You are here: Home / Race Days / Racing Te Aroha - 6 April 2019 / R Te Aroha 6 April 2019 - R 6 - (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

R Te Aroha 6 April 2019 - R 6 - (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Created on 08 April 2019

ADooley (chair)
Mr L Innes - Rider of HASABRO
Mr G Richardson - Co Trainer INCANTESIMO
Information Number:
Horse Name:
Persons present:
Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
Mr A Bosma - Syndicate Manager of HASABRO
Mr M Hashizume - Rider of INCANTESIMO

Following the running of race 6, Te Aroha Plumbing & Drainage Ltd 1600, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr Richardson, Trainer of INCANTESIMO, alleged that HASABRO or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of INCANTESIMO placed 3rd by the Judge.

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

The Judge's placing were as follows:

1st No. 7 ZENVO
2nd No. 5 HASABRO

The official margin between 2nd and 3rd 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”.

(2) For the purposes of Rules 637 and 642:

(a) “placed horse” shall be a horse placed by the Judge in accordance with Rule 641(3); and
(b) “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.

All connections present acknowledged they understood the Rule.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Richardson demonstrated on the head on video film that HASABRO took the running line of INCANTESIMO over the concluding stages of the race. He said that HASABRO “bumped” INCANTESIMO 2 to 3 strides before the finish line. He added that this interference cost INCANTESIMO from winning the race.

Mr Hashizume said he agreed with Mr Richardson’s submissions. He said he was trying to take the gap between ZENVO and HASABRO and that runner shifted into his running line. He said the interference cost him the chance to win the race.

Mr Innes said there was inward movement from both horses and they followed the winner inwards. Mr Innes said that he straightened up HASABRO 5 strides before the finish line. He added that Mr Hashizume never stopped riding his mount.

Mr Bosma said that INCANTESIMO came from behind HASABRO and at no stage did INCANTESIMO head HASABRO. He said that Mr Hashizume chose to put his whip away prior to the finish line and he never stopped riding his mount out. He said that there was inward movement from HASABRO but INCANTESIMO over reacted and it was dubious as to whether the horses touched.

Mr Oatham on behalf of the Stewards said that Mr Hashizume did ride his mount out to the finish but there was a slight touch before the finish line. He said that HASABRO shifted in and dictated INCANTESIMO off its rightful running line. He said given the narrow margin and the fact that INCANTESIMO got its nose in front just short of the finish line it doesn’t take much interference to effect the placings. He concluded by submitting the Committee had to decide whether the level of interference warranted a change of placings.

Reasons For Decision:

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

The Committee found that at the 100 metres there was a clear run available for INCANTESIMO who was racing approximately ¾ of a length in arrears of HASABRO. At that point INCANTESIMO was making up good ground on HASABRO when that runner commenced to shift inwards when insufficiently clear to do so. As a result INCANTESIMO was dictated inwards by HASABRO over several horse widths and as a consequence lost its rightful running line over the concluding stages of the race. We observed that there was slight contact between HASABRO and INCANTESIMO close to the finish. Having taken those matters into account the Committee found that HASABRO did interfere with the chances of INCANTESIMO.

Having considered the degree of interference, the manner in which both horses finished the race off and in particular the nose margin at the finish the Committee is of the opinion that INCANTESIMO would have finished in advance of HASABRO had such interference not occurred.


The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st No. 7 ZENZO
3rd No. 5 HASABRO

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

Document Actions