You are here: Home / Race Days / Waikato RC - 4 August 2018 / Waikato RC 4 August 2018 - R 3 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Waikato RC 4 August 2018 - R 3 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Created on 06 August 2018

Rules:
642(1)
Committee:
ADooley (chair)
ASmith
Respondent(s):
Mr R Collett - Trainer of VON TRAPP
Informant:
Ms P Gerard - Co Trainer of TINY TERROR
Information Number:
A11051
Horse Name:
VON TRAPP
Persons present:
Mr D Moroney - observer TINY TERROR
Mr T Hazlett - observer TINY TERROR
Mr A Rodley - Trackside TV
Mr M Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward
Mr A Calder - Rider of VON TRAPP
Mr S Rusof - Rider of TINY TERROR
Evidence:

Following the running of Race 3, John Letts Guest Speaker 17th August 1100, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Ms P Gerard, Co -Trainer of TINY TERROR, alleged that VON TRAPP or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances TINY TERROR placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge's placing were as follows:

1st - No. 3 VON TRAPP
2nd - No. 6 TINY TERROR
3rd - No. 1 CYBER ATTACK
4th - No. 9 NULLI SECUNDUS

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

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:

Ms Gerard said that at the top of the final straight TINY TERROR was travelling as well as VON TRAPP. She said every time TINY TERROR got up alongside VON TRAPP that runner shifted out which put TINY TERROR off balance. She stated that VON TRAPP shifted out 3 to 4 horse widths in the final straight and the interference cost TINY TERROR 1 length. She added that TINY TERROR wasn’t able to get balanced up and have a decent crack at VON TRAPP due to that runner shifting out

Mr Rusof said that in the last 200 metres VON TRAPP shifted out to the middle of the track and this applied pressure to his mount TINY TERROR. He said at the 100 metres VON TRAPP made contact with TINY TERROR and his horse over reacted. He said the interference cost TINY TERROR a few lengths.

Mr Collett submitted that VON TRAPP wasn’t put under any pressure and his horse put a neck to half a length on TINY TERROR. He said TINY TERROR had its opportunity to get past VON TRAPP and Mr Rusof did not stop riding his mount. In conclusion he said that Mr Rusof would struggle to prove that contact occurred.

Mr Calder said that there was a neck to half a length between both horses entering the final straight. He stated that VON TRAPP and TINY TERROR were both green horses. He noted Mr Rusof submitted that TINY TERROR may have over reacted to the outward shift of VON TRAPP. He said in the last 100 metres VON TRAPP shifted away from the inside rail and he had his mount head turned inwards. He said that Mr Rusof never stopped riding TINY TERROR and in the last 100 metres both horses contributed to the incident. He added that the margin at the top of the straight was still the same margin at the finish.

Mr Williamson on behalf of the Stewards submitted that the shift outwards by VON TRAPP prior to the 200 metres was negligible. He said from the 150 metres to the 50 metres VON TRAPP shifted out a conservative 5 horse widths. He said the main concern was VON TRAPP inconvenienced TINY TERROR and forced that runner wider on the track. He paused the video film at the 50 metres and said that VON TRAPP held a long neck to half a length advantage over TINY TERROR. In conclusion he said that TINY TERROR got to within a head of VON TRAPP at the finish when it was afforded a straight run the winning post.

Reasons For Decision:

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

It was clear at the 200 metres that VON TRAPP had shifted out 2 horse widths when TINY TERROR was racing on its outside and about half a length in arrears. From the 200 metres to the final 50 metres Mr Calder, the rider of VON TRAPP, continued to ride his mount forward with the whip and his mount shifted out a further 5 horse widths. At no stage was VON TRAPP the required distance clear when shifting out and Mr Calder failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference to TINY TERROR. As a result TINY TERROR had its rightful running line dictated for a total distance of 150 metres. The back on film was compelling and it showed that VON TRAPP had shifted out approximately 7 horse widths in the final straight. In doing so VON TRAPP caused interference to TINY TERROR when it forced that runner over extra ground. It was evident at the 50 metre mark that TINY TERROR was half a length behind VON TRAPP. In conclusion it was noticeable that when TINY TERROR was able to race free from any interference over the final 50 metres it was able to reduce the margin from half a length to a head at the finish line.

After considering the degree of interference and the narrow margin at the finish the Committee was of the opinion that TINY TERROR would have finished ahead of VON TRAPP had such interference not occurred.

Decision:

Accordingly, the protest was upheld and VON TRAPP was relegated from 1st to 2nd place.

The amended placings were:

1st - No. 6 TINY TERROR
2nd - No. 3 VON TRAPP
3rd - No. 1 CYBER ATTACK
4th - No. 9 NULLI SECUNDUS

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

Document Actions