Ashburton TC – 4 March 2009 – Race 2

hearingid: b26a30fa247052de0d1e326ed57b7790

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 04/03/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Ashburton TC - 4 March 2009 - Race 2

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 2, the Mountain View Equine Ltd Mobile Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren alleging a breach of Rule 869(8) and 869(4), (6)(b) and (c).  The information reads as follows.

“This is a protest by horse number (12) placed 12^th against horse number (10) placed 2^nd by the judge on the grounds of interference with approx. 1600m to run.” 

DECISION AND REASONS:

Following the running of Race 2, the Mountain View Equine Ltd Mobile Pace, an Information Instigating a Protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren alleging a breach of Rule 869(8) and 869(4), (6)(b) and (c).  The information reads as follows.

“This is a protest by horse number (12) placed 12^th against horse number (10) placed 2^nd by the judge on the grounds of interference with approx. 1600m to run.” 

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:

(a)            may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or

(b)            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.

Rule 869(4), (6)(b) and (c) (the “push out” Rule) provides as follows.

“(4)         No horseman nor any horse shall during any race do anything which                                                interferes or is likely to interfere with any other horseman and/or horse or                             its progress.

(6)     Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:-

(a)  ….

(b)                 a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track;

(c)                 a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.”

Present at the hearing were Mr K. V. Hadfield, the driver of “Mullingar Mac” (10), and Mr J. T. Keast the driver of “Shades of Brown” (12).  Both drivers advised that they would represent the interests of the owners and trainers of the two horses.

Mr Keast gave evidence that with about 1600 metres to run he was moving forward following Mr C. De Filippi’s horse.  When he was partly alongside “Mullingar Mac” Mr Hadfield moved outwards forcing him into the three wide line.  He then had to remain in the three wide line until about the 800 metre mark when he was able to place his horse in the one out without cover position.  It was also established that his horse had finished 12^th out of 13 starters, about 25 lengths from “Mullingar Mac”.

Video coverage of the incident, from various angles, was used by Mr Ydgren to illustrate this incident.  It was Mr Ydgren’s evidence that Mr Keast was moving forward at the time that he was pushed wider on track, and that this was in breach of the “push out” Rule.  It was Mr Ydgren’s case that because of the breach of the “push out” Rule “Mulingar Mac” should be relegated behind “Shades of Brown” in accordance with Rule 869(8).

Mr Hadfield gave evidence and used video coverage to illustrate this evidence.  He said that Mr Keast was not moving forward at the time of the incident, and that he was entitled under the Rules to push him wider on the track.

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.

After reviewing the video coverage and the evidence we were satisfied that there had been a breach of the “push out” Rule by Mr Hadfield as alleged.  We were also satisfied that this breach amounted to interference as set out in Rule 869(8).  We then considered whether we should exercise our discretion to place “Mullingar Mac” behind “Shades of Brown”.

In relation to this decision we took into account that “Shades of Brown” finished 25 lengths behind “Mullingar Mac”, and that although “Shades of Brown” was forced to race in the three wide line for about 800 metres his actual progress was minimally affected.  In all the circumstances we decided that it was not appropriate to relegate in this case.

On our return to the Enquiry Room, with the next race due to start, we advised that a full written decision would be provided later, and we gave the following oral decision.

“We find that there was a breach of the “push out” Rule.  However we are not satisfied that we should exercise our discretion to relegate in these circumstances, and the protest is dismissed.”

J M Phelan

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.8, 869.4

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: ca5ad95dca568870c30de33393a35ede

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 2

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: f80b7a207306254ba1a60c35624f771a

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 04/03/2009

meet_title: Ashburton TC - 4 March 2009

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: ashburton-tc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Ashburton TC