Auckland RC – 26 December 2005 –

hearingid: d215ead9aefd82af6f0b968bb42928ed

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 26/12/2005

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Auckland RC - 26 December 2005 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

This is a protest under Rule 876 (1) of the Rules of Racing by Stipendiary Steward A R Coles following Race 4

This is a protest under Rule 876 (1) of the Rules of Racing by Stipendiary Steward A R Coles following Race 4 alleging that CHARLIEHORSE (C Ormsby) or its rider placed first by the judge interfered with the chances of CYPRESS POINT (A Calder) placed second. The interference was alleged in the final straight, the margin between first and second was half a head and Mr. Coles reserved the right to charge.

The connections of CHARLIEHORSE were represented by Trainer L O?Sullivan and those of CYPRESS POINT by its Trainer R James.

Stipendiary Steward J Oatham demonstrated the incident on video showing head on, side on and rear views and after identifying the runners he drew attention to the outward movement in the final twenty metres of the race by CHARLIEHORE on to CYPRESS POINT which would have unbalanced it. In slow motion he demonstrated that there had been one bump and it appeared to be in the area ten to fifteen metres short of the winning post. He drew attention to the blue coloured section of running rail over the final fifty metres and the ten metre marks visible on it as the horses passed each section.

Mr James asked the committee to note that CYPRESS POINT had improved from the forty metre mark where the margin was a neck to be a half head at the finish and while the incident was very close to the winning post the benefit of any doubt should be given to his horse as the sufferer of the interference. Mr Calder confirmed that he had lost ground in the incident and had been shifted, as the video showed, a full mown strip.

Mr O?Sullivan asked the committee to take note how far from the post the incident occurred and suggested it was within a stride or a stride and a half. CHARLIEHORSE had in fact come from behind CYPRESS POINT initially and he demonstrated this on the video. He drew attention to a slight inward movement by CYPRESS POINT and thought maybe CHARLIEHORSE had come off worse but in any event it was, he said, very, very close to the winning post and he submitted too close to be sure so CHARLIEHORSE ought to be given the benefit of any doubt.

Mr. Coles in summing up told the committee he believed there was no doubt of the outward movement from CHARLIEHORSE. Given it was one or two strides from the post it was for the committee to decide whether the chances of CYPRESS POINT had been affected.

After considering the above the Committee found there was interference as alleged by CHARLIEHORSE and it was very close to the winning post. In fact it was so close that there was a margin of doubt that had to be applied in favour of CHARLIEHORSE and on that basis the protest was dismissed and the judge's placings stood.

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: