You are here: Home / Race Days / Auckland RC - 25 May 2019 / Auckland RC 25 May 2019 - R 2 - (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Auckland RC 25 May 2019 - R 2 - (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Created on 27 May 2019

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
ADooley (chair)
ASmith
Respondent(s):
Mr C Grylls - Rider of CAMPARI
Informant:
Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
Information Number:
A09680
Horse Name:
CAMPARI
Persons present:
Mr T Pollard - Racing Manager for Mr S Marsh
Mr N Harris - Apprentice Jockey Mentor
Mr A Bosma - Syndicate Manager of CAMPARI
Mr P Huxtable - Trainer of COME BACK TIGER
Miss T Newman - Apprentice Rider of COME BACK TIGER
Mr B Jones - Stipendiary Steward
Evidence:

Following the running of race 2, Race Images 1400 metres, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr J Oatham, alleged that CAMPARI or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of COME BACK TIGER placed 2nd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred near the 200 metres.

The Judge's placing were as follows:

1st No. 5 CAMPARI
2nd No. 10 COME BACK TIGER
3rd No. 8 VEINE D’OR
4th No. 9 O’ANGEL

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a neck.

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”.
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.

All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.

Submissions For Decision:

At the start of the hearing the Committee explained the process for the protest hearing.

At this point Mr Bosma nominated himself and Mr Grylls as the people who would represent the connections of CAMPARI. Mr Pollard, Racing Manager for Mr Marsh, was present at the hearing.

Stipendiary Steward, Mr Jones, identified on the video films that approaching the 200 metres CAMPARI was racing on the outside of COME BACK TIGER. He said that CAMPARI commenced to shift inwards and in doing so Mr Grylls got directly into the line of COME BACK TIGER. As a consequence Ms Newman had to take a hold of COME BACK TIGER. Mr Jones identified the mown strip that COME BACK TIGER was racing on and he said that runner did not shift off its running line. He identified that JOY ANNA shifted out slightly onto O’ANGEL but the Stewards believe that the interference suffered by COME BACK TIGER was as a result of CAMPARI shifting in. He identified where Ms Newman had to ease COME BACK TIGER and he estimated the interference cost that runner 1 ½ lengths. He noted that over the final 150 metres COME BACK TIGER closed the margin at the finish to a neck. He concluded by saying the Stewards were of the view that the interference cost COME BACK TIGER more than the neck margin at the finish.

Mr Huxtable said that he agreed with Mr Jones’ interpretation of the interference and had nothing to add.

Ms Newman said that Mr Grylls, the rider of CAMPARI, “cut in front of her” and she had to ease her mount and in doing so she lost momentum. She said that she had to regather momentum and had the interference not occurred she would have won the race by at least 1 length.

The Committee invited Mr Bosma to use all the available video films and told him that each of the 4 video angles could be displayed as a full screen. Mr Bosma opened his submissions by saying that the Stewards had got it quite wrong. He said that CAMPARI came from well back in the field and in the home straight his horse had gone past the entire field. He identified on the video films that in his opinion the interference did not come from CAMPARI. He said that O’ANGEL made contact with COME BACK TIGER which then contacted CAMPARI. He said that CAMPARI did not shift off its running line and O’ANGEL shifted out and contacted COME BACK TIGER. He said that there was no contact between COME BACK TIGER and CAMPARI.

Mr Bosma then identified on the video films that if CAMPARI had moved it was only marginal and CAMPARI was well past COME BACK TIGER when CAMPARI continued to shift inwards. He stated that CAMPARI was 2 lengths clear of COME BACK TIGER. He reiterated that it was O’ANGEL who caused the interference and CAMPARI had run past COME BACK TIGER before CAMPARI shifted in. Mr Bosma again stated that the Stewards had seen the interference incorrectly. Then he went onto say that CAMPARI is a very good horse and she knew that she had won the race and “pulled herself up”. He said although COME BACK TIGER run CAMPARI to a neck Mr Grylls never applied the whip to his mount and she could have pulled away and won the race by 3 to 4 lengths. In conclusion Mr Bosma said when CAMPARI shifted in she was 1 ½ lengths clear of COME BACK TIGER.

Mr Grylls said that O’ANGEL shifted out and touched COME BACK TIGER who in turn touched CAMPARI. He said as a result that turned CAMPARI in a bit before the interference happened. He added that he maintained a straight line.

Mr Oatham on behalf of the Stewards said that entering the final straight CAMPARI commenced to shift inwards when not clear and this forced COME BACK TIGER inwards near the 250 metres. He estimated that CAMPARI moved in 1 horse width and while there was some movement from the inside horses he believed that it was only a minor contribution to the interference that occurred. He said at no point was Mr Grylls 2 lengths clear of COME BACK TIGER. He identified that Ms Newman, the rider of COME BACK TIGER, had to shift away from the heels of CAMPARI when Mr Grylls shifted directly into the running line of her mount. He said the Committee needed to determine how much contribution the inside horses had in the incident. He added that the Stewards considered the contribution to be minor. In conclusion Mr Oatham submitted that COME BACK TIGER lost at least 1 ½ lengths as result of the interference and it finished a neck in arrears of CAMPARI at the finish.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed the video footage several times at normal speed, slow motion and frame by frame.

The Rule requires the Committee to establish firstly if interference has occurred; and second, that the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.

The Committee found that entering the final straight CAMPARI and COME BACK TIGER were racing on level terms. We found that near the 250 metres CAMPARI was being ridden forward with the whip and was going past COME BACK TIGER when CAMPARI commenced to shift inwards. It was evident that CAMPARI continued to shift inwards when being ridden forward near the 200 metres. It was clear that Mr Grylls made no discernible effort to avoid causing interference to COME BACK TIGER.

Mr Grylls was only ¾ of a length clear of COME BACK TIGER which placed that runner in restricted room approaching the 200 metre mark. As a consequence COME BACK TIGER was checked and lost momentum when its rightful running line was taken. The films showed that COME BACK TIGER lost approximately 2 lengths when it suffered interference from CAMPARI at the 200 metres.

We observed that there was some slight outward movement by JOY ANNA when O’ANGEL was attempting to improve to the outside of that runner near the 200 metres. As a consequence O’ANGEL made minor contact with COME BACK TIGER.

In conclusion the Committee established that Mr Grylls was never his own length and one other clear length in front of COME BACK TIGER at the time of crossing. We were satisfied that Mr Grylls, the rider of CAMPARI, was responsible for causing interference to COME BACK TIGER.

Following the interference we observed that over the final 175 metres of the race both horses had a clear and unimpeded run to the finish line. It was significant that once balanced up COME BACK TIGER made up a considerable amount of ground on CAMPARI to be beaten a neck at the finish. We assessed that COME BACK TIGER made up 1 ¾ lengths on CAMPARI after the interference had occurred.

Having considered the degree of interference, the manner in which both horses finished the race off and in particular the neck margin at the finish the Committee is of the opinion that COME BACK TIGER would have finished in advance of CAMPARI had such interference not occurred. On that basis the protest was upheld.

Decision:

The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st No. 10 COME BACK TIGER
2nd No. 5 CAMPARI
3rd No. 8 VEINE D’OR
4th No. 9 O’ANGEL

The Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.


 

Document Actions