Decision:
We are satisfied, in terms of the Rule, that had the interference not occurred, that “We Can Say It Now” would have finished ahead of “Magic Briar” and therefore, the protest by “We Can Say It Now” against “Magic Briar” is upheld.
Thus, we uphold the protest by “We Can Say It Now” against “Magic Briar”. “Magic Briar” is accordingly relegated behind “We Can Say It Now”.
With regard to the protest of “We Can Say It Now” against the third place getter, “Twilight Savings”, because of the findings that we have made above, we are not satisfied that it was “Twilight Savings” that caused the interference to “We Can Say It Now”. Therefore, because of that finding, the protest of 5th against 3rd is dismissed.
The remaining protest of 3rd against 2nd is no longer relevant, as “Magic Briar” has been relegated behind “Twilight Savings” and therefore, that protest is dismissed.
The amended placings are, therefore:
1st “King’s Rose” (9)
2nd “Twilight Savings” (2)
3rd “Smoulder” (12)
4th “We Can Say It Now” (5)
5th “Magic Briar” (10)
Facts:
As a result of an incident near the 150 metre mark in Race 6, the New Zealand Bloodstock 1,000 Guineas, three informations instigating protests were lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) which reads as follows:
“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 order of the Judges’ placings was as follows:
1st “King’s Rose” (9) (O Bosson)
2nd “Magic Briar” (10) (H Tinsley)
3rd “Twilight Savings” (2) (L Innes)
4th “Smoulder” (12) (C Ormsby)
5th “We Can Say It Now” (5) (M du Plessis)
Thus, the above horses are deemed to be “placed horses” in terms of Rule 641(3) and therefore, for the purposes of Rule 642(1) have the appropriate status to lodge a protest, as all five placings were stake-bearing.
Rule 641(3) reads as follows:
“Immediately after the Race or as soon as possible when use is made of the photograph of the finish the Judge must place and name all horses finishing in a stake bearing place and the placing immediately following the stake-bearing placings, or such further number as a Stipendiary Steward may require, and record the distances between such places horses.”
The margins between the place getters were as follows:
Three quarters of a length between 1st and 2nd
Three quarters of a length between 2nd and 3rd
One length between 3rd and 4th and a head between 4th and 5th
Details of the informations lodged are as follows:
Information No: 290
Informant: M du Plessis (Licensed Jockey).
Defendant K & B Kelso (Licensed Trainers)
Alleged “Magic Briar” or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge caused interference to “We Can Say It Now” placed 5th by the Judge, near the 150 metre mark.
Information No: 292
Informant: M du Plessis (Licensed Jockey)
Defendant: B & B Baker (Licensed Trainers)
Alleged: “Twilight Savings” or its rider placed 3rd by the Judge caused interference to “We Can Say It Now” placed 5th by the Judge, near the 150 metre mark.
Information No: 291
Informant: L Innes (Licensed Jockey)
Defendant: K & B Kelso (Licensed Trainers)
Alleged: “Magic Briar” or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge caused interference to “Twilight Savings” placed 3rd by the Judge near the 150 metre mark.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr du Plessis took the Committee through the video coverage of the incident from the head-on camera and from the side-on camera. Viewed from the head on camera, the horses in question viewed from left to right were as follows: “Magic Briar”, “Twilight Savings”, “Miss Maximuss” and “We Can Say It Now”. He pointed out to us how “Magic Briar” began a gradual movement towards the fence. At one stage, there was room for four horses in the run to the line, but “Magic Briar” commenced an inward movement. The result of this inward movement was that “Magic Briar” took the racing line of “Twilight Savings”, and as a consequence significant crowding was caused to “We Can Say It Now” which was checked back out of its rightful running position. Also interfered with as a result of this inward movement, was “Miss Maximuss” ridden by Michael Coleman. The video coverage showed that Mr du Plessis lost at least two lengths as a result of the incident. Mr Du Plessis was riding the race favourite, and he was firmly of the opinion that when he commenced his run to the finishing post on the rails, that he believed that he was a certain winner of the race. After the interference, it was necessary for Mr du Plessis to re-balance his mount, which then regained momentum.
Mr Innes, the rider of “Twilight Savings” was invited to comment. He stated that the inwards movement was caused by Mr Tinsley on “Magic Briar” and with the consequence being that he too lost ground as a result of the crowding. Interference was suffered by him as well as “We Can Say It Now”.
Mr Tinsley, the rider of “Magic Briar”, was invited to comment. He maintained that he did not push in on other horses to the extent that was alleged, and used the mowing strips on the track to demonstrate the position that he was in at all material times.
We invited Mr Cameron George, Chief Stipendiary Steward, to comment on the incident. Mr George submitted that the inward movement from “Magic Briar” was the determinative factor in considering these protests. He said that Mr Tinsley, on “Magic Briar”, caused the interference and having regard to the margins that were involved, and the level of interference, that “We Can Say It Now” did incur significant interference and by pointing to the side-on camera, Mr George stated that the impact of that inference was to cost “We Can Say It Now” at least two lengths and possibly two and a half lengths before Mr du Plessis could regain momentum on his mount.
Mr Kelso, trainer of “Magic Briar”, maintained that “Magic Briar” did not deviate from his line at all, and that it was the hind quarters of Leith Innes’ mount that caused the interference. He submitted to the hearing that the protest was frivolous.
Reasons for Decision:
After giving careful consideration to all of the evidence, we were satisfied as follows:
a) Mr Tinsley was racing in a four wide position with a consequence that there was room for three horses on his inside. However, as a result of his inward movement he reduced the running room to two horse widths with the end result being that significant interference was caused to “We Can Say It Now”;
b) We now have to be satisfied in terms of Rule 642(1) that the placed horse “Magic Briar” caused interference within the meaning of this Rule, to another placed horse namely “We Can Say It Now” and to be of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such an interference not occurred;
c) Our finding is that just prior to the interference occurring, that “We Can Say It Now” had racing room and was on a forward movement. However, as a result of the interference that it suffered, it lost that momentum. “Magic Briar” was responsible for the interference;
d) The approximate margin between “We Can Say It Now” and “Magic Briar” was one and three quarter lengths. We find as a fact that “We Can Say It Now” lost a minimum of two lengths and possibly more, as a result of the interference;
e) When the interference took place, “We Can Say It Now” was finishing strongly, and after Mr du Plessis re-balanced his mount, “We Can Say It Now” finished on strongly and was making ground on “Magic Briar;
