NZ Metro TC – 2 September 2005 – Race 5

Following the running of Race 5 an Information Instigating a Protest was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. McIntyre alleging a breach of Rule 869(8). The information reads as follows.

"This is a protest against horse number (11) placed 2^nd by the judge on the grounds of interference to Millwood Ashley (No. 3) placed 10^th over the final stages."

Rule 869(8) reads as follows.

"The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:

------

--
1. may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
--
2. may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses, -

immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.

Present at the hearing were Mr D. Moore the driver of Barbara Wren (11), and Mr M. P. Jones the driver of Millwood Ashley (3). Mr Moore was the trainer and driver of Barbara Wren, and a call had been made advising the owners but none attended the hearing. Mr Moore indicated that he would represent the owners.

Mr Jones gave evidence that on entering the straight for the final time he was on the outside of Barbara Wren and three wide. As he progressed he was pushed wider on the track by Mr Moore until eventually he ran out of room and had to restrain and stop driving his horse. Mr Jones also advised that his chances had been affected.

In cross-examination Mr Jones was asked by Mr Moore if he was going to finish in a stake bearing place. Mr Jones repeated that his chances had been affected and that it was impossible to tell where he might have finished but for the interference.

Video coverage of this incident was used to show that Mr Moore was outside the leader when entering the straight. From that point on Mr Moore moved outwards and at the time of the interference was about 5 ? 6 horse widths wide on the track. It was also seen that this movement eventually resulted in Mr Jones running out of room.

Mr Moore gave evidence and he agreed that he did move outwards as alleged. He explained that his horse had a tendency to run out and that it was difficult to keep straight. Mr Moore also argued that Mr Jones's horse was not going that well at the time of this incident, and that he believed that it was not going to take part in the finish.

In answer to questions from Mr McIntyre Mr Moore agreed that the Rules required him to keep a straight line after entering the straight for the final time. Mr Moore also agreed that he had not been able to keep his horse straight and that the progress of Mr Jones's horse had been affected.

We adjourned to consider our decision.

The evidence clearly showed that Mr Moore allowed his horse to move wider on the track after entering the straight for the final time. Mr Moore seemed to make no effort to keep his horse straight and eventually caused Mr Jones's to check his horse and stop driving it. As a result Mr Jones horse lost its chance of finishing in a stake bearing place.

After reviewing the evidence we were satisfied that the protest should be upheld. On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that a full written decision would be made later, and I delivered the following oral decision.

"Having heard the evidence and having seen the video coverage we are satisfied in accordance with Rule 869(8) that Barbara Wren may have gained an advantage by causing interference to Millwood Ashley. The protest is upheld and Barbara Wren is relegated to 10^th place."

The amended places are as follows.

1^st ? Flamingo Rose (1)

2^nd ? Ziggy Stardust (4)

3^rd ? Tullirak (7)

4^th ? Lifford (13)

5^th ? Hunters Cloud (10)

6^th ? Maria Kathleen (6)

Chairman