Canterbury Racing – 8 November 2008 –

hearingid: ef8e0ff793dd891705b92703972279b6

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 08/11/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury Racing - 8 November 2008 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Under Rule 876 (1) : Following the running of Race 9, Gold Club Metropolitan Trophy, an information instigating a protest was filed by Mr D R Haworth, trainer of HALLS (R J Hannam) placed 3^rd by the judge, against LE ALTO (C J Grylls), placed 2^nd  by the judge, on the grounds that LE ALTO or its rider caused interference to HALLS near the 300 metres.

DECISION AND REASONS:

Under Rule 876 (1) : Following the running of Race 9, Gold Club Metropolitan Trophy, an information instigating a protest was filed by Mr D R Haworth, trainer of HALLS (R J Hannam) placed 3^rd by the judge, against LE ALTO (C J Grylls), placed 2^nd  by the judge, on the grounds that LE ALTO or its rider caused interference to HALLS near the 300 metres.

Present at the hearing were the informant, Mr Haworth, representing the connections of HALLS, and the defendant Mr Ridley, representing the connections of LE ALTO. Mr K J Neylon, owner of LE ALTO, was also present at the hearing.

Rule 876 (1) provides:

If a placed horse or its rider causes interference within this meaning of this Rule 876 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.

Mr Haworth used video replays to demonstrate the alleged interference. He pointed out LE ALTO, with approximately 300 metres to run, leading with HALLS behind it. At that point, LE ALTO moved off the fence and presented a gap for HALLS to go through and then went back denying HALLS the opportunity to go through the gap that it had been presented with. HALLS had to go back and come out. HALLS had been full of running but LE ALTO had been allowed to drift back down to the fence, Mr Haworth said.

Mr Hannam stated that there was room on the fence for his mount. He took the initiative to take that gap that had been presented but, just as he had got inside LE ALTO, that horse came back in. Mr Hannam said that he had his mount’s head and shoulders in the gap. At that point, LE ALTO came back in and took his line. When he pulled out, Mr Hannam said, LE ALTO came off the rail again and HALLS had to cover extra ground to go around it. HALLS had been “stopped in its tracks”, he had to pull it back and come around LE ALTO and was beaten by a nose for 2^nd. Mr Hannam used the video replays to support his evidence.

Mr Ridley stated that the video replay replays were “pretty self-explanatory” – there was not enough room for HALLS to go through. Mr Grylls said that, before Mr Hannam had even gone for a run, there was room. When he went for the run there was a gap which had closed before Mr Hannam got his mount’s head in it. Mr Grylls said that his mount was never more than a half to one horse width off the rail and it would have been tight for Mr Hannam to get in there. Referring to Mr Hannam’s allegation that he had come back in, any inward movement was “next to nothing”, Mr Grylls said.

Mr C J George, Chief Stipendiary Steward, had been present throughout the hearing and was invited by the Committee to give his interpretation of the incident. He stated that HALLS had been racing behind LE ALTO until about the 300 metres at which point the latter runner moved out for “about 4 or 5 strides”. That presented an inside run for HALLS which Mr Hannam took at a time when LE ALTO was shifting out. Mr George said he believed that HALLS had “taken ownership” of that run even though it was tight. He showed on the video that HALLS had improved up to be within ¾ length of LE ALTO. Clearly, he said, that if there was insufficient room for a horse to improve into a gap, it would not be able to improve that far into the gap. LE ALTO then “rolled back in momentarily” resulting in HALLS being “inconvenienced out of that run”.

In considering the protest, there were two principal matters that the Committee was required, under the Rule, to determine:

1.      Was there interference caused by LE ALTO to HALLS? In this regard, the Committee agreed with Mr George that HALLS had established itself in the gap between LE ALTO and the running rail which was presented when LE ALTO, which HALLS had been following, drifted off the rail with approximately 300 metres to run in the Race. At that point, Mr Hannam angled HALLS into that gap and got his mount’s head and shoulders into the gap that had presented itself. Mr George estimated that HALLS got within ¾ length of LE ALTO at that point. In any event, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Hannam had created a run for HALLS on the inside of LE ALTO from which point HALLS was entitled to that inside run. It was denied that clear run when, shortly after, LE ALTO, moved back down. The Committee accepted that the inward movement was slight but was, nevertheless, sufficient to force Mr Hannam to ease his mount out of the gap and to go round the heels of LE ALTO to obtain a clear run. On the basis of the above, the Committee was satisfied that there was interference caused by LE ALTO to HALLS.

2.      Would HALLS have finished ahead of LE ALTO had such interference not occurred? Having found that interference occurred, the Committee had no difficulty in forming the view that HALLS would indeed have finished in front of LE ALTO but for the interference it received. When it commenced to enter the gap, HALLS was full of running. When Mr Hannam was forced to ease it out of the gap, it lost not only crucial ground but also momentum at a vital stage of the Race – 300 metres from the finish. The final factor to which the Committee had regard, and which was compelling, was the official margin between the respective horses at the finishing line - a nose. The Committee also observed from the video replay that HALLS was making ground strongly on LE ALTO at the finishing line and was in front of it a stride or two past the post.

The Committee upheld the protest and, as a consequence, LE ALTO was relegated from 2^nd to 3^rd and HALLS was promoted from 3^rd to 2^nd. The amended result for the Result is accordingly:

1^st   7  Stand Tall

2^nd  9   Halls

3^rd  4   Le Alto

4^th  2   Nanjara

5^th  6   Of the Essence

R G McKenzie

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: