Otaki-Maori RC – 18 August 2007 –

hearingid: 356ed7d0d574645094f6e2fa745585e3

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 18/08/2007

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Otaki-Maori RC - 18 August 2007 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 1 Mr. Stewart Ching (Stipendiary Steward) lodged an information instigating a protest pursuant to the Rules of Racing alleging that Fontera or its rider placed 3^rd by the Judge interfered with the chances of Van Winkle

Following the running of Race 1 Mr. Stewart Ching (Stipendiary Steward) lodged an information instigating a protest pursuant to the Rules of Racing alleging that Fontera or its rider placed 3^rd by the Judge interfered with the chances of Van Winkle placed 4^th by the Judge. The interference occurred over the final 200 metres.

The Judge's placings were:

1^st No.4 Dancing Prince

2^nd No 5 Captain Jingle

3rd No 1 Fontera

4^th No.2 Van Winkle

The margin between third and fourth was a long head.

Present during the hearing were Mr.Gilles (rider), Ms J. J.Rayner (trainer) and Mr Blackmore (owner) representing Van Winkle.

Fontera was represented by the rider Mr P.Boylan.

Mr. Goodwin began by showing the films of the incident. After jumping the last fence Mr Boyland, riding with vigour, moved inwards and made firm contact with Van Winkle on at least two occasions. Mr Gillies was restricted in his whip action at the time that contact was made and had to stop riding for a period of time.

Mr Gillies told the committee that he was definitely hampered by the other horse pushing him off stride and just before the winning post he was coming back to Fonterra, he maintained that it cost him 3^rd place.

Ms Rayner said it was very clear that the interference prevented Mr Gilles from using the whip and it was her opinion that it cost Van Winkle a full length.

Mr Boyland admitted that in the last 200 meters his horse had lugged inwards but told the committee that he had done his best to straighten him up.

Decision

Rule 876 (1) requires us to ask first whether interference occurred and then, if so, whether that interference has cost the horse interfered with a chance of finishing in a better position.

We are satisfied having viewed the films and listening to the evidence that interference has occurred. Fontera definitely hampered Van Winkle by laying in on him over the final stages of the race and it was clear that the contact between the two horses prevented Mr Gilles from fully riding his mount out.

Taking the margin of a long head into account and the stage of the race that the interference occurred it is the opinion of the committee that Van Winkle was cost the chance of finishing in a better position.

The protest was upheld and placings amended to:

No.4

No.5

No.2

No.1

N.Moffatt                                                                                            N. Harris

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: