NZ Metro TC – 15 April 2005 – Race 9

Following the running of Race 9 an Information instigating a Protest was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging a breach of Rule 869(8) and the "Track Marker" Regulations. The information reads as follows.

"This is a protest against horse number (6) placed second by the judge on the grounds of Rules 869(8) and Regulation Track Markers No 6. Baileys Dream struck and went inside a number of pylons."

Rule 869(8) reads as follows.

"The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:

------

--
1. may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
--
2. may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses, -

immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.

Clause 6 of the "Track Markers" Regulations reads as follows.

It should also be mentioned that Rule 868(7A)(a) and (b) provides that

every horseman who moves inwards shall ensure that contact is not made with a track marker and that any part of the sulky does not protrude inside the marker line.

Mr Mitchell attended this hearing along with the horse's trainer, Mr S. J. Reid. Mr Reid also represented the interests of the owners of Baileys Dream.

Mr Escott gave evidence and used video coverage to show that Baileys Dream was leading the field just prior to entering the home straight for the final time. Just prior to entering the straight proper Baileys Dream brushed one pylon and then ran slightly inside the next two. Baileys Dream did not strike the marker pylon indicating the start of the passing lane, and the horse ran in a straight line from that point to the finish of the race.

Mr Mitchell gave evidence and he did not dispute that the pylons had been struck as alleged. In explanation Mr Mitchell said that Baileys Dream "got in a little bit on the bend" and that he runs in on the bends and out in the straights. Mr Mitchell also contended that his horse only "minutely" got inside the pylons and that the horse did not gain an advantage by doing so. Mr Mitchell also pointed out that that the margin between Baileys dream and the 3^rd horse was 1? lengths, and that this should be taken into account when considering this matter.

Mr Reid was also given an opportunity to give his views and he was content to support the evidence of Mr Mitchell that Baileys Dream had not gained an advantage.

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision. Rule 869(8)(a) gives us a discretion to relegate a horse where it may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any of the provisions of Rule 868. There was no interference. The conduct complained of was racing inside the marker pylons.

After considering the evidence we were satisfied that the sulky wheel of Baileys Dream did pass slightly inside two marker pylons. At that time Baileys Dream was leading and it caused no inconvenience to any other horse. We were also satisfied that Baileys Dream has a tendency to run in on the bends. We were not satisfied that Baileys Dream gained any advantage by these actions, and take particular note that there was an official margin of 1? lengths between Baileys Dream and the 3^rd horse.

On returning to the Enquiry Room we gave the following oral decision.

"We find that Baileys Dream did strike three markers and ran marginally inside two of them - the second and third ones. In accordance with Rule 869(8)

we have a discretion whether to relegate or not, and in this case we are going to exercise our discretion not to relegate because we do not believe that the horse gained an advantage."

The protest was accordingly dismissed.