Otago RC – 4 November 2008 –

hearingid: 011361cd98b344e97f071f1400c2fc70

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 04/11/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Otago RC - 4 November 2008 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Under Rule 876 (1) : Mr Johnson rider of CURTIS, lodged a protest against the 1^ST placing of OREGON BLAZE on the grounds of interference to CURTIS around 250 to 300 metres from the finish. The margin between 1^st and 2^nd was ¾ L.

Mr Johnson rider of CURTIS, lodged a protest against the 1^ST placing of OREGON BLAZE on the grounds of interference to CURTIS around 250 to 300 metres from the finish. The margin between 1^st and 2^nd was ¾ L.

The relevant rule is 876(1) which states:

“If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 876 to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse 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.

Mr Johnson demonstrated on the videos that OREGON BLAZE angled out and twice came into contact with CURTIS. On the first occasion the 2 horses merely brushed. On the second, he said, CURTIS received a severe bump and was shouldered off line. He said the horse did well considering the circumstances. Mr Richards, trainer of CURTIS stated that CURTIS had received a decent bump the second time and had been knocked off stride.  He said CURTIS was a maiden stayer and had taken time to pick himself up.

Mr Bothamley said that the first time he had come out this was as a consequence of Ms Williams moving out and dictating his line. He said his actions were competitive riding, and that Mr Johnson was endeavouring to hold him in. He said Mr Johnson had not stopped riding CURTIS and had had 200 metres to get past and could not. He said it had not cost the horse a win, in that CURTIS had not lost ¾ L in the incident.

Mr Ching, when asked to comment, said the second incident was clearly the worse. He said the Committee should have regard to severity of the contact and the ¾ L margin at the finish.

We accept that CURTIS suffered interference and that the source of this interference was an outwards movement by OREGON BLAZE on two occasions. The first movement was as a consequence of Ms Williams moving into Mr Bothamley’s line and the interference was minor. On the second occasion CURTIS received a significant bump, which pushed the horse off stride, but the horse quickly picked itself up. From that point on, however, the 2 horses had clear runs to the finish with OREGON BLAZE first running past CURTIS and then holding on to win by ¾ L. CURTIS did not make significant ground on OREGON BLAZE in the run home. In these circumstances we are not “of the opinion” that CURTIS would have beaten OREGON BLAZE had the interference not occurred. The protest is dismissed.

Geoff Hall                   Chairman

Neil Johnstone            Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 876.1

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: