Auckland RC – 7 March 2009 –

hearingid: b4111f11549cec55ec4d8de7f6326812

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 07/03/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Auckland RC - 7 March 2009 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following Race 6 a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 876 (1) by the Informant Mr Walker.

Present at the enquiry were:

CORSAGE (Connections) - Mr D Ellis – Owner

Mr M Walker – Trainer

Mr M Walker – Jockey

SEVEN SCHILLINGS (Connections) – Mr D Archer – Owner

Mr R Yuill - Trainer

Ms S Spratt - Jockey

Following Race 6 a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 876 (1) by the Informant Mr Walker.

Present at the enquiry were:

CORSAGE (Connections) - Mr D Ellis – Owner

Mr M Walker – Trainer

Mr M Walker – Jockey

SEVEN SCHILLINGS (Connections) – Mr D Archer – Owner

Mr R Yuill - Trainer

Ms S Spratt - Jockey

Mr M Walker, rider of CORSAGE, alleged that SEVEN SCHILLINGS, placed 2^nd by the Judge, interfered with the chances of CORSAGE, placed 3^rd by the Judge. The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final 200 metres.  The margin between 2^nd and 3^rd was a nose.

Mr M Walker, rider of CORSAGE, demonstrated the video films which showed his mount racing 3 back on the fence approaching the turn behind KAAPTAN, and back on the inside of SEVEN SCHILLINGS.  He said he edged out in search of better ground but his line was dictated by the outward movement of SEVEN SCHILLINGS.  He said he was moved out 2 ½  - 3 horse widths and he believes this cost him more than the nose margin.

Mr Mark Walker, trainer of CORSAGE, said his rider had summed it up very well.

Mr D Ellis had nothing further to add.

Ms S Spratt, rider of SEVEN SCHILLINGS, said Mr Walker should have taken the large gap on her inside.  She said her mount ducked out through greenness.

Mr R Yuill said that Michael Walker opted to go outside SEVEN SCHILLINGS after having the option of a clear run on the inside.  He stated that CORSAGE had 300 metres to pass SEVEN SCHILLINGS and could not do so.

Mr D Archer, owner of SEVEN SCHILLINGS, said the whole field came towards the outside rail and believed that CORSAGE had moved in momentarily contributing to the interference.  He reiterated that CORSAGE had 200 metres to pass his horse.

Mr R Sanders, Stipendiary Steward said it was clear there was interference at the 300 metre mark but it was up to the Committee to decide whether Mr Walker had his rightful line of running dictated enough to affect the result.  While conceding that CORSAGE made some ground on SEVEN SCHILLINGS he said SEVEN SCHILLINGS was holding CORSAGE in the last 200 metres.

Mr M Walker said in summing up CORSAGE was moved out 2 – 3 horse widths and was only beaten a nose.

DECISION

The Committee carefully considered all evidence and reviewed the video films.  It was clearly shown on the film that Mr Walker had a clear run ahead of him on the inside of SEVEN SCHILLINGS but elected to switch ground and go on the outside of that horse.  At this stage Ms Spratt was clear of Mr Walker but shortly after this the 2 horses came close together with CORSAGE having his line dictated to moving him out slightly.  However it was clearly apparent to the Committee that on reaching the 200 metre mark both horses had an unimpeded run to the finish with SEVEN SCHILLINGS holding a slight advantage to the finish.

A lot of the extra ground Mr Walker covered was through his own doing and Ms Spratt would have been unaware he was behind her until he started to come up along side her.  While the Committee concedes that from this point there was some outward movement from Ms Spratt once they reached the 200 metre mark both kept a straight line giving CORSAGE time to pass SEVEN SCHILLINGS which he was unable to do.

Therefore the Committee has considerable doubt that CORSAGE would have beaten SEVEN SCHILLINGS if interference had not occurred.

Accordingly the protest is dismissed.

Richard Seabrook

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: