Auckland RC – 13 December 2009 –

hearingid: 896dca9fb43eafe6f82937c2e49a8752

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 13/12/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Auckland RC - 13 December 2009 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

AUCKLAND RACING CLUB

13 DECEMBER 2009

RACEDAY JUDICIAL REPORT

RACE NO:  5  INFORMATION NO:  066  RULE NO:  642 (1)

Following the running of race 5, trainer Mrs. K Burne lodged a protest under Rule 642 (1) alleging that MISS JUDGED (O. BOSSON) or its rider placed 1st by the judge caused interference to SAINT PAT placed second by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.

AUCKLAND RACING CLUB

13 DECEMBER 2009

RACEDAY JUDICIAL REPORT

RACE NO:  5  INFORMATION NO:  066  RULE NO:  642 (1)

Following the running of race 5, trainer Mrs. K Burne lodged a protest under Rule 642 (1) alleging that MISS JUDGED (O. BOSSON) or its rider placed 1st by the judge caused interference to SAINT PAT placed second by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.

The judge placings were:
1st no.7  MISS JUDGED
2nd no.2 SAINT PAT
3rd no. 9 VILYA
4th no.1 BLUE LAPIN

The margin between first and second placed horse was a long head.

The information was filed with the registrar within the time prescribed.

SAINT PAT was represented by rider Mr V Ho, trainer Mrs. K Burne and part owner Mr J. P Baker and the connections of MISS JUDGED were represented by trainer Mr A Scott and rider Mr O Bosson.

Mrs. Burne used head on and side on videos of the race to demonstrate the incident that she was concerned about.

Mrs. Burne said that at the 200 metres MISS JUDGED had shifted out into SAINT PAT’S running line causing a check, with jockey V. Ho having to stop riding. In the final stages she said MISS JUDGED had moved out again and believed SAINT PAT was still coming at the finish.

Mr Ho said at the 200 metres MISS JUDGED had shifted out into his line causing him to correct SAINT PAT. He said no contact occurred; he just had to change ground.

Mr Scott said that there was no contact between the two horses concerned. He said that rider V. Ho did not stop riding SAINT PAT  and believed Mr Bosson had not hit MISS JUDGED  behind the saddle and firmly believed his horse was always going to win. He stated that SAINT PAT was having its first run at Ellerslie and this could have caused its waywardness in the straight.

Mr Bosson said that MISS JUDGED had come from behind SAINT PAT to win the race. He conceded he did shift out a fraction but no contact was made. He said SAINT PAT was shying away from MISS JUDGED.

Mr Baker, who attended the enquiry part way through, said he thought the two horses had contacted when MISS JUDGED had shifted outwards and stated his horse winning chances were abolished.

Mr Coles was asked for the Steward’s statement of the incident. He said the winner had come from ½ length behind SAINT PAT but was in no doubt MISS JUDGED had shifted out on two occasions although no contact had occurred. He said the Committee had to decide whether the outward movement has cost SAINT PAT more than the winning margin of a long head. 

Mrs Burne in summing up said SAINT PAT was pushed wider on the track and her jockey had to stop riding but conceded no contact had been made. She informed the Committee that SAINT PAT had trialed the reverse way for two wins.

DECISION

Rule 642 (1) states:
If a placed horse or its rider causes interference within the meaning of this rule 642 to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with.

The committee carefully considered all the evidence and reviewed the video films.

Upon reviewing the video films both head on and side on we established that MISS JUDGED had come from behind SAINT PAT at the 250 metres. We accept there was outward movement, although all parties agreed no contact had occurred. Mr V. Ho did not stop riding forward on SAINT PAT; we observed that he was using his whip behind the saddle, whereas Mr Bosson riding MISS JUDGED did not use his whip behind the saddle. We believed the films showed that SAINT PAT was shying away from MISS JUDGED in the final straight. The video films confirmed that SAINT PAT was not taking ground off MISS JUDGED in the closing stages of the race. The winning margin was a long head.

This committee has considerable doubt that SAINT PAT would have finished in front of MISS JUDGED if interference had not occurred.

Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the placings shall stand as called by the judge.

A. Dooley                   B. Tims
CHAIR                        Committee Member
066

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 642.1

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: