You are here: Home / Race Days / Auckland TC - 8 February 2019 / Auckland TC 8 February 2019 - R 7 (Instigating a Protest) - Chair, Mr G Jones
Related Items

08 Feb 2019
Auckland-Tc - R7

Auckland TC 8 February 2019 - R 7 (Instigating a Protest) - Chair, Mr G Jones

Created on 11 February 2019

Rules:
869 A(2)
Committee:
GJones (chair)
ASmith
Respondent(s):
Mr R Dunn (trainer of CHEVRON SUPREME)
Informant:
Mr J Muirhead - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Information Number:
A10718
Horse Name:
CHEVRON SUPREME
Persons present:
Mr B Mangos (Driver of CHEVRON SUPREME) Mr R Dunn Mr S Phelan (representing B. Purdon trainer of HAVTIME)
Evidence:

This is a contested protest instigated by Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr J Muirhead. It arises from the running of race 7, the Nevele R Series 40 (Heat 1) Mobile Pace 1700. The Information alleges that the 4th placed HAVTIME was checked by 3rd placed CHEVRON SUPREME between the 200 and 150 metre mark.

The provisional placings were:

1st no 7 BELLE OF MONTANA
2nd no 2 BEST WESTERN
3rd no 6 CHEVRON SUPREME
4th no 3 HAVTIME

The relevant protest provisions are set in Rule 869(2) which provides:

(1) For the purpose of this rule:

(a) “placed horse” means a horse placed by the Judge1st, 2nd, 3rd,4th or 5th;

(b) “interference” means any conduct referred to in rule 869 which interferes or is likely to interfere with the progress of any horse in a race.

(2) When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse and the Judicial Committee is satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference the Judicial Committee must, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, place the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference immediately after the horse interfered with.

Rule 869 (4) states: No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes with or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress. 

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Muirhead demonstrated the incident by way of all available video footage. He identified the horses concerned and gave a brief outline of the alleged incident. He showed that entering the home straight CHEVRON SUPREME (B Mangos) was in the lead and commenced to drift outward at the 200 metre mark. Near the 150 metre mark CHEVRON SUPREME moved out sharply into the running line of HAVTIME (S Phelan) who was racing on CHEVRON SUPREME’S outer; approximately ½ length behind.

Mr Muirhead said that HAVTIME was ranging up outside CHEVRON SUPREME when that horse ducked out. As a result HAVTIME was checked and Mr Phelan was required to take corrective action to avoid CHEVRON SUPREME. He said that after HAVTIME rebalanced it ran on to finish within a head of CHEVRON SUPREME. Mr Muirhead concluded by submitting it was the steward’s opinion that the interference clearly affected HAVTIME'S chance of beating CHEVRON SUPREME.

Mr Phelan stated that HAVTIME was “grinding away outside CHEVRON SUPREME when the interference occurred”. He said he did not know how much ground the interference cost his horse and could not say for sure that HAVTIME would have beaten CHEVRON SUPREME.

Mr Mangos said that CHEVRON SUPREME definitely shifted out for a couple of strides after he pulled the deafeners. He submitted both horses battled to the line and HAVTIME had every opportunity to get past his drive if it was good enough. He added that CHEVRON SUPREME only ducked out for a stride or two.

Mr Dunn submitted that both horses lost momentum as a result of the interference and he agreed with the drivers' submissions.

In response Mr Muirhead said he disagreed with both Mr Mangos and Mr Dunn in that the loss of momentum by CHEVRON SUPREME was irrelevant. He reiterated the fact that HAVTIME was interfered with and its chances were affected.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee carefully considered and assessed the submissions of all parties. In addition the Committee viewed the video footage several times. Having weighed up all the evidence the Committee determined that CHEVRON SUPREME did shift out abruptly into the rightful running line of HAVTIME near the 150 metre mark. The films clearly showed that HAVTIME was checked and its momentum was impeded. At the point of interference HAVTIME was racing about a ½ length behind CHEVRON SUMPREME and after recovering from its check it finished the race off better than CHEVRON SUPREME. The margin at the winning post was a key determinant.

Having considered the loss of momentum suffered by HAVTIME; the manner in which both horses finished the race off and the head margin at the finish, the Committee is firmly of the opinion that but for the interference, HAVTIME would have finished ahead of CHEVRON SUPREME. Accordingly the protest is upheld.

Decision:

The protest is upheld and the amended placings are:

1st no 7 BELLE OF MONTANA
2nd no 2 BEST WESTERN
3rd no 3 HAVTIME
4th no 6 CHEVRON SUPREME

In accordance with our decision the Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stakes.

Document Actions