You are here: Home / Race Days / Marton JC - 4 July 2020 / Marton JC 4 July 2020 - R 10 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt

Marton JC 4 July 2020 - R 10 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mrs N Moffatt

Created on 24 July 2020

NMoffatt (chair)
Mr S Kay - Trainer of RELDA
Mr G Vile - Trainer of DOUBLE ACT
Information Number:
Horse Name:
Persons present:
Mr C Johnson - Rider of DOUBLE ACT
Mr A Mudhoo - Rider of RELDA
Mr N Goodwin - Senior Stipendiary Steward

Following Race 10 (BJW Motors/Rayner Building 1400) a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr Vile alleging that horse number 5 (RELDA) or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 12 (DOUBLE ACT) placed 4th by the Judge.

The Information alleged interference in the home straight.

Judge's placings were:
1st - SUPER FLASH (14)
2nd - RELDA (5)
4th - DOUBLE ACT (12)

The official margins were a head, 1½ lengths and 2½ lengths.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Vile explained that he lodged the protest because the 2nd placed horse came across in front of his runner and checked DOUBLE ACT out of the race. He said his horse lost momentum, and in heavy track conditions horses must be kept going. The Committee asked Mr Vile if he thought DOUBLE ACT would have beaten RELDA if it had received a clear run to the line. Mr Vile said it might have done but he could not be sure as it had been denied that opportunity.

Mr Johnson said the interference forced him to stop riding, and he believed DOUBLE ACT still had “a bit to give”. He was just getting busy on his horse when he was checked.

Mr Mudhoo, the rider of RELDA, said his horse ran inwards when he used his whip, but he tried to straighten it up. He said the winner of the race caused some of the interference when it ran outwards, and in his opinion both his horse and the winner were travelling better than DOUBLE ACT.

Mrs Kay agreed with her jockey and said the result would have been the same even without any interference.

Reasons For Decision:

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.

The Committee considered all submissions. It was clear that Mr Vile’s runner DOUBLE ACT received a check soon after passing the 200m mark. Prior to the interference the rider of DOUBLE ACT, Mr Johnson, was mounting a run and had used his whip on two occasions.

The Committee determined that both the 1st and 2nd placed horses failed to maintain straight lines and contributed to the gap closing on DOUBLE ACT, however RELDA was the principle offender.

Taking into account the manner in which the horses were racing before the incident and the combined margin of four lengths between 2nd and 4th placing, we were not satisfied that DOUBLE ACT would have beaten RELDA with an unimpeded run.


Accordingly, the protest was dismissed and authorisation to pay dividends on the Judge's placings and stake money was approved.

Document Actions