Whangarei RC 10 September 2016 – R 6 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr A Godsalve

hearingid: 51366fefbf9fc0cc7309e1ca4e7a7b3d

informantnumber: A8507

horsename: BIGGIN HILL

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 11/09/2016

hearing_title: Whangarei RC 10 September 2016 - R 6 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr A Godsalve

charge:

facts:

Following the running of Race 6, the NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE SPRINT, an Information was laid instigating a protest. Mr P McKay trainer and part-owner of AMARULA which finished second, alleged that the winner BIGGIN HILL had interfered with his horse inside the final 100 metres.

The Judges placings were:

1st - BIGGIN HILL

2nd - AMARULA

3rd - STATHAM

4th - SHEZHARDTOCATCH

The official margins were :

nose/neck/2 1/2 lengths.

Rule 642(1) provides 'If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with.'

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

Mr P McKay said that AMARULA was a colt and that he had taken some time to get up to STATHAM which was leading and had eventually finished in 3rd position. He said that at about the 100m AMARULA was leading when BIGGIN HILL came up alongside him on his outer. He stated that AMARULA went to go with BIGGIN HILL when BIGGIN HILL gave him a 'bang' and put him off stride. Mr McKay added that AMARULA usually kicks back when a horse comes up to him, and that he believed he would have beaten BIGGIN HILL by a neck if he had not been ' banged' by that horse.

Mr S McKay who rode AMARULA said that AMARULA was a horse who only did what he had to do in his races. He said that at about the 100 metres mark BIGGIN HILL had come up on his outside and AMARULA went to kick back at him when he was bumped by that horse. Mr McKay said that as a result AMARULA was put off stride, and that he believd he would have beaten BIGGIN HILL by a neck otherwise.

Mrs Collett said she believed AMARULA had rolled out towards BIGGIN HILL and agreed that BIGGIN HILL  had touched that horse. She added that BIGGIN HILL was coming from behind AMARULA and that she believed the fact that her horse had touched AMARULA had nothing to do with the result of the race.

Mrs McCulloch said she could not believe that the connections of AMARULA had protested against her. She said that BIGGIN HILL had beaten AMARULA easily, however she added that BIGGIN HILL had laid in a little bit which had not cost AMARULA any momentum. Mrs McCulloch added that she believed BIGGIN HILL would have won by a neck if he had run straight and not laid in. She stated that she did not believe AMARULA would have beaten BIGGIN HILL in any circumstances.

Mr Williamson, giving the assessment of the incident on behalf of the Stewards, referred to the back-on film. He stated that BIGGIN HILL had been about 3 lengths behind AMARULA at the 200 metres mark. He said it was clear that approximately 20-30 metres from the finish BIGGIN HILL began to lay in slightly, and that there was very brief contact between that horse and AMARULA. Mr Williamson stated that he did not believe that there was any discernible interference to AMARULA and that at best AMARULA had been inconvienced.

Mr Williamson said that he did not believe that there had been enough interference to warrant a change of placings, and that he considered that this Protest should be dismissed.

reasonsfordecision:

The Committee took careful notice of the evidence presented by the parties and also independently assessed the incident via the available video films.

It was clear that BIGGIN HILL had made up at least 3 lengths in the last 200 metres to lead AMARULA short of the winning post. The Committee verified that BIGGIN HILL had laid in briefly from about the 30 metres mark and that there was very minor brushing between the horses which we did not consider had affected AMARULA'S chances of winning the race. Further, the Committee did not consider that Mr McKay had been hampered to any degree and in fact he did not have to stop riding AMARULA out to the finish. On the other hand we believed that Mrs McCulloch did desist from riding BIGGIN HILL out while attempting to straighten that horse while it lay in.

Decision:

The Protest was dismissed and the Committee accordingly ordered that dividends and stakemoney be paid according to the Judges placings.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Protest

Rules: Rule 642(1)

Informant: Mr P McKay - Trainer and Part Owner of AMARULA

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward, Mr S McKay - Apprentice Jockey rider of AMARULA, Mrs J Collett - Representing the Trainer and Connections of BIGGIN HILL

Respondent: Mrs K McCulloch - Senior Horsewoman rider of BIGGIN HILL

StipendSteward:

raceid: c264e2cd1b4d8b12697981da6dde1019

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R6

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 3a77a978000fd5ebb5004ede673b10a1

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 10/09/2016

meet_title: Whangarei RC - 10 September 2016

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: whangarei-rc

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair: AGodsalve

meet_pm1: ADooley

meet_pm2: none

name: Whangarei RC