Canterbury Racing – 21 June 2008 – Race 10

hearingid: 20fce5319e7afb1a38ccedeec468ea93

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 21/06/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury Racing - 21 June 2008 - Race 10

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

DECISION AND REASONS:

Following the running of Race 10, Guy Dampier-Crossley / Taggart Earthmoving Rating 80, (1400 metres) an information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Jockey, D M Walsh rider of OUR GENES, placed 2^nd by the judge, against BLASTOV (J L Morris), placed 1^st by the judge, alleging that BLASTOV interfered with the chances of OUR GENES, the alleged interference occurring near the 1000 metres.

The official margin between 1^st and 2^nd was a half-head.

Mr Walsh represented the connections of OUR GENES at the protest hearing. Mr M C Stokes, co-trainer and part-owner of BLASTOV, was present at the hearing and represented the connections of that horse. Also present at the hearing were Mr M R Pitman, trainer of OUR GENES, Ms J L Morris and Mr K J Hughes, Licensed Trainer, assisting Ms Morris, an Apprentice Jockey.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Chairman, Mr K G Hales, declared an interest in the proceeding. Mr Hales stood down and left the inquiry room. The hearing then proceeded in his absence.

THE EVIDENCE:

Mr Walsh stated that his mount had jumped well from an outside barrier (10), and was caught 4-wide. Approaching the bend out of the back straight, the horse behind and on his inside, BLASTOV (J L Morris), appeared to be “pulling a bit”. Mr Walsh was attempting to hold his line and avoid covering any extra ground when BLASTOV was “pulled sideways” to avoid heels, made “severe contact” with his mount and pushed it two horse-widths wider than it had been. As a consequence of the interference, BLASTOV took the position that Mr Walsh had been in. For the remainder of the race, OUR GENES had to race on the outside of BLASTOV and was forced over “far more extra ground” than he should have been. His mount was beaten by BLASTOV by a half-head and, Mr Walsh believed, being forced over extra ground by BLASTOV had cost OUR GENES the win. 

Mr Walsh then showed the incident on a head-on video replay. He pointed out OUR GENES receive a “major bump” from BLASTOV and change stride. Mr Walsh agreed with Stipendiary Steward, Mr S C Ching, that there were actually two “points of contact”. Mr Walsh stated that the first contact knocked him “completely off the track”. Following being forced out, his mount was forced to race one horse wider round the entire bend (from approximately the 1000 metres to the 400 metres). He believed that he may have been forced to race an extra six lengths. Mr Walsh stressed that he had been beaten by a half-head in a “ding-dong finish”.

Mr M R Pitman submitted that there had been interference on one, if not two, occasions. Mr Pitman used the video replay to demonstrate that, not only was OUR GENES forced over extra ground, but also it was forced to race behind a runner that it should have been in front of. He also stressed the half-head margin at the finish which, he submitted, is “nothing” when you have to give a horse a start and go around it.

Mr Walsh requested that a video replay of the concluding stages of the race be shown to the hearing.

Mr Stokes submitted that the horse that BLASTOV was following had “rolled out” forcing Ms Morris to take evasive action. Mr Stokes alleged that Mr Walsh had chosen to race out as wide as he did. He further submitted that the interference had no bearing on the result of the race. Mr Walsh’s mount had “travelled beautifully” in the ground wider out and he chose to race out there. Mr Stokes referred to the video replay. Mr Walsh was happy to race wider in the home straight also. Both horses had run on their merits and the better horse on the day won, Mr Stokes submitted.

Ms Morris stated that she had had to take action to avoid the heels of the runners in front and that OUR GENES was moving in at that point, which may have made the contact worse. Mr Hughes stated that, in his view, Ms Morris’ actions were dictated entirely by the two horses in front of her. Mr Ching stated that it appeared to the Stewards that Ms Morris had been forced to take evasive action to avoid heels. Mr Pitman stated that he did not dispute that but that OUR GENES had nevertheless received interference.

At this point of the hearing, Mr Walsh sought leave to be excused from the hearing as he had to be at the airport to catch a flight home.

Mr Ching was asked to comment on the protest. He stated that there had been two “points of contact” near the 1000 metres.  Furthermore, there was no doubt that OUR GENES had been forced out over extra ground – one to two horses wider than the path it was on at that time. The Committee also needed to have regard to the half-head margin at the finish and the distance from the finish that the interference took place, Mr Ching said.

DECISION OF COMMITTEE

The Committee had listened to the evidence of the parties and the comments of Mr Ching and had carefully viewed and considered the video evidence.

The protest Rule, Rule 876 (1), provides as follows:

If, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, any horse placed by the Judge or its rider has interfered with the chances of any other horse or horses placed by the Judge then subject to sub-rule 2 hereof, the Judicial Committee may place such first-mentioned horse or horses immediately after the horse or horses so interfered with.

The Committee was satisfied, firstly, that BLASTOV had interfered with OUR GENES when shifting ground outwards with approximately 1000 metres to race, jostling OUR GENES and making contact with it on two occasions. Mr Walsh alleged that the first of such contacts knocked him “completely off the track”. Mr Stokes did not dispute that contact had been made, though he described it as a “bump”.

As to whether the chances of OUR GENES were interfered with, the Committee was satisfied that, as a result of such interference, OUR GENES was forced to race over extra ground, 3-4 wide, for a distance of approximately 600 metres – round the bend between the 1000 metres and the straight entrance. Mr Ching stated that he believed that OUR GENES had been forced to race 1-2 horse widths wider. OUR GENES was forced to cover that extra ground as a result of BLASTOV shifting outwards, jostling OUR GENES and taking the line to which the latter was entitled. The Committee accepted the evidence of Mr Walsh that BLASTOV had finished up in the position that OUR GENES would otherwise have been in, with OUR GENES forced to race behind BLASTOV and wider on the track. In those circumstances, the Committee had no difficulty in finding that the chances of OUR GENES were interfered with.

Having found that interference took place and that the chances of OUR GENES were affected, the Committee had a discretion whether or not to relegate BLASTOV behind OUR GENES. In exercising that discretion, the Committee took into account the margin at the finish of a half-head and attached considerable weight to it. The Committee had also viewed a video replay of the concluding stages of the race in which OUR GENES, clearly, came from some distance behind BLASTOV and, at the finishing line, was still making ground on BLASTOV.

The Committee acknowledged that the interference took place some 1000 metres from the finish of the race. Of course, the protest Rule (referred to above) does not specify that the interference must take part at a particular point in the race, so the interference can take place at any point of the race. In most instances, interference occurring at the 1000 metres in a race, unless severe, would not affect the chances of a runner receiving interference as that runner would have the opportunity to fairly compete during the remaining 1000 metres of the race – in other words, it would still have its chance. However, in this instance, the Committee was of the view that the consequences of the interference were so significant, as outlined above. The ability of OUR GENES to compete fairly was significantly affected by the interference it received from BLASTOV. The half-head margin at the finish is therefore very significant.

Accordingly, the protest was upheld and BLASTOV, placed 1^st by the judge, was relegated to 2^nd placing. As a consequence of the relegation, the amended result for the race is as follows:

1^st    1 Our Genes

2^nd 10  Blastov

3^rd  12  Showusyahalo

4^th  11  Bandit

5^th    4  High Risk

6^th    5  Strike It Lucky

R G McKenzie

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE    

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 876.1

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: fb8bba11a611eb041102f3ca6cdff3da

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 10

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 4b12b8debc5d2274f979ac63fcfb7819

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 21/06/2008

meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 21 June 2008

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: canterbury-racing

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Canterbury Racing