You are here: Home / Race Days / Counties RC - 5 December 2018 / Counties RC 5 December 2018 - R 5 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Counties RC 5 December 2018 - R 5 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Created on 06 December 2018

ADooley (chair)
Mr C Lammas - Rider of SUPER GEE
Mr M McNab - Rider of SPRING BOUQUET
Information Number:
Horse Name:
Persons present:
Mr D Williams - representing the connections of SPRING BOUQUET
Mr C Gibbs - Co Trainer of SUPER GEE
Mrs M Bradley - Co Trainer of SUPER GEE
Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward

Following the running of race 5, Event Essentials 1400, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr M McNab, alleged that SUPER GEE or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of SPRING BOUQUET placed 2nd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final 100 metres.

The Judge's placing were as follows:

1st No. 4 SUPER GEE
4th No. 9 ANGELICA

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

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 that they understood the Rule.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr McNab said that his mount SPRING BOUQUET received significant interference from SUPER GEE inside the final 100 metres. He said that SUPER GEE moved out at a vital stage in the race and as a result SPRING BOUQUET’s hind quarters were turned out and this stopped the horse’s momentum. He said that given the nose margin at the finish the interference definitely cost him winning the race.

Mr Williams, Racing Manager for Mr Pike, said that prior to SUPER GEE shifting out SPRING BOUQUET was holding an advantage over that runner. He said when the interference occurred SPRING BOUQUET lost her balance. He said with the margin at the finish being only a nose the interference cost SPRING BOUQUET winning the race.

Mr Lammas said that Mr McNab’s mount laid in prior to his mount “rolling out”. He said that Mr McNab did not stop riding his mount when SUPER GEE “rolled out”. He said that SPRING BOUQUET was in front of SUPER GEE when the contact happened and he put his whip away. He believed the best horse won the race.

Mr Gibbs, on behalf of the Training Partnership, said that SUPER GEE was slowly making ground on SPRING BOUQUET. He said there was a “touch” between the 2 horses when one horse came out and the other came in. He said at the end it was which horse found the line best.

Mr Coles on behalf of the Stewards said that the point of contact occurred near the 50 metres. He said SUPER GEE moved out 1 horse width and made significant contact with SPRING BOUQUET which was briefly unbalanced. He said the protest did have some merit.

Reasons For Decision:

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

The Committee found that inside the final 100 metres SPRING BOUQUET was holding a narrow margin over SUPER GEE. The video films do not support the assertions that SPRING BOUQUET laid in on SUPER GEE inside the final 100 metres. It was distinctly evident that near the 50 metres SUPER GEE shifted out 1 horse width and made solid contact with SPRING BOUQUET for a few strides. As a result SPRING BOUQUET’s hind quarters were bumped outwards and that runner was clearly unbalanced. This impacted on SPRING BOUQUET’s momentum at a crucial stage in the race. The video evidence showed that Mr McNab had to stop using his whip during the period of contact.

Having considered the degree of interference and the nose margin at the finish the Committee is of the opinion that SPRING BOUQUET would have finished in advance of SUPER GEE had such interference not occurred.


The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

2nd No. 4 SUPER GEE
4th No. 9 ANGELICA

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

Document Actions