You are here: Home / Race Days / Auckland RC - 30 November 2019 / Auckland RC 30 November 2019 - R 2 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Auckland RC 30 November 2019 - R 2 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Created on 02 December 2019

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
ADooley (chair)
GJones
Respondent(s):
Mr L Noble - Trainer of TARONI
Informant:
Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
Information Number:
A11346
Horse Name:
TARONI
Persons present:
Mrs J E A Lindsay - Owner of TARONI
Mr B J Lindsay MNZM - Owner of TARONI
Ms D Johnson - Rider of TARONI
Mr P Richards - representing Mr J Richards Trainer of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE
Ms S Collett - Rider of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE
Mr D Ellis - Te Akau Racing Principal
Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
Mr H Plumptre - Chief Executive Cambridge Stud
Evidence:

Following the running of race 2, Executive Travel 1100, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Oatham alleged that TARONI or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge's placings were as follows:

1st No. 8 TARONI
2nd No. 1 BORDEAUX LE ROUGE
3rd No. 6 DRAGON QUEEN

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

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 said that they understood the Rule.

Submissions For Decision:

The Information indicated that the Protest had been instigated by Mr P Richards on behalf of the connections of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE. However, Mr Ellis the Principal of Te Akau Racing told the Committee that he did not wish to pursue the protest. At this juncture Mr Oatham advised the Committee that the Stipendiary Stewards would be the Informant and proceeded on that basis.

Mr Coles then commenced the hearing and demonstrated the alleged incident using the available video footage. He said that TARONI shifted out under pressure inside the final 100 metres. He identified that Ms Johnson, the rider of TARONI, continued to ride her mount forward and she struck her mount with the whip. He said that TARONI shifted out quickly and made contact with BORDEAUX LE ROUGE over the concluding stages of the race. He said that TARONI shifted BORDEAUX LE ROUGE out over quite a bit of ground. He added that the margin between 1st and 2nd at the finish was a head.

In his concluding comments Mr Oatham said that TARONI was a good length in front of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE at the 100 metres and that runner was making up good ground to be beaten a head at the finish. He added that BORDEAUX LE ROUGE was entitled to an uninterrupted run to the finish.

Mr Ellis advised the Committee that he and Ms Collett, the rider of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE, had nothing to say in relation to the alleged incident.

Ms Johnson said that TARONI raced greenly in the final straight. She said that 7 strides from the finish line BORDEAUX LE ROUGE ran away from TARONI. She said that the 2 horses never made contact until just before the finish line. She added that she sat up on TARONI about 5 strides before the finish line because the filly was green and that is why the margin was reduced. In conclusion Ms Johnson said that BORDEAUX LE ROUGE had the entire straight to pass TARONI and her mount was having its first start.

Mr Noble said that TARONI was a green 2 year old who had its ears pricked and became distracted by the big screen which was by the indicator board. He said that although there was contact in his opinion the contact occurred right on the line. He said that BORDEAUX LE ROUGE had every opportunity to get past TARONI and Ms Johnson done everything she could. In conclusion he said the interference did not hinder the chances of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE and Ms Collett never stopped riding her mount.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee carefully considered all of the submissions and reviewed the video footage.

It was clear that TARONI raced greenly in the final straight and in particular was wayward inside the final 100 metres. We established that at the 100 metre mark TARONI was 1 length in advance of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE. Shortly after that point TARONI had her ears pricked, head turned to the side and commenced to shift outwards when BORDEAUX LE ROUGE was racing on its outside. The head on footage showed that each time BORDEAUX LE ROUGE tried to challenge TARONI that runner continued to shift outwards. At no stage was TARONI at least its own length and one other clear length in front of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE when it continued to shift outwards. This is a clear breach of the interference Rule.

Mr Noble was of the opinion that the contact between TARONI and BORDEAUX LE ROUGE occurred right on the finish line. Whereas we found that TARONI made firm contact with BORDEAUX LE ROUGE near the 30 metres.

In our assessment as to whether BORDEAUX LE ROUGE would have beaten TARONI, but for the interference, we observed that a direct result of the contact near the 30 metres was that BORDEAUX LE ROUGE was forced wider on the track, off its running line which impacted its momentum.

We estimated that TARONI shifted out at least 5 horse widths inside the final 100 metres. As a consequence BORDEAUX LE ROUGE was denied an unimpeded run to the finish line. This made it more difficult for BORDEAUX LE ROUGE to get balanced up and past TARONI. In our opinion the totality of TARONI’s wayward racing manners inside the final 100 metres cost BORDEAUX LE ROUGE more than the head margin between the 2 horses at the finish.

It was evident that BORDEAUX LE ROUGE reduced the margin from 1 length at the 100 metres to a head at the finish despite suffering interference from TARONI.

In conclusion having considered the degree of interference, the manner in which both horses finished the race off and in particular the head margin at the finish the Committee was of the opinion that BORDEAUX LE ROUGE would have finished ahead of TARONI had such interference not occurred.

Decision:

The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st No. 1 BORDEAUX LE ROUGE
2nd No. 8 TARONI
3rd No. 6 DRAGON QUEEN

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

Document Actions