Canterbury JC – 15 November 2006 –

hearingid: 6cda11e83d80f4a3caab7fca50527d43

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 15/11/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 15 November 2006 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 2, the Bone Marrow Cancer Trust Maiden, Stipendiary Steward Mr S. C. Ching laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).

Following the running of Race 2, the Bone Marrow Cancer Trust Maiden, Stipendiary Steward Mr S. C. Ching laid an information instigating a protest under Rule 876(1).

The information reads as follows.

Rule 876(1) reads as follows.

Sub-rule 2 did not apply in this case.

Present at the hearing were ?

On behalf of the protesting horse ("Daisy Duke"), Jockey Mr C. W. Johnson and Trainer Wayne Moorehead. On behalf of the 1^st placed horse ("Matto Antonio"), Jockey O. P. Bosson and Ms L. Latta who was representing theTrainer, Mr C. Walding. On behalf of the 2^nd placed horse ("Muir Hill"), Jockey Miss K. Williams and Co-Trainer Mrs K. Parsons. All trainers were asked if their owners were present, but they were not, and all agreed to represent the interests of the owners during the enquiry.

Stipendiary Steward Mr J. Oatham, showed video coverage of the alleged incident taken from various angles. In the final stages of the race "Muir Hill" (1) was racing on the inside of "Matto Antonio" (6) with "Daisy Duke" (14) making a run between these two horses. In the closing stages of the race "Matto Antonio" and "Muir Hill" were racing on equal terms when they moved towards each other at the same time. As a result the gap that was there disappeared and "Daisy Duke" was checked and had to change ground to the outside of "Matto Antonio". The margins at the finish of the race were ? length between 1^st and 2^nd, and a nose between 2^nd and 3^rd.

Mr Johnson gave evidence that his horse was affected by the interference and that he would definitely have finished in second place. Mr Johnson was unsure if he would have beaten the winner.

Jockeys Williams and Bosson, and the three trainers were given an opportunity to comment on the alleged interference. There was no dispute from any of these persons that interference did occur. The main gist of all their evidence was which horse ("Muir Hill" or "Matto Antonio") had moved first and which horse had moved the most.

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision. On resuming the hearing we found that none of the parties were available. We advised that our decision was that "Muir Hill" (14) was relegated to 3^rd place and that the protest against "Matto Antonio" (6) was dismissed. We also advised that our full reasons for these decisions would be put in writing and given at a later date.

The full reasons for our decision are as follows.

Having seen the video coverage of the incident and having heard the evidence from the parties involved we were satisfied that "Matto Antonio" moved inwards slightly, and "Muir Hill" moved outwards slightly at the same time. We do not find any evidence that either horse made the first movement. We also find that there was interference to "Daisy Duke" as a result of the movement of these two horses, and that the chances of "Daisy Duke" were affected by this interference.

Before exercising our discretion to relegate a horse because of interference we must be satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished in a better placing but for that interference.

In relation to the interference by "Muir Hill" to "Daisy Duke" we find that the interference was significant in that "Daisy Duke" lost some ground, but recovered to finish in 3^rd place a nose from "Muir Hill". We are satisfied that but for the interference "Daisy Duke" would have finished in a better placing, and accordingly "Muir Hill" was relegated from 2^nd to 3^rd place, with "Daisy Duke" being promoted to 2^nd place.

In relation to the interference by "Matto Antonio" to "Daisy Duke" we find that there was also significant interference which caused "Daisy Duke" to lose ground. In this case the margin between 1^st and 3^rd was a nose and ? length. When giving his evidence about the effect of the interference Mr Johnson said that he was not able to say that he would have finished in front of the winner "Matto Antonio". We take into account that "Daisy Duke" has now been promoted to 2^nd place and that we must be satisfied that it would have finished in a better place than 2^nd.

Our observations of this incident were that, but for the interference, "Daisy Duke" would not have made up the ? length necessary to finish in front of "Matto Antonio" and this protest is dismissed.

The amended places are as follows.

1^st - (6) Matto Antonio

2^nd - (14) Daisy Duke

3^rd - (1) Muir Hill

4^th - (18) Paerangi

5^th - (4) Spectalot

6^th - (12) Strike It Lucky

____________

J. M. Phelan

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: