You are here: Home / Race Days / Avondale JC - 29 September 2018 / Avondale JC 29 September 2018 - R 2 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Avondale JC 29 September 2018 - R 2 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Created on 01 October 2018

ADooley (chair)
Ms J Fawcett - Rider of BIZZWINKLE
Ms T Thornton - Rider of CHACHI ARCOLA
Information Number:
Horse Name:
Persons present:
Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Ms J Wadham - Trainer of CHACHI ARCOLA
Mr Hughes - Part Owner of BIZZWINKLE

Following the running of race 2 Iconic Sunday Markets @ Avondale 2200, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Ms T Thornton, rider of CHACHI ARCOLA, alleged that BIZZWINKLE or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of CHACHI ARCOLA 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. 2 BIZZWINKLE
4th - No. 1 BEE TEE JUNIOR

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

All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.

Submissions For Decision:

Ms Thornton advised the Committee that she trailed the eventual winner BIZZWINKLE into the home straight. She said near the 300 metres she angled her mount off the rail intending to take a gap between BIZZWINKLE and YOUWANTMORE. At that point she said BIZZWINKLE shifted out and took her running line, causing her horse to lose momentum which cost her from the winning of the race. She added CHACHI ARCOLA is a dour horse that needs time to wind up.

Ms Wadham said that BIZZWINKLE caused interference to CHACHI ARCOLA. As a result CHACHI ARCOLA was held up for two strides which she believed cost her horse two lengths and the winning of the race.

Ms Fawcett said that she was sufficiently clear of CHACHI ARCOLA when shifting outwards. In her opinion she did not cause interference to CHACHI ARCOLA.

Mr Hughes concurred with Ms Fawcett’s assessment and submitted that it was YOUWANTMORE who shifted in and this caused CHACHI ARCOLA to be “squeezed”. He added that any suggestion CHACHI ARCOLA lost 2 lengths as a result of being tightened is a gross exaggeration.

Mr Williamson on the behalf of the Stewards said that CHACHI ARCOLA entered the home straight behind BIZZWINKLE. He said CHACHI ARCOLA was held up approaching the 300 metres and shifted out to obtain clear running. He said Ms Thornton, the rider of CHACHI ARCOLA then had to briefly steady her mount when placed in restricted room between BIZZWINKLE and YOUWANTMORE. He said that both of those runners shifted ground with CHACHI ARCOLA then having to shift in to obtain clear running. He said minor interference occurred and it was not enough to cost CHACHI ARCOLA from winning the race.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee carefully considered all evidence and submissions presented and reviewed the video footage several times.

The Committee found that minor interference did occur passing the 250 metres when CHACHI ARCOLA was attempting to gain a run between BIZZWINKLE and YOUWANTMORE. The minor interference was as a result of BIZZWINKLE who shifted out very slightly and the major contributor was YOUWANTMORE who shifted in at least one horse width. As a consequence CHACHI ARCOLA was momentarily held up before Ms Thornton quickly switched back to the inside of BIZZWINKLE. In our view any loss of momentum cannot be solely attributed to BIZZWINKLE, or its rider. Over the final 200 metres CHACHI ARCOLA had an uninterrupted run to the finish line and was ridden with vigour.

Having considered the slight interference, the manner in which both horses finished the race off and the long head margin at the finish the Committee is of the opinion that there were insufficient grounds to justify a change of placings.


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