Avondale JC – 6 February 2007 – Race 5

Following race 5 an information was lodged by Stipendary Steward Mr J P Oatham pursuant to rule 871(1)(d) when he alleged that Mr A Peard, rider of AT SEA, did breach the rule

Following race 5 an information was lodged by Stipendary Steward Mr J P Oatham pursuant to rule 871(1)(d) when he alleged that Mr A Peard, rider of AT SEA, did breach the rule when, near the 1400m mark he did permit AT SEA to shift in when not clear of DUNGARVEN BAY which was carried in across the running of MR BLING which checked.

Mr Peard did not admit the charge

Mr J Davidson demonstrated the video films. He showed AT SEA, DUNGARVEN BAY, and MR BLING racing at the rear of the field as they passed the 1400 metre mark. It showed AT SEA move in and put pressure on DUNGARVEN BAY, ridden by Miss C Anderson and MR BLING ridden by Mr R Jones. As the pressure increased MR BLING was seen to be checked out by his rider Mr Jones. At the time of the incident AT SEA was ? of a length in front of DUNGARVEN BAY. Mr Davidson said that the gap between INNISKILLEN, the horse that AT SEA was following, and AT SEA was 11/2 lengths. This margin was challenged by Mr Peard.

The head-on view was shown with vision basically limited to identification by the jockeys caps only.

Mr Jones, the rider of MR BLING, said he received pressure from the outside and in spite of calling twice he finally had to check out. He said the pressure was coming from Miss Anderson on his outer who was receiving pressure from her outer. The outside horse was ridden by Mr Peard. He said it lasted for about 5 strides. He felt he lost 2-3 lengths.

When Miss Anderson , the rider of DUNGARVEN BAY, was questioned she said she was pushed across and checked MR BLING. She said she called to Mr Peard and felt that the pressure lasted for 5 strides.

Mr Peard stated that his horse was running with blinkers on for the first time. He also said that, as had already been announced, it was decided to ride at the back of the field during the early stages. He demonstrated on the video where, in his opinion, INNISKILLEN quickly dropped back and in doing so AT SEA just avoided clipping heels. In the process of avoidance AT SEA also tended to race greenly because of his first experience in blinkers and the final result was that he put pressure on those inside of him. He claimed he tried to straighten his mount and, in the only short view of the "head-on" video the horses head could be seen to be turned out.

Mr Oatham concluded by repeating his earlier accusations while Mr Peard was just as adamant in his defence.

DECISION:

The committee have reviewed all evidence with emphasis on the videos.

There is no doubt that interference occurred to DUNGARVEN BAY and MR BLING.

There is no doubt that the interference was caused by inward pressure from AT SEA.

The question for us to decide is whether Mr Peard's riding was the reason for AT SEA putting pressure on the inside horses.

Mr Peard claimed that one of the reasons for his inward movement was to avoid INNISKILLEN. On reviewing the head?on video it is our opinion that INNISKILLEN moved inwards and this could also have been a factor.

After giving due consideration to all of the evidence we feel that there is some doubt as to whether Mr Peard actions were the reason for AT SEA?S wayward movements.

Any doubt must be in favour of the accused and we therefore dismiss the charge.

D C Johnstone                                                                        B Rowe

CHAIRMAN