You are here: Home / Race Days / Counties RC - 25 July 2020 / Counties RC 25 July 2020 – R 3 (Instigating a Protest) – Chair, G Jones

Counties RC 25 July 2020 – R 3 (Instigating a Protest) – Chair, G Jones

Created on 27 July 2020

Rules:
Rule 642(1)
Committee:
GJones (chair)
Respondent(s):
Mr J Richards - Trainer of AL HARAM
Informant:
Mr G Grylls (Rider of WINDY HEIGHTS )
Information Number:
A13375
Horse Name:
AL HARAM
Persons present:
Mr A Fuller (trainer of WINDY HEIGHTS)
Mr G Grylls
Mr J Richards (trainer of AL HARAM)
Mr J Kamaruddin (rider of AL HARAM)
Mr N Harris (National Riding Mentor)
Evidence:

Following the running of Race No 3, the Mount Shop 2100, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant Mr G Grylls (rider of WINDY HEIGHTS), alleged that horse number 1 (AL HARAM) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 9 (WINDY HEIGHTS) placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge's provisional placing were:

1st  No.  1  AL HARAM
2nd No. 9   WINDY HEIGHTS
3rd No.  6  TIPICAL

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was ½ length

Rule 642(1) provides:

“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.

Submissions For Decision:

At the commencement of the hearing the head and side on race films were shown to connections. Mr Richards the trainer of AL HARAM joined the hearing by phone and he advised that he had seen the race films. Mr Harris attended in support of Apprentice Rider Mr Kamaruddin.

Mr Fuller submitted that in the run to the line WINDY HEIGHTS “kept giving and AL HARAM was all over” his horse. He said the rider of AL HARAM made no attempt to correct his mount. He concluded by stating that WINDY HEIGHTS was knocked off stride.

Mr Grylls submitted that WINDY HEIGHTS was “finding” until it lost momentum as a result of AL HARAM shifting in. He added “after having the stuffing knocked out” of his mount it was difficult to pick up and run on in the very testing ground.

Mr Richards submitted that AL HARAM did shift in on to WINDY HEIGHTS, but at no stage did that horse change stride, and Mr Grylls did not stop riding his mount out to the finish. Mr Richards added that AL HARAM always had WINDY HEIGHTS covered.

Mr Harris submitted that AL HARAM came from behind WINDY HEIGHTS. He conceded that although AL HARAM shifted in, Mr Grylls never stopped riding his mount out to the finish.

Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Williamson stated that the official margin at the finish was half a length between 1st and 2nd. He said that at the 100-metre mark AL HARAM shifted in 5 or 6 horse widths and thereafter dictated WINDY HEIGHTS inwards. He said that it was of significance that AL HARAM had come from behind WINDY HEIGHTS. He added that although there was some chance that WINDY HEIGHTS may have won the race, the outcome of the protest is a 50/50 decision for the Committee to consider.

Reasons For Decision:

In accordance with the requirements of the protest rule the Committee must firstly establish that interference occurred; and second, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage it was established that nearing the 100-metre mark WINDY HEIGHTS was in front of AL HARAM who was mounting a run wider on the track. AL HARAM commenced to shift inwards; it bumped into WINDY HEIGHTS and continued to dictate that runner inwards. Both horses brushed and raced in tight quarters with AL HARAM making reasonably solid contact with WINDY HEIGHTS approximately 2 strides prior to the winning post. However, it was evident over the concluding stages that AL HARAM held ascendency and a clear margin over WINDY HEIGHTS who, in spite of having being dictated to, was able to be ridden out to the finish by its rider.

Despite AL HARAM having interfered with the chances of WINDY HEIGHTS, given the 1/2 length margin between the 2 horses at the finish, and the manner in which both horses finished off the race, the Committee is of the opinion that WINDY HEIGHTS would not have beaten AL HARAM had the interference not occurred. 

On that basis the protest is dismissed.

Decision:

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings stand.

1st  No. 1 AL HARAM
2nd No. 9 WINDY HEIGHTS
3rd No.  6 TIPICAL

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

Document Actions