You are here: Home / Race Days / Stratford TC - 2 March 2019 / Stratford TC 2 March 2019 - R 3 - Chair, Mr P Williams

Stratford TC 2 March 2019 - R 3 - Chair, Mr P Williams

Created on 05 March 2019

PWilliams (chair)
Mr K Marshall - Open Horseman
Mr S Mulcay - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Information Number
Causing Interference

Following the running of Race 7, the “Aitken Transport/M Dodunski Concrete Mobile Pace” Information A10592 was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Mulcay against Open Horseman Mr K Marshall alleging, “that he drove “Notorious” in a manner that caused interference to “Lady Ameera” near the 250m with resultant interference to trailing runners”.

Mr Marshall signed the Information stating he admitted the breach and confirmed at the beginning of the hearing that was correct and also that he understood the Rule under which he had been charged.

Rule 869 (4) states:- “No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress”.

The hearing followed a Protest hearing where “Notorious” driven by Mr Marshall was relegated from 2nd to 4th for causing interference in the home straight to “Shot in the Dark”.

Whilst the Committee had viewed the films of the incident that led to the earlier Protest hearing, they were shown again to the Committee and to Mr Marshall who had elected not to attend the Protest hearing.

Using the head-on and side-on films of the home straight Mr Mulcay identified Mr Marshall driving “Notorious” leading the race closest to the marker line. He said with approximately 250m to run Mr Marshall activated the blinds on “Notorious” and the horse shifted out some two horse widths into the line of “Lady Ameera” driven by J Abernethy which was checked and broke. In a concertina effect Mr Abernethy was forced out into the line of “Beaudiene Emerald” driven by Mr D Butcher which was in turn forced out onto “My Boy Boo” driven by Mr Poutama which then broke and shifted out into the line of “Shot in the Dark” whose driver, Mr Orange had to take corrective action to ensure he got around “My Boy Boo”. Mr Mulcay said Mr Marshall was responsible for maintaining a straight line in the run to the finish and had failed to exercise the required control over his horse when he activated the removeable gear which led to the check to Mr Abernethy with the consequential impact on the trailing runners.

Mr Marshall said the final bend into the home straight was “sharp” but he initially maintained a straight line as he commenced the run home. He said it was the first time his horse had raced in blinds and as he activated the removeable head gear a horse came up on his inside which caused his horse to shy away and inwards with a resultant check to Mr Abernethy. He said he tried to straighten immediately.


As Mr Marshall admitted the breach the charge is proved.

Submission For Penalty:

Mr Mulcay said Mr Marshall had a clear record under this Rule. He asked the Committee to note that Mr Marshall had admitted the breach but in aggravation several horses had been impacted by his action and he had been relegated from 2nd to 4th following the protest hearing. He submitted a fine of not less than $300 was an appropriate penalty.

Mr Marshall asked the Committee to note his admittance of the breach and his clear record under this Rule. He also confirmed he preferred a fine to a suspension and reiterated that his horse had shied away from the horse on it’s inside and that he had done all he could to avoid the interference to Mr Abernethy.

Reasons For Penalty:

The Committee has reviewed the head and side on views of the Race from the top of the straight. The head on film clearly shows as the horses were approximately 250m from the finish “Notorious” shifted out quite sharply whilst being struck by the whip into the line of “Lady Ameera” which led to two other runners being hampered with “My Boy Boo” also breaking and causing “Shot in the Dark” to take corrective action to get passed that horse.

The starting point penalty is a fine of $300 or a 6-drive suspension. In considering an appropriate penalty we have taken into account Mr Marshall’s admittance of the breach, his clear record and preference for a fine over a suspension. We have also taken into account the significant aggravating factor of his earlier relegation from 2nd to 4th and the consequential impact on the connections of the horse he drove as well as the betting public who backed Mr Marshall in the race.


Mr Marshall is fined $350.

Document Actions