Marlborough HRC – 17 June 2007 –

hearingid: 6f384116fa0e2664e13794a678cf0f48

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 17/06/2007

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Marlborough HRC - 17 June 2007 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of race eleven, the last on the programme, a protest was lodged by the Stipendiary Stewards against horse number 1, Rupeni (T Chmiel), placed 2nd by the Judge

Following the running of race eleven, the last on the programme, a protest was lodged by the Stipendiary Stewards against horse number 1, Rupeni (T Chmiel), placed 2nd by the Judge, on the grounds of causing interference to horse number 10, Royal Gambit (S Thompson) at the start of the race.

The placings were: 1st - No 7, 2nd - 1, 3rd - 6, 4th - 2, 5th - 11, 6th - 13.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the committee was advised that the drivers were representing the connections of the respective horses, and there was no-one else required to be present.

Presenting her evidence, stipendiary steward, Mrs Williams explained that Rupeni drew one at the mobile gate and, just after the start was declared, it broke and the trailing horse, Royal Gambit, had to be restrained as the other horse came back on top of it and, as a result, it broke and lost several lengths. She said it was hard to establish how much its chances were affected, as it may have ended up three or four back on the fence but, instead, it had to be restrained and it broke. It was her contention that Royal Gambit was denied an opportunity of getting a trail or being back on the fence and, instead, had broken and lost several lengths.

Mrs Williams then asked stipendiary steward, Mr McIntyre, to interpret to the video of the incident and several views were available to the committee. He pointed out the positions of the horses and showed that, at the start, Rupeni breaking and Mr Thompson on Royal Gambit taking hold and breaking on the outer of Mr Chmiel.

In his submissions Mr Chmiel did not consider he had caused interference. He said that Rupeni broke because the mobile appeared to be going too slow and he was going too keen. It was his view that, after Rupeni broke, Royal Gambit got off his back and had moved out before breaking for only a couple of strides, not several lengths. He did not consider that horse had lost much ground at all, and this was confirmed by Mr Thompson. ..2

..2

Mr Thompson said his horse was also travelling keenly at the start and he had to take hold of him. He said he moved out two widths, and the horse threw himself off balance more than anything else and he only galloped for two strides. He agreed he would likely have followed Rupeni if he hadn?t broken, but he could not say if the breaking of Rupeni affected his chances or his travelling in the race.

To the chairman, Mr Thompson agreed that he had moved off the back of Rupeni, and into the clear, before he broke. He said he put that down to his restraining him because he was travelling too keenly, not to the breaking of Rupeni. When asked if there was room for him to come off the rail freely when Rupeni broke, Mr Thompson said there was plenty of room to come off, and his horse should not have broken.

On resumption the parties were advised that a brief decision would be given in the first instance and a full decision would be available later.

This is a protest hearing against horse number 1, Rupeni, placed 2nd by the Judge, on the grounds of causing interference to horse number 10, Royal Gambit.

Evidence was heard from the stipendiary stewards, the driver of Rupeni, Mr Chmiel, and also Mr Thompson, the driver of the horse allegedly interfered with or whose chances were affected, Royal Gambit.

The purpose of this enquiry is to establish if interference occurred. It is clear that Rupeni drew the inside of the front line and broke just as the mobile gate moved away. Royal Gambit was drawn to follow Rupeni and itself broke shortly thereafter.

I am satisfied there was some inconvenience with Rupeni breaking and losing ground, and Royal Gambit, as a result of that break, not getting a trail. It did, however, have the opportunity to move out freely, without obstruction or interference, and this was confirmed by Mr Thompson who, by his own admission, said that his horse was going keenly before the start, and that was the reason for its breaking.

I accept that Rupeni broke but, in this case, I am not satisfied that Royal Gambit's chances were affected. I find that Royal Gambit broke independently, while being restrained outside and not in behind Rupeni, when Mr Thompson had the opportunity to move out freely. This is assisted by, particularly, the head-on view of the incident, and confirmed by Mr Thompson's evidence which did not support the protest. The protest is dismissed and placings remain:-

1. 7 Union Gap

2. 1 Rupeni

3. 6 Piper Cullen

4. 2 Zippy's Last

5. 11 Commitment

6. 13 Cee Ash

P.H.Welch

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules:

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: