Ashburton RC – 18 October 2009 – Race 8

hearingid: c68aeddc7be3eb4d20a58d3d083d865c

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 18/10/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Ashburton RC - 18 October 2009 - Race 8

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Information 8518 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 642(2)(b) in that it is alleged that “Corsage” or its rider placed first by the Judge, interfered with the chances of “Comme Tu Veux” placed second by the Judge. 

Information 8518 alleging a breach of the Rules of Racing, Rule 642(2)(b) in that it is alleged that “Corsage” or its rider placed first by the Judge, interfered with the chances of “Comme Tu Veux” placed second by the Judge. 

Informant - Mr S Spratt, Licensed Jockey

THE FACTS

This inquiry concerns a protest lodged following the running of Race 8, the “Ray Coupland Stakes”, a Listed Stakes Race. 

A protest was lodged by Licensed Jockey Ms Samantha Spratt, the rider of “Comme Tu Veux”.  It was alleged that “Corsage” ridden by Apprentice Jockey James McDonald, placed first by the Judge, caused interference to “Comme Tu Veux” placed second by the Judge. 

The interference is alleged to have occurred in the final stages of the race. 

The Judge’s placings were:

--

First  No. 7  “Corsage”
Second  No. 10  “Comme Tu Veux”
Third  No. 14  “Sandie”
Fourth  No. 3  “Clapton”
Fifth  No. 1  “Summer Surprise”

The margins were a neck between first and second, one and a quarter lengths between second and third, and two lengths between third and fourth.

The information was filed with the Registrar within the time prescribed by the Rules.

Present during the hearing were:

Mr M Walker, the trainer of “Corsage”
Apprentice Jockey James McDonald, the rider of “Corsage”
Ms Samantha Spratt, the rider of “Comme Tu Veux”
Mr T Hazlett, representing the connections of “Comme Tu Veux”
Mr Neil Goodwin, Stipendiary Steward
Mr Matt Barnsley, Assistant Stipendiary Steward

The first issue that we must decide is whether there was interference to “Comme Tu Veux” by “Corsage”.

In the final stages of the race, “Corsage” was racing approximately mid-track and in the lead.  However, with about 100 metres or so to run, “Corsage” began to move outwards and for a short moment, took the line of “Comme Tu Veux”.  Ms Spratt alleged that this was the first interference that she received.  She continued on, on an inward movement, but in the process “Corsage” then moved inwards, causing crowding to Ms Spratt and a discernible check.  Ms Spratt had to stand up in the stirrups and to stop riding briefly.  She said she lost momentum and that by the time “Corsage” was clear of her line, it took her a while to regain momentum and she believed that, in her words, that she was a “certainty beaten”. 

In response, Mr McDonald said that the first check was not that bad and that he was of the view that Ms Spratt would not have beaten him.  Mr Mark Walker, the trainer of “Corsage”, drew the committee’s attention to the fact that Ms Spratt had, on the home turn, gone quite wide and then began rolling in and if anything, as a consequence, she impeded the third horse’s chances.  Mr Hazlett, on behalf of the connections, agreed that the second check was the most significant, but that the first check was just the start of the interference which Ms Spratt received.  Mr Hazlett took the view that if “Comme Tu Veux” had got clear running that it would have won.  Mr Walker, however, disagreed with that, and said that “Corsage” was “going away” from “Comme Tu Veux” despite having moved all over the track.

Mr McDonald commented that his horse was running greenly and that Mr Walker also said that the horse was running in blinkers for the first time.

DECISION

We are satisfied that with approximately 50 metres or so to run, that “Comme Tu Veux” suffered interference and that the interference was caused by “Corsage”.  We have reached that conclusion, having regard to our impression of the witnesses and our observations of the video films.  We prefer the views expressed by Ms Spratt and Mr Hazlett on behalf of the connections.  Mr Goodwin, Stipendiary Steward, was given the opportunity to comment and he expressed his views with regard to the interference, in particular the second incident, which he felt was significant. 

We do not attach any weight to Mr Walker’s submission that Ms Spratt’s mount, after the home turn, began to “roll in”.  At all material times, “Comme Tu Veux” was racing clear of other horses, and Ms Spratt was entitled to take the line that she chose.  She did not inconvenience any other horses in the process.

We now have to consider whether “Comme Tu Veux” would have finished ahead of “Corsage” had such interference not occurred. 

In terms of Rule 642(2)(b), the interference was that of “Corsage” crossing “Comme Tu Veux” without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such horse at the time of crossing.  It appeared quite clearly from the video coverage, that “Comme Tu Veux” had to be checked by Ms Spratt, to keep it off the heels of “Corsage”. 

Thus, we are satisfied, in terms of the Rule, that was interference.

We also must consider the nature and extent of the interference on what occurred throughout the rest of the race to the finish, i.e. the consequences of the interference on the outcome of the race. 

In our opinion, “Comme Tu Veux” would have finished ahead of “Corsage” had such interference not occurred.  We base our opinion on the following factors:

• The quite narrow margin at the winning post of a neck.
• “Corsage” was running “greenly” and in the process took the line of “Comme Tu Veux” in the first instance.  The first interference complained of by Ms Spratt was not that serious but as she progressed on, “Corsage” then took her line when it was not its own length and another clear length ahead of “Comme Tu Veux” causing a check to “Comme Tu Veux”, which was clearly evident on the video film. 
• Ms Spratt had to stand in the stirrups to hold her horse off the heels of “Corsage”, and as a consequence her mount lost momentum.  Once her mount regained momentum, it finished on strongly.
• We are satisfied that had the interference not occurred, then “Comme Tu Veux” would have won the race.

EXERCISE OF DISCRETION

Having concluded that “Corsage” caused interference to “Comme Tu Veux” and being satisfied, in our opinion, that “Comme Tu Veux” would have finished ahead of “Corsage” had such interference not occurred, we have discretion to relegate “Corsage” behind “Comme Tu Veux”.  Relegation is not automatic.  Nevertheless, except in rare cases, relegation would be expected to follow from these findings.

Accordingly, the protest is upheld and the placings will now be:

--

First  No. 10   “Comme Tu Veux”
Second  No. 7  “Corsage”
Third  No. 14  “Sandie”
Fourth  No. 3  “Clapton”
Fifth  No. 1  “Summer Surprise”
Sixth  No. 9  “Te Akau  Rose”

KG Hales                P Rosanowski
CHAIR                     Committee Member
8518

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 642.2.b

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 1e7396c50da7b25d61ee84e746d16818

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 8

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 016bb0f27147670f6327f002f0699a14

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 18/10/2009

meet_title: Ashburton RC - 18 October 2009

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: ashburton-rc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Ashburton RC