Egmont RC – 11 October 2008 – Race 9

After the running of race 9 at Hawera, the Postponed @ Stoney Bridge Stakes, a group 3 race, under Rule 876 (1) a protest was lodged by jockey J McDonald alleging interference by KEEPA CRUISIN (jockey S Spratt) to his mount EYE ME Up in the home straight.

After the running of race 9 at Hawera, the Postponed @ Stoney Bridge Stakes, a group 3 race, under Rule 876 (1) a protest was lodged by jockey J McDonald alleging interference by KEEPA CRUISIN (jockey S Spratt) to his mount EYE ME Up in the home straight (fourth versus second protest).

The provisional placings were

6   O’CEIRINS ANGEL

10  KEEPA CRUISIN

11  INSOUCIANT

8    EYE ME UP

The margins were ¾ length, ¾ length, short head.

Present at the enquiry were Mr K Gray representing jockey J McDonald (apprentice).  Mr T McKee representing S McKee (trainer). Mr Williams representing owners.

Mr McKee informed the committee jockey S Spratt had an eye injury and was being examined by medical staff.  Miss Spratt arrived after the enquiry began.

Jockey J McDonald, using the available films (head and side on) told the committee that his mount was traveling well coming around the home bend.  Miss Spratt angled KEEPA CRUISIN out and onto his mount and he copped a big bump.  His mount was taken off its line and pushed outwards.  He believed he lost momentum in the incident.

Mr K Gray told the committee that jockey McDonald was entitled to be where he was and jockey Spratt’s actions had taken his line.  He believed it was a severe bump.  Miss Spratt arrived and asked to see the films. This was agreed to.  By way of a question she asked jockey McDonald if he had rolled off coming round the bend in an attempt to hold her in.

Mr McDonald in answer to the question stated that he was just holding his line to which he was perfectly entitled.

Mr T McKee told the committee that he believed there was inward movement from jockey McDonald’s mount that contributed to the incident.  He believed there was a gap there which Miss Spratt was entitled to take.

Miss Spratt told the committee she believed that the initial bump came from Mr McDonald’s mount.  The pressure did come from that movement.  She was presented with a gap which she considered she was about ½ length into when the bump occurred.  She believed Mr McDonald was attempting to hold her in and her actions only amounted to competitive riding.

Mr Gray, in summing up, was adamant that the bump EYE ME UP suffered and the subsequent outwards movement of the horse was not competitive riding but a bad case of careless riding.  There was discussion between the parties concerned at the exact point in the race where the alleged interference occurred and the subsequent distance from the winning post.

The available films were inconclusive.  No markers indicating distance were able to be ascertained and the committee believed the incident took place approximately 200 metres from the finish.

Stipendiary steward N Goodwin, under the rules of racing was asked to comment.  He told the committee that jockey McDonald was holding his line and perfectly entitled to be where he was, when jockey S Spratt forced her mount out and onto EYE ME UP forcing that horse to be severely unbalanced.  However he expressed doubts whether the incident at that particular point in the race cost Mr McDonald’s mount from finishing in a higher placing.

DECISION AND REASON

The committee, on viewing all available films agreed that interference which we believed was severe did occur.  Miss Spratt angled her mount out and onto jockey McDonald’s mount after rounding the home bend. A severe bump unbalanced EYE ME Up and the buffeting did continue for a while down the straight.  We are of the opinion that it was not competitive riding.  Rather a deliberate action taken by Miss Spratt to force her mount into the race.  We believe the distance at which the incident happened from the finishing line was crucial to the chances of EYE ME UP from finishing in a higher placing.

Rule 876(1) is clear.  If a placed horse or its rider causes interference within the meaning of this rule 876 to another placed horse and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred the may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with.  The margins, along with the exact point of the incident, also we believe are important. ¾ length, ¾ length, and a short head.

EYE ME UP was bumped off his line and when straightened did run the race out well.  However, we believe there is doubt whether the interference that did occur cost that horse a chance of finishing ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred.

The protest was dismissed.

T W Castles (Chairman)