” running out were what cost the horse the chance of running second.


Mr Smith said that he did move in slightly after jumping the fence at the top of the straight but heard Mr Nolan call out and immediately straightened his horse.  He said that on moving out he created the space for “Anood Prospect” to go through.  However, after jumping the penultimate fence Mr Nolan then elected to try and go round the outside of him.  He also thought that “Henry Daniel” which was racing alongside him on his outer had also moved inwards at this point of the race.


Mr Goodwin, Stipendiary Steward was asked to comment on the incidents.  He asked Mr Nolan to confirm that the checks he received were severe.  Mr Nolan said they were and that his horse was not very big and lost all his momentum.  He said Mr Smith was no more than a length in front of him when he was forced into the running rail.  He also said that after jumping the second to last fence he had to come out to get around Mr Smith and as he did so Mr Smith continued to move out forcing him over extra ground causing him to receive another severe check.


Mr Goodwin said there was no doubt the line of “Anood Prospect” had been taken after jumping the fence at the top of the straight and he did not receive the clear line of running he was entitled to at that point.  He said “Zador” did shift out under pressure over the final stages of the race forcing “Anood Prospect” over more ground.  He also said “Anood Prospect” put in a very poor jump at the last fence and lost a lot of momentum free of any interference.  Both horses then ran strongly to the line with “Zador” maintaining an advantage to the line and finishing ¾ of a length in front of “Anood Prospect”.



The Committee has reviewed the films of all the incidents referred to and listened carefully to the submissions of all parties.  We have not considered anything that occurred prior to the jumping of the fence at the top of the straight.  We agree that there was some crowding of “Anood Prospect” by “Zador” after the fence at the top of the straight at approximately the 450m mark had been jumped.  However, we do not believe “Anood Prospect” lost any significant momentum during this incident and we do not believe the films shown support the claim that the horse was severely checked and was forced into the running rail.  The film does show Mr Smith pulling “Zador” outwards immediately after the crowding occurred which supports the evidence of Mr Smith who said he immediately pulled out when he heard Mr Nolan Call out. 


We agree that after jumping the second to last fence at approximately the 250m mark “Zador” did move out slightly hampering “Anood Prospect” but again do not agree with Mr Foote’s assertions that the horse was severely checked and lost all momentum.


We have noted that approaching the last fence both “Zador” and “Anood Prospect” were racing almost on level terms and that at the last fence “Anood Prospect” put in a poor jump and lost significant momentum.  Both horses ran to the line strongly over the final 100m but “Anood Prospect” was unable to make up the ground it lost when jumping the last fence and “Zador” went on to finish second, ¾ of a length in front of ‘Anood Prospect”, and was, in our view easing down at the line. We do not believe “Anood Prospect” would have beaten “Zador” had the two incidents that occurred after jumping the fences at the top of the straight and at the 250m mark not occurred.  Accordingly the protest is dismissed.



On returning to the enquiry room the parties were advised that a full written decision would be available on the JCA website as soon as possible.  They were told the protest was dismissed and the placings as called by the Judge (as detailed above) were confirmed.  The authorisation to pay all dividends was given.




Document Actions