Canterbury Racing – 29 January 2005 –

Following the running of Race 11, Racecourse Hotel Motor Lodge Progressive, an information instigating a protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr J W Hunter, alleging that JUST A DREAM (A C Peard), trained by Mr Ridley, or its rider, placed 2^nd by the judge, interfered with the chances of QUIET PLEASE (J S Bullard), placed 3^rd by the judge, the interference occurring in the final 100 metres.

At the outset of the hearing, the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Hales, declared a personal connection with some of the members of the 40 Love Syndicate, owner of the 3^rd horse, QUIET PLEASE, and declared that, in view of that, he would stand down from the Committee for the hearing of the protest. Accordingly, Mr Hales left the room and the hearing proceeded in his absence.

Mr Hunter showed head-on and side-on video replay of the concluding stages of the Race. He showed Mr Bullard looking for room and "come part way into a gap" and, he alleged Mr Peard came in and "closed off his chances" and prevented Mr Bullard from being able to take the gap he had started to enter. Mr Hunter alleged that Mr Bullard was crowded out of his position and was thereby denied the opportunity to finish in a higher position. Mr Hunter informed the Committee that the official margins were a nose between 1^st and 2^nd and 1.5 lengths between 2^nd and 3^rd. The interference took place in the final 100 metres of the Race at a critical stage when QUIET PLEASE was mounting a "gallant challenge" and it was denied the opportunity of coming through the gap by JUST A DREAM which had shifted in under a hard ride.

Mr Bullard said that, approximately 100 metres out, he was starting to make his challenge and, in the last 50 metres, he was denied a gap. He said that if he had got the gap, he would possibly have won the race. He stated that JUST A DREAM had rolled in just enough to cause "a wee bit of a hindrance". He had not been able to ride his horse to the line.

Mr Ridley called Mr Peard to give evidence. Mr Peard acknowledged that his mount had rolled in but, he alleged, the gap had already half closed by the time Mr Bullard got to it and, in any event, he suggested that the race was over and Mr Bullard's mount was not going to "pick up". He stressed the margin of 1.5 lengths between 2^nd and 3^rd at the line. The gap did not really shut until the last 50 metres, Mr Peard said. Mr Peard showed on the video that his mount had got off balance and had "dipped" and gone in. If Mr Bullard's mount had been good enough it could still have gone through the gap and won.

Mr Hunter submitted, with regard to the margin, that the video showed that Mr Bullard had not been able to ride his mount out to full advantage because of having to restrain his mount off the heels of Mr Peard's mount. This had caused the margin to widen and, had Mr Bullard been able to ride his mount out, the margin would have been a lot closer.

The Committee considered the evidence of both parties and carefully viewed the video replays. The first task facing the Committee was to determine whether or not any interference had taken place. In this regard, the Committee found that Mr Bullard had been looking for racing room for his mount, QUIET PLEASE, inside the final 100 metres of the race. The head-on video clearly showed Mr Bullard attempting to take a gap between the eventual winner, CUSACK, on his inside and JUST A DREAM on his outside. At that point, any gap was marginal only and, in the Committee's view, a full gap was not available to Mr Bullard. However, it is clear that any gap that was available subsequently closed as a result of which Mr Bullard had to ease his mount and he was unable to ride it out fully to the line. Therefore, the Committee found that interference had taken place.

Having found that interference did take place, the Committee had to determine whether that interference had affected the chances of QUIET PLEASE. In determining this matter, the Committee had regard, in particular, to the official margin at the line and the point at which the interference took place. Mr Bullard stated that he was denied a gap in the last 50 metres. He stated that he was within a half length of JUST A DREAM at that point and Mr Hunter had submitted that it was between a half and three-quarters of a length. Mr Peard had claimed that it was more like a length and the Committee preferred the evidence of Mr Peard in this regard. Although QUIET PLEASE was clearly finishing on, the Committee was not satisfied, to the required degree, that it would have finished in a higher placing but for the interference received 50 metres from the line. In this regard, the margin of 1.5 lengths between 2^nd and 3^rd and the distance from the finishing line at which the interference took place were compelling factors even allowing for Mr Hunter's submission that the margin would have been smaller but for the interference received, which the Committee accepts.

Accordingly, the Committee was not satisfied that chances of QUIET PLEASE finishing in a higher placing were affected as a consequence of the interference. Having so found, the Committee dismissed the protest and the judge's placings for the Race stand.