Canterbury JC – 14 April 2007 – Race 2

hearingid: 824cf72da87bab0780746989ff6f4442

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 14/04/2007

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 14 April 2007 - Race 2

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Hearing of information number 31989 filed under Rule 876(1) of the Rules of Racing by Mr D Champion, trainer of "Crostini" against L Didham the trainer of "Waitui Dancer", alleging interference over the concluding stages.

Hearing of information number 31989 filed under Rule 876(1) of the Rules of Racing by Mr D Champion, trainer of "Crostini" against L Didham the trainer of "Waitui Dancer", alleging interference over the concluding stages.

We have given careful consideration to the protest and the complaint made by Mr Champion. We looked at the film again and, of course, we have taken in to account the views on the matter that have been expressed by Mr Ching.

Whilst there was contact, obviously, between the two horses, we believed that that contact was, as Mr Ching described, retaliatory as a result of inward movement and outward movement. Clearly, Mr Robinson did have a gap to take and he was quite entitled to endeavour to improve in to that gap. Thus, whilst there may have been contact, it does not, in our opinion, constitute interference of such a degree whereby the chances of "Crostini" were affected by "Waitui Dancer".

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed.

Following the riccartonpark.co.nz Maiden, race 2 at the Canterbury Jockey Club's meeting at Riccarton on Saturday, April 14, a protest was lodged by Mr D Champion, the trainer of "Crostini" ridden by Mr T Sasada and placed 5^th, against "Waitui Dancer", trained by Mr L Didham, ridden Mr L Robinson and placed 4^th. The basis for the protest was alleged interference in the concluding stages of the race.

Mr Champion indicated on the video section of the race down the straight where he believed the interference had taken place. He told us that he had given instructions to the jockey, Mr Sasada, to ride the horse with the whip in his left hand. The video showed that the horses concerned had indeed come together on more than one occasion and that Mr Sasada had had to stop using the whip at that stage, and was unable to ride "Crostini" to full advantage for a number of strides. As the margin between 4^th and 5^th was only a half-head Mr Champion maintained that there was sufficient interference to change the placings.

Mr Didham stated he felt that there was a legitimate gap for Mr Robinson to go into and that the crowding that ensued was the result of movement both inside and outside "Waitui Dancer" and that "Crostini" was part of that movement.

Mr Robinson concurred with Mr Didham and stated that he was entitled to take the gap that presented itself but thereafter he was crowded by the eventual winner "Under Parr" and by Mr Sasada's mount, "Crostini". "Waitui Dancer" and "Crostini" did bump together more than once but this was definitely not solely the fault of "Waitui Dancer". Moreover, there was clear space in the last 50 metres, and both horses were able to be ridden out fully to the finishing post.

Mr Ching was invited to present the Steward's interpretation of the alleged interference. He directed our attention to the gap that was there for "Waitui Dancer" to take as it was entitled to. When Mr Robinson was manoeuvring his horse into that space it was partially closed by the other two horses. When Crostini and Waitui Dancer came together as a result it was a case of both horses laying on to each other.

Having carefully considered the evidence we concluded that the gap was indeed present for Mr Robinson on Waitui Dancer but it was closed off by both the inside and outside horses as one moved inwards and the other moved out. Contact was certainly made between Crostini and Waitui Dancer and Mr Sasada did have to stop riding for a period but this was in part at least because of the movement of his horse. The contact that resulted could not be attributed only to Waitui Dancer. When the bumping took place it was obviously a retaliatory reaction from both horses.

We concluded that although contact had been made between the two horses, it did not, in our opinion, constitute interference. Because of that finding, there was no need for us to go on further enquiry in terms of considering the remaining elements of Rule 876(1).

The protest is dismissed.

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: