Waikato RC 6 July 2019 - R 2 - (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Dooley

Following the running of race 2, Group 1 Turf Bar Cambridge 1600, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr A Scott, Co Trainer of BECAUSE, alleged that COLOGNE or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of BECAUSE 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. 11 COLOGNE
2nd No. 1 BECAUSE
3rd No. 12 GIRL OF STEEL
4th No. 14 RIPPEDEEDOODHA

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

At the commencement of the hearing Mr Scott requested the protest Rule to be read aloud. The procedure for the hearing was explained to all parties present.

Mr Scott submitted that at the 400 metres BECAUSE was 6 lengths in arrears of COLOGNE which was racing in the lead. He said that his primary concern was over the final 50 metres of the race when COLOGNE shifted outwards and impeded BECAUSE. He stated that Mr Yanagida had to put his stick away and that cost BECAUSE winning the race.

Mr Yanagida said that BECAUSE was shifted wider on the track by COLOGNE over the final stages of the race. He said that BECAUSE had an interrupted run to the finish line which he believed cost his mount from winning the race by 1 ½ to 2 lengths.

Mr Faber said that Mr Yanagida never stopped riding his mount out to the finish line. He accepted that COLOGNE had “run out a fraction” but he said that BECAUSE was never going to run past COLOGNE. He added that there was no contact between the 2 horses.

Ms Spratt said that over the last 50 metres of the race COLOGNE changed legs, straightened up and found the line strongly. She said there was no contact between COLOGNE and BECAUSE and noted that Mr Yanagida never stopped riding his mount out to the finish line.

Mr Oatham on behalf of the Stewards said that COLOGNE shifted outwards in the home straight and for the majority of the shift it was sufficiently clear. He said it was well inside the last 100 metres that BECAUSE got close to COLOGNE and any interference was minimal. He said that Mr Yanagida never had to stop riding BECAUSE and he put his whip away on his own accord. He concluded by saying that the Stewards were not satisfied that BECAUSE would have beaten COLOGNE therefore the protest was not supported.

The Committee considered all of submissions presented and reviewed the available video footage.

It was evident in the final straight that COLOGNE shifted out into the middle of the track when it was clear of the entire field. It was only inside the final 50 metres that BECAUSE was slightly inconvenienced by COLOGNE for a short distance. However, there was no contact between the 2 horses and Mr Yanagida never had to stop riding his mount forward. We deemed that the interference was minor and it did not have a bearing on the outcome of the race. In our opinion BECAUSE would not have beaten COLOGNE.

The protest was dismissed and the Judge's placing’s shall stand.

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