Canterbury JC – 12 August 2006 –

hearingid: 8d5d39ff4b1c4f505b5f98016796aa99

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 12/08/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 12 August 2006 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 8, PGG Wrightson 132^nd Grand National Steeplechase, an information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Trainer, Mr J G Sargent, trainer of HATEPE, placed 6^th by the judge, against Ms P A Robertson, Holder of a Permit to Train, trainer of POUNCE, placed 5th by the judge

Following the running of Race 8, PGG Wrightson 132^nd Grand National Steeplechase, an information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Trainer, Mr J G Sargent, trainer of HATEPE, placed 6^th by the judge, against Ms P A Robertson, Holder of a Permit to Train, trainer of POUNCE, placed 5th by the judge, on the ground of interference "at the last fence near the 200 metres".

Mr Sargent and Ms Robertson were both present at the hearing of the information as were Mr A J Tata, rider of HATEPE, and Miss J A Lewis, rider of POUNCE.

Rule 876 (1) provides:

Rule 876 (2) provides:

The Committee noted that the stake payable for 5^th placing in the Race was $1,500.

Mr Sargent said that, following the race, he had been informed by Mr Tata that he was intending to pull HATEPE up and go inside the last fence as there were five horses in front of him and five stakes payable. Mr Tata saw POUNCE fall after jumping the last fence and and returned to jump the fence with his mount, HATEPE. He said that Mr Tata had been told by the "guys standing there" not to jump the fence but to wait because POUNCE was on the ground on the other side of the fence.

Mr Tata confirmed what Mr Sargent had said. He said that when he returned to jump the fence to finish the race and get the 5^th stake, POUNCE was lying on the ground and "there was no way it was getting up in a hurry". He had then "wheeled around" for a "couple of minutes". After some 3-4 minutes he asked the staff, who were waiting to take down the fence, to take the wing down so that he could go through the wing and finish the race. The staff did not agree to do this. By this time, an Assistant Stipendiary Steward had arrived and told him to finish the race. Mr Tata said that he then intended to jump the last fence but, by this time, POUNCE had been remounted. Mr Tata jumped the last fence with HATEPE and finished 6^th behind POUNCE, which had finished the race in 5^th placing.

Ms Robertson said that she had arrived on the scene to check on her horse and, in her view, there was room for HATEPE to have jumped the last fence. Miss Lewis stated that she had suggested to Mr Tata that there was room for him to be able to clear the last fence safely and carry on. Mr Tata denied that he had been spoken to by Miss Lewis. Miss Lewis said that she had remounted POUNCE and had cantered across the line and was not aware how far behind her HATEPE was.

Mr M G Humphries, Assistant Stipendiary Steward, who had been in the patrol box at the top of the straight, gave evidence. He had watched the finish of the race, he said, and then observed that HATEPE had milled around at the last fence for some time. He was aware that HATEPE was not able to jump the last fence because of POUNCE lying on the ground on the other side of it. He then climbed down from the patrol box, got into his car and drove to the scene. He said that he called Mr Tata over and told him that he did not have to jump the fence. Just as he was saying this to Mr Tata, POUNCE got up. Mr Tata elected to jump the fence, Mr Humphries said.

Mr S C Ching, Stipendiary Steward, stated that he believed that Mr Tata had done everything right. He was told not to jump the fence because there were people on the track attending to POUNCE. It would not have been safe for him to jump the fence in those circumstances and, had anything happened, it would have been Mr Tata's fault. Mr Ching submitted that HATEPE had received interference. He had been unable to complete the course and the Rules required him to jump the fence.

The Committee noted the provisions of Rule 873 (1) (b) which provides:

Rule 873 (2) provides:

For the Committee to uphold the protest and relegate POUNCE from 5^th placing, it needed to find:

1. That POUNCE caused interference to the 6^th placed horse HATEPE; and

2. That the chances of HATEPE of finishing in a higher placing were thereby affected.

Looking at whether POUNCE caused interference to HATEPE, the Committee was aware that interference can take a number of forms. "Interfere" simply means "to hinder or impede" or "to prevent from continuing or being carried out properly". While, it is fair to say, the alleged interference in this case was most unusual in a racing context, the Committee was satisfied that, by lying winded on the track for a period of 3-4 minutes, POUNCE clearly did cause interference to HATEPE by preventing it from jumping the last fence of the race and completing the race in a timely fashion.

The Committee is further satisfied that the chances of HATEPE finishing 5^th were not only affected but totally eliminated by its not being able to jump the last fence because of that interference ? that is to say, by POUNCE's lying winded on the other side of it. It was clear from the evidence that we heard that Mr Tata was keen to jump the last fence and thereby finish 5^th and take the $1,500 stake for that placing but was prevented from doing so because of the interference. The Committee accepted that the actions of Mr Tata were entirely proper in all respects.

Having found the above, the Committee had a discretion whether or not to relegate POUNCE. In the circumstances, the Committee had no difficulty exercising its discretion to relegate POUNCE because of the degree of the interference and the extent to which the chances of HATEPE were affected. The effects of interference are normally measured in terms of margins of lengths or less ? in this case, the interference can be gauged in minutes rather than lengths, making the decision to exercise the discretion in favour of relegation a simple one. Fairness and common sense dictated that the Committee should uphold the protest and the protest was upheld. POUNCE, placed 5^th by the judge, was relegated to 6^th and HATEPE, placed 6^th by the judge, was promoted to 5^th.

Consequent upon the relegation, the amended placings for the Race are as follows:

1^st 5 Bogeyman

2^nd 3 I?manace

3^rd 1 No Hero

4^th 2 Tokiocity

5^th 7 Hatepe

It was ordered that stakes be paid accordingly.

R G McKenzie

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 873.1.b, 873.2, 876.1, 876.2

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: