You are here: Home / Race Days / Whangarei RC - 22 July 2017 / Whangarei RC 22 July 2017 - R 7 - (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Whangarei RC 22 July 2017 - R 7 - (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Created on 24 July 2017

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
ADooley (chair)
BScott
Respondent(s):
Mrs T Thornton - Rider of MAJOR TOM
Informant:
Mr C Lammas -Rider of REDCAYENNE
Information Number:
A9465
Horse Name:
MAJOR TOM
Persons present:
Mr T Pike - Trainer of REDCAYENNE
Mr K Rae - Co -Trainer of MAJOR TOM
Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
Evidence:

Following the running of race 7, ITM / GIB, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr C Lammas, alleged that MAJOR TOM or its rider Mrs Thornton placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of his horse REDCAYENNE placed 4th by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final 250 metres.

The Judge's placing were as follows:

1st No. 4 MASTERCARD
2nd No. 3 MAJOR TOM
3rd No. 2 PURSUED
4th No. 7 REDCAYENNE

The official margins were ¾ of a length, 1 length and 1 length.

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 that they understood the Rule.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Lammas said that he had clearly come from behind MAJOR TOM and his mount was making up a lot of ground in the straight. He said that MAJOR TOM dictated REDCAYENNE out towards the eventual winner MASTERCARD in the final 100 metres. He said that the interference cost him 2 lengths and was of the view that the incident definitely cost REDCAYENNE from finishing in 2nd place.

At this point Mr Williamson confirmed the official margins. He said that REDCAYENNE finished 2 lengths in arrears of MAJOR TOM at the finish line.

Mr Pike said that MAJOR TOM shifted out from the 250 metres which dictated REDCAYENNE out towards MASTERCARD. He said that REDCAYENNE was making up significant ground in the home straight and stated the significant interference occurred in the final 100 metres when Mr Lammas had to stand up in the saddle to avoid clipping the heels of MASTERCARD. He said that the interference clearly cost RECAYENNE 2nd place.

Mrs Thornton stated that REDCAYENNE had been under the stick when entering the home straight. She admitted that MAJOR TOM shifted out in the home straight but believed the major part of the interference occurred when MASTERCARD shifted in and made contact with REDCAYENNE. She said that REDCAYENNE had its opportunity to finish in a better placing.

Mr Rae said that he totally agreed with Mrs Thornton’s interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that Mr Lammas never stopped riding REDCAYENNE and observed that the horse was under pressure a long way from home. He said that MAJOR TOM “rolled out a wee bit” but believed that MASTERCARD “cut off” REDCAYENNE inside the final 100 metres of the race. He added that REDCAYENNE had every opportunity to finish in a better placing.

Mr Williamson was invited by the Committee to comment on the alleged interference. He said that MAJOR TOM commenced to shift out from the 250 metres but it was more significant from the 150 metres when MAJOR TOM shifted out abruptly and interfered with REDCAYENNE. He stated that from the 250 metres to the 150 metres REDCAYENNE had made up ½ a length on MAJOR TOM. He said that near the 50 metre mark MASTERCARD shifted in towards MAJOR TOM and that contributed to the interference that REDCAYENNE received. In conclusion he said the Committee needed to determine if REDCAYENNE was making up sufficient ground to uphold the protest.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee carefully considered all the submissions presented and reviewed the video footage several times. We established that at the 200 metres MAJOR TOM was 1 length in front of REDCAYENNE and both horses were being ridden with the vigour. It was evident that at the 150 metres MAJOR TOM commenced to shift ground outwards. The consequential effects were that REDCAYENNE’S momentum was not impeded and Mr Lammas continued to ride his mount out with the whip. The films show that at the 100 metres MAJOR TOM was still 1 length in front of REDCAYENNE and comfortably holding a margin on that runner. It was obvious that near the 50 metres Mr Lammas was shut out of a gap and he had to firmly restrain REDCAYENNE to avoid clipping the heels of MASTERCARD when that runner shifted in at the same time as MAJOR TOM continued to shift out. This movement clearly hampered RECAYENNE’S progress close to the finish line. It was noticeable on the head – on film that MASTERCARD’S hind quarter made contact with REDCAYENNE near the 50 metres and this contact contributed to the interference.

The Committee was of the opinion that the video evidence did not support the assertion that had such interference not occurred RECAYENNE would have finished ahead of MAJOR TOM. Accordingly, there were insufficient grounds to justify a change of placings.

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