You are here: Home / Race Days / Counties RC - 10 August 2019 / Counties RC 10 August 2019 - R 2 (Instigating a Protest) - Chair, Mr B Scott

Counties RC 10 August 2019 - R 2 (Instigating a Protest) - Chair, Mr B Scott

Created on 13 August 2019

Rules:
Rule 642(1)
Committee:
BScott (chair)
ADooley
Respondent(s):
Owners of PURSUED
Informant:
Mr A Scott - Co Trainer of DIVINE DUKE
Information Number:
A11321
Horse Name:
PURSUED
Persons present:
Mr A Scott - Co-Trainer of DIVINE DUKE
Mr J Kamaruddin- Rider of DIVINE DUKE
Mr K Opie - Licensed Trainer - representing the connections of PURSUED
Mr A Goindasamy-Rider of PURSUED
Mr & Mrs Bradley - part Owners of DIVINE DUKE
Mr M Williamson (Senior Stipendiary Steward)
Mr B Jones - Stipendiary Steward
Evidence:

Following the running of the MOUNT SHOP 2100 an Information instigating a Protest was lodged by Licensed Trainer Mr A Scott the Co- Trainer of the second placed DIVINE DUKE against the first placing of PURSUED on the grounds of interference in the final straight.

The official margin between first and second was a short head.

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 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.

At the beginning of the Hearing the Committee explained to the parties the 2 essential elements that need to be proved under the Protest Rule being firstly that interference did occur and secondly that the provisions of Rule 642(1) have been satisfied.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr A Scott firstly demonstrated the incident by use of the race films and he said that DIVINE DUKE was 6 lengths from PURSUED at the turn and he showed where his horse finished on and was beaten by a short head.

He said that PURSUED was racing well out from the inside running line and when DIVINE DUKE came up on its inside it rolled in and pushed DIVINE DUKE into the heavier ground which was not where it should have been racing. He also said that in its inwards movement PURSUED came into contact with DIVINE DUKE and he said this was clear interference. He said DIVINE DUKE was gaining ground up the straight and at the time of contact its Rider had to momentarily put his whip away.

He then said that after  the interference DIVINE DUKE continued to gain ground and was a short head away at the finish.

Mr Scott said the interference was twofold being the pushing of DIVINE DUKE down into the bad ground in the straight and also the contact from PURSUED.

Mr Kamaruddin was asked by the Committee if there was contact between the 2 horses and he said that there was and he said that as a result he had to stop riding.

Mr Opie said that PURSUED rolled in about 150 metres from the finish and in doing so it cost itself a length. He said that the ground was very heavy and if there was any interference it was very very minor.

Mr Goindasamy said that he did not go into the line of DIVINE DUKE.  He said he saw the shadow of a horse on his inside and he just kept riding. He said his horse shifted slightly and he straightened it. Mr Goindasamy also said that he did not feel any contact with DIVINE DUKE.

Mr Williamson then said that PURSUED shifted in slightly at about the 150 metres mark but all it did was inconvenience DIVINE DUKE. He said that there was a clear distance between PURSUED and DIVINE DUKE and he said that there was no contact between them. He also said that DIVINE DUKE moved to the inside of PURSUED and that horse rallied and held off DIVINE DUKE at the finish.

Mr Williamson said that the Stewards believed that any interference was very minor and was more of an inconvenience to DIVINE DUKE.

Reasons For Decision:

The Committee listened to the parties and we have carefully reviwed the race films several times. The incident is very clearly shown on the race films. Mr Scott has said that when PURSUED moved in there was contact with DIVINE DUKE.  This was not supported by the film evidence and in fact the films showed that there was no contact at all.

The films also showed that the shift in by PURSUED was for about 2 strides passing the 150 metres mark and Mr Goindasamy straightened his horse very quickly. We agree with Mr Williamson that any inwards movement by PURSUED was more of an inconvenience to DIVINE DUKE and that any interference was very minor.

We do not believe that Mr Kamaruddin stopped riding his horse and we noted that both horses were finishing strongly and as far as we are concerned the chances of DIVINE DUKE were not affected by any movement from PURSUED.

Decision:

The Protest is accordingly dismissed and we order that the Judge's placings stand.

We authorised payment of dividends and stakes in accordance with the Judge's placings.

Document Actions