Rotorua RC – 24 January 2007 – Race 5

hearingid: eaf82ab8155d586e43189ca23aca3763

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 24/01/2007

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Rotorua RC - 24 January 2007 - Race 5

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following race 5 an information was filed pursuant to Rule 876 (1) when it was alleged by the informant, Ms J Cooper, trainer of the second horse SQUIRE, that her horse had its chances affected through being interfered with by the first horse ALL IN.

All connections of both horses were informed of the inquiry and present were :

ALL IN - trainer S McKee and jockey S Spratt

SQUIRE - owner / trainer Ms J Cooper and jockey Ms T Thornton

Following race 5 an information was filed pursuant to Rule 876 (1) when it was alleged by the informant, Ms J Cooper, trainer of the second horse SQUIRE, that her horse had its chances affected through being interfered with by the first horse ALL IN. This was alleged to have occurred in the home straight.

The margin at the post between first and second was a length.

The informant, Ms Cooper, asked her jockey, Ms T Thornton, to demonstrate the video films. Ms Thornton showed both side-on and head-on films and pointed out where there had been contact between her mount SQUIRE and ALL IN on 3 occasions. She said this was caused by ALL IN moving in onto her mount. She said her horse was a big horse and was struggling in the going. Ms Cooper confirmed Ms Thornton's evidence, and said the films were

self-explanatory.

Mr S McKee, trainer of ALL IN, said at no time did SQUIRE lose forward momentum and that although ALL IN did move in it was always in front and going away at the finish.

Ms Spratt said she was always in front and kicked away at the finish.

Mr Coles when asked for his submissions said that there was contact on 3 occasions between both horses, but the interference suffered by SQUIRE had to be weighed against the length margin between the two at the post.

The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and repeated viewing the video films.

We are satisfied that interference did occur on 3 occasions to varying degrees. The first was a brush between the two horses at the top of the straight. This occurred again half way down the straight and on the third occasion harder contact was made much closer to the post.

The Committee accepts that this interference had some effect on SQUIRE?S progress down the home straight. However, in applying our discretion and reaching a fair and correct decision the Committee must balance the above factors with the degree of interference, the one length margin at the post, and the manner in which both horses were finishing the race. Because of the one length margin and ALL IN?S strong finish to the line we do not believe the chances of SQUIRE finishing in a better place were affected. Accordingly the protest is dismissed and the Judge's placings shall stand.

R Seabrook

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 876.1

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: