Hawkes Bay RI – 7 October 2006 –

hearingid: 08299fa88c715f3ca3a8039e23cf76eb

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 07/10/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Hawkes Bay RI - 7 October 2006 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following Race 2 an information was filed pursuant to Rule 876(1), when it was alleged by the Informant, Mr C Johnson, rider of DANCING SONG, placed third by the judge, that STARK BREEZE, placed second by the judge interfered with his chances in the final straight.

Following Race 2 an information was filed pursuant to Rule 876(1), when it was alleged by the Informant, Mr C Johnson, rider of DANCING SONG, placed third by the judge, that STARK BREEZE, placed second by the judge interfered with his chances in the final straight. The distance between second and third was a long neck.

Before commencing the protest Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr C George confirmed all connections had been informed of the protest.

Present were ? Mr G Alexander, representing trainer K Alexander, trainer of STARK BREEZE, rider Mr C Lammas, and owner Mr Conik.

DANCING SONG?S connections were represented by trainer, Mr S Autridge, and rider Mr C Johnson.

Mr Johnson demonstrated the video film and showed the inward movement from STARK BREEZE, which he said, hampered him enough to cause him to lose some ground. He believed he did have a run available to him and he could not take advantage of it because the gap closed.

Mr Autridge, trainer of DANCING SONG said the side-on film showed she had lost three-quarters of a length and she made this up in the closing stages.

Mr G Alexander, trainer of STARK BREEZE said there was inward movement from the winner and there was no contact between his horse and DANCING SONG.

Mr C Lammas, rider of STARK BREEZE, said that he did get a bump from the winner which caused him to move in slightly. He also said Mr Johnson did not stop riding.

Mr C George said that approaching the 200-metre mark a run was presented to DANCING SONG, however, she was crowded by STARK BREEZE with contributory interference from the winner. However, he believed there was sufficient interference to uphold the protest.

Decision:

The Committee carefully considered all evidence and viewed the video films again. Firstly they had to decide whether there was interference or not. The Committee was satisfied that interference did occur when DANCING SONG was inconvenienced by STARK BREEZE moving inwards.

The Committee believed that the chances of DANCING SONG finishing in a better place were slightly affected by the inward movement of STARK BREEZE.

In applying their discretion the Committee was of the opinion that the interference suffered by DANCING SONG was of a minor nature which was contributed to by the inward movement of the winner on to STARK BREEZE.

Because of these reasons the Committee dismissed the protest and the Judge's placings shall stand.

RM Seabrook                          NM Moffatt

Chairman

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: