Cambridge – Te Awamutu HRC – 5 April 2007 – Race 10

hearingid: 6ef3c5eb5473af14c2e20115cf76233e

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 05/04/2007

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Cambridge - Te Awamutu HRC - 5 April 2007 - Race 10

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

An Information instigating a protest was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr T TAUMANU following the running of Race 10 at Cambridge on the 5^th April 2007.

An Information instigating a protest was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr T TAUMANU following the running of Race 10 at Cambridge on the 5^th April 2007.

This information was lodged on behalf of the connections of Horse 3 BRONZE LAINE (G GILLIES) which was placed 8^th by the Judge, against horse 11 BENNY MAC (P FERGUSSON) placed 1^st by the Judge, on the grounds of interference which was alleged to have occurred with approximately 150 metres to run.

The Information was served on Driver Mr P Fergusson. Present at the Hearing were Mr J DICKIE Trainer, and Mr G GILLIES Driver representing the interests of BRONZE LAINE, and Mr G DIXON

Trainer, and Mr P FERGUSSON, driver representing the interests of BENNY MAC. Mr K MARSHALL part owner of Bronze Laine was present for the decision following the hearing.

Mr FERGUSSON indicated to the Committee that he wished to contest the Protest.

After conferring with Mr Taumanu, the registrar was advised that partial payout was authorised for 2^nd and 3^rd placings

Stipendiary Steward Mr Taumanu commenced by showing Video footage of the concluding stages of the Race which clearly showed

the incident near the 150 metre mark. Mr Fergusson was improving from the one out position. He said there appeared to be contact between Benny Mac and Bronze Laine following which Bronze Laine

broke. Mr Taumanu suggested that Mr Fergusson had gone for a gap that he thought was about to happen and has a result had interfered with Bronze Laine which in turn had broken. There was no sign of any inward movement by Mr Fergusson and it appeared to be just Mr Fergusson trying to give his horse the best run.

Mr Gillies gave evidence of the incident in which he was initially absolutely sure there was contact which had pushed him right away. Mr Gillies then said there was no contact but that the manoeuvre from Mr Fergusson had shunted his horse and pushed it off balance. The action had forced his horse to respond as opposed to any physical contact between the two. This was because Mr Fergusson had not maintained his line.

Mr Fergusson said that the carts had touched but with very little pressure from him. The breaking of Mr Gillies' horse had occurred at a point where Mr Fergusson's wheels were in front and clear of Mr Gillies who had then taken hold and pulled his horse sideways and inwards causing it to unbalance and gallop. This was indicated by the horses head turning inwards before it galloped.

Mr Gillies said he had to take a bit of a hold when Mr Fergusson came straight across.

Mr Fergusson referred to the front on footage to reinforce his contention that his horses head had made no severe movement during the run home and had run relatively straight the whole time. He conceded he may have moved in slightly and had done so to improve his position but if Mr Gillies had kept his horse straight and not reacted to something he thought was going to happen then Bronze Laine would have moved down as a natural movement.

Nothing happened until Mr Gillies' horses head came round over exaggerating what Mr Fergusson was possibly going to do and that action gave him the room to improve because Mr Gillies had pulled his horse out of the way. Mr Fergusson's horse at that point had not made any inwards movement and was still waiting for the gap to appear. He had not put any pressure on him at all and what had occurred happened in almost every race

Mr Fergusson was clear of Mr Gillies and was sure he was in front of Mr Gillies and had the advantage on him with Mr Gillies having a truckload of room on the inside so that he could there fore dictate his line.

Mr DIXON added that Mr Gillies had said the sideways pressure had made his horse gallop but from the video footage, at the point of galloping, his horse Benny Mac was half a length from him.

Mr Fergusson conceded that there had been contact with the wheels touching but that Mr Gillies had overreacted by pulling his horse in.

Mr Dickie suggested that Mr Gillies had to take action after there had been interference by Mr Fergusson, but agreed that such movement was a common occurrence in racing and often far more exaggerated without causing horses to gallop.

Mr Taumanu when asked for comment on Mr Fergusson's account agreed that with the benefit of being able to look at the head on footage which he could not do from the grandstand it appeared that Mr Gillies may have over reacted. Mr Fergusson horse had not shown an inwards movement that normally happens in a race where he is looking to go for a run inside and knock Mr Gillies out of the way. Mr Fergusson had kept his horse very straight.

The movement had not been sudden and the wheel to wheel contact often happened in racing. There had been no contact between Mr Fergusson's sulky and the feet of Mr Gillies' horse.

Stipendiary Steward Mr T TAUMANU quite correctly brought the protest however after having had the benefit of more closely examining the incident with the benefit of head on video footage concurred more with the version of events as given by Mr Fergusson to the committee.

Mr GILLIES, initially adamant that there had been contact and subsequent interference, later conceded that there may have been no contact but insisted his actions in taking hold of BRONZE LAINE and its subsequent breaking was as a direct result of a sudden inwards movement by Mr FERGUSSON.

Having listened carefully the accounts of all witnesses I am satisfied that actions taken by Mr FERGUSSON near the 150 metre mark in the run home did not interfere with BRONZE LAINE or affect its chances

The committee found no evidence that there was any sudden movement inwards by Mr FERGUSSON and that his line was virtually maintained with some movement just after the breaking of BRONZE LAINE.

His actions were acceptable during the running of the race and it is the committee's opinion that the breaking of Bronze Laine was occasioned by the anticipation of Driver Mr G GILLIES that he as about to be interfered with

I find insufficient evidence to uphold the protest and accordingly it is dismissed and the judge's placings will stand.

Jeff Holloway 

Chairman

6^th April 2007

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 0bf12494c4e6b6947adedca477358d3d

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 10

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 517a7578d4915faaf400b1c1cd6ef954

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 05/04/2007

meet_title: Cambridge - Te Awamutu HRC - 5 April 2007

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: cambridge-te-awamutu-hrc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Cambridge - Te Awamutu HRC