You are here: Home / Race Days / Auckland RC - 26 October 2019 / Auckland RC 26 October 2019 - R 2 - (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Auckland RC 26 October 2019 - R 2 - (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Created on 29 October 2019

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
ADooley (chair)
AGodsalve
Respondent(s):
Mr G Richardson - Trainer of DEVOTIONINMOTION
Informant:
Mr A Campbell - Trainer of TRIDENT
Information Number:
A11336
Horse Name:
DEVOTIONINMOTION
Persons present:
Mr D Mansour - Rider of DEVOTIONINMOTION
Mr V Colgan - Rider of TRIDENT
Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Evidence:

Following the running of race 2, Stella Artois 880 metres, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr A Campbell, Trainer of TRIDENT, alleged that DEVOTIONINMOTION or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of TRIDENT placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge's placing were as follows:

1st No. 11 DEVOTIONINMOTION
2nd No. 5 TRIDENT
3rd No. 6 ALICE TINKER

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

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.

Mr Campbell said that DEVOTIONINMOTION shifted out near the 150 metres and forced BONITA AURELIA out onto his horse TRIDENT. He said Mr Mansour, the rider of DEVOTIONINMOTION continued to ride his mount forward when it was shifting ground. He said the interference put TRIDENT off balance and cost it from winning the race.

Mr Colgan said that DEVOTIONINMOTION shifted out onto BONIA AURELIA which in turn made contact with TRIDENT. He said that he was denied a clear run and TRIDENT was hampered in the run to the finish line.

Mr Richardson said that BELLE FOLIE shifted out into the line of DEVOTIONINMOTION. He said the interference occurred a long way out from the finish line and TRIDENT had its chance to win the race.

Mr Mansour said that he had to force a run to the outside of BELLE FOLIE and stated that BONITA AURELIA was bumping his mount. He said that DEVOTIONINMOTION hit the line strongly and was going away at the finish.

Mr Williamson on behalf of the Stewards said that Mr Mansour, the rider of DEVOTIONINMOTION, angled his mount outwards and forced a run near the 150 metres. He said this resulted in TRIDENT being hampered and forced wider on the track. He concluded by saying that the Committee needed to be satisfied the interference cost TRIDENT more than the nose margin between the 2 horses 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 passing the 150 metres Mr Mansour angled his mount out when racing on level terms with BONITA AURELIA. As a result that runner was forced wider on the track and made contact with TRIDENT. Mr Mansour failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference when his mount shifted out about 3 horse widths. As a consequence TRIDENT's momentum was hampered for several strides when it was forced off its rightful running line. We were satisfied that DEVOTIONINMOTION did cause interference to TRIDENT.

Following the interference we observed that over the final 100 metres of the race both horses had a clear and unimpeded run to the finish line. It was significant that once balanced up TRIDENT made up ground on DEVOTIONINMOTION to be beaten by a nose at the finish. We assessed that TRIDENT made up at least ½ a length on DEVOTIONINMOTION 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 nose margin at the finish the Committee is comfortably satisfied that TRIDENT would have beaten DEVOTIONINMOTION had such interference not occurred. On that basis the protest was upheld.

Decision:

The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st No. 5 TRIDENT
2nd No. 11 DEVOTIONINMOTION
3rd No. 6 ALICE TINKER

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

Document Actions