NZ Metro TC – 27 May 2005 – Race 6

Following the running of Race 6 an Information Instigating a Protest was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging a breach of Rule 869(8). The information reads as follows.

"This is a protest against horse number (2) placed 1^st by the judge on the grounds of interference to horse number (8) rounding the final bend."

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.

Present at the hearing were Mr T. S. Chmiel the driver of Superkev (2) and Mr R. H. Jenkins the driver of Shezfullarunning (8). Mr Escott advised that a call had been made to advise the connections of the protest, but no one had appeared at the time that this hearing commenced. Mr Chmiel agreed that he would represent the interests of the owners and trainers.

Mr Jenkins gave evidence that he was in the one out position entering the straight and holding his "ground at the time". Mr Jenkins also said that Mr Chmiel elected to come out and "just made contact" with his horses front leg. As a result his horse had broken and lost its chance.

In cross-examination Mr Jenkins was asked by Mr Chmiel if he would agree that his horse was not going to finish in the first five. Mr Jenkins's response was that his horse was holding its ground at the time of the interference. During the hearing Mr Jenkins confirmed that contact had been made with his horse, and that the horse outside him was not "lugging in".

Stipendiary Steward Mrs Williams gave evidence that she viewed this incident from the top of the straight and used the video coverage of the race to illustrate what happened. Mrs Williams confirmed the evidence of Mr Jenkins that contact had been made causing Mr Jenkins's horse to break and lose its chance.

Mr Chmiel gave evidence that he did come out as alleged, but that he did not believe that Mr Jenkins was going to "run in the money". Mr Chmiel also disputed that he had made contact with Mr Jenkins's horse's legs. During his evidence Mr Chmiel also gave evidence that he did come out and that his horse should not be "penalised" for his actions.

Mr Escott asked Mr Chmiel if he agreed that the video showed that he "came out" when he was not clear. Mr Chmiel said that he thought that he was clear but agree this was not so and that he "squeezed him up a fraction".

I adjourned to consider my decision.

The evidence clearly showed that Mr Chmiel made an outwards movement when not sufficiently clear of Mr Jenkins horse. As a result Mr Jenkins horse broke and lost its chance. There was no contribution to this incident from any other horse or driver. I also note that Mr Chmiel conceded during the hearing that he had "squeezed" Mr Jenkins for room.

During the hearing Mr Chmiel placed some emphasis on his belief that Mr Jenkins's horse was not going figure in the finish of the race. I agree that if it could be shown with certainty that a horse which had been interfered with would not have finished in a stake bearing place, then this would be a reason for not relegating a horse. In this case the interference took place with about 200 metres to run, and Mr Jenkins's horse was still in contention.

After reviewing the evidence I was satisfied that the protest should be upheld. On returning to the Enquiry Room I advised that a full written decision would be made later, and I delivered the following oral decision.

"Having heard the evidence and having seen the video of the incident I am satisfied that there was interference, and I am also satisfied that in accordance with Rule 869(8) the progress of Mr Jenkins's horse "Shezfullarunning" was interfered with and this protest is upheld."

Mr Escott asked that Superkev be relegated behind Shezfullarunng to 11^th and last place. The amended places are as follows.

1^st ? Meadow Foam (6)

2^nd ? Pocket Game (9)

3^rd ? Mr Whoudini (7)

4^th ? Clock Watcher (3)

5^th ? Carl Lewis (10)

6^th ? Lotta Soul (11)