Amberley TC – 9 January 2005 – Race 7

Following the running of Race 7 an Information instigating a Protest was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mrs Williams alleging a breach of Rule 869(8). The information reads as follows.

"This is a protest against horse number (8) placed 3^rd by the judge on the grounds of interference in the run home, Cherish Me checked Satan's Highway finishing 10^th."

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:

------

--
1. may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or
--
2. 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.

Present at the hearing were Mr M. R. De Fillipi the trainer, driver and

owner of Cherish Me (8), and Mr R. W. Curtin the driver of Satan's Highway (1).

Mrs Williams gave evidence that in the run home Mr De Fillipi's horse moved outwards to a two out position to try and obtain a clear run. In doing so contact was made with Mr Curtin's horse causing it to break and lose some ground. After the interference Satan's Highway regained it's proper gait but was officially place 10^th, 8.1 lengths from the winner and 5.2 lengths from Mr De Fillipi's horse.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Larkins showed video coverage of this incident from various angles.

Mr Curtin gave evidence that there was contact between his horse and that of Mr De Fillipi. The witness also said that his horse broke from its gait for a stride or two, but at that time it was not going well enough to figure in the finish.

Mr De Fillipi gave evidence that at the time his horse was travelling very well and he was keen to find racing room. He agreed that he had made contact with Mr Curtin's horse, but did not believe that the interference had affected the result of the race.

After hearing the evidence I adjourned to consider my decision.

Regulation 869(8) gives a Judicial Committee a discretion ("may") to place any horse immediately after ("relegate") any horse ?

--

--
1. where it may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by Rule 869. This includes careless driving under Rule 869(3)(b); and/or
--
1. where it may have interfered with the progress or chance of any other horse or horses.

In this case I find that there was interference caused by Mr De Fillipi's

horse to Mr Curtin's horse. I am not satisfied that this interference had any effect on any other horse in the race.

I am also satisfied that the interference suffered by Mr Curtin's horse was relatively minor. I also accept Mr Curtin's evidence that this interference did not affect the chances of his horse.

In summary I find that there was interference, but for the reasons set out above I decided to exercise my discretion not to relegate.

At the end of my deliberations I made the following oral decision. I had already been informed that Mr De Fillipi would not be present as he was on the track preparing to drive in the next race.

"I have got to be satisfied that the horse that caused the interference has gained an advantage against the horse interfered with, or some other horse, and in this particular case I find that the interference which took place was close enough to the finish to be able to say that Mr De Fillipi did not affect the chances of Satan's Highway or any other horse, and in particular I take note of the evidence given by Mr Curtin and the protest is dismissed."