Auckland RC 4 September 2010 - R 5 (instigating a protest)

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr A Coles

Defendant:  Mr P Nelson

Information No:  063 (Instigating a protest)

Meeting:  Auckland Racing Club

Date: 4 September 2010

Venue:  Ellerslie

Race:  5

Rule No:  642 (1)

Judicial Committee:  R Seabrook, Chairman – A Dooley, Committee Member 

Also Present:  Mr P Nelson, trainer of SOLID STEAL, rider Mr Eynon

                    Mrs A Brown, trainer – owner of MOUNT SINAI, rider Miss Houston

All connections were informed of the protest.

FACTS:

Following race 5 a protest was lodged by the stipendiary steward Mr A Coles pursuant to rule 642 (1).  He alleged that SOLID STEAL, placed first by the judge caused interference to MOUNT SINAI, placed second by the judge in the final straight at about the 150 metre mark.  The official margin between first and second was half a length.

Mr W Robinson, assistant stipendiary steward, demonstrated the video films and pointed out to the hearing SOLID STEAL begin an outward movement after jumping the last fence.  At this stage SOLID STEAL and MOUNT SINAI were on equal terms.  He said SOLID STEAL started shifting MOUNT SINAI out 7 to 8 horse widths.  He added that both horses were being ridden hard and that the extra ground that MOUNT SINAI was forced over was detrimental to its chances. 

Mr P Nelson said he accepted that SOLID STEAL had shifted out but that at no stage did Miss Houston have to stop riding.

Mr Eynon admitted he had shifted out slightly but also confirmed that Miss Houston did not stop riding.

Mrs Brown said it doesn’t take a lot of interference to effect a horse’s chances at the end of a 4,190 metre race.

Miss Houston said both horses were tired and they did come together.  She stated that after jumping the last fence she was in front for a few strides when SOLID STEAL started shifting out and leaning on her.  She said she became unbalanced and could not use the whip effectively.  She believed Mr Eynon should have corrected his mount straight away.

Mr Coles in summing up said that it was clear there was outward movement from SOLID STEAL after jumping the last fence.  He said at this stage both horses were almost on terms but added that Mr Eynon did not stop pushing forward when continually shifting out dictating MOUNT SINAI’S line outwards.  He believed this movement cost MOUNT SINAI a chance of a better placing.

Mr Nelson had nothing further to say.

DECISION:

The committee carefully considered all evidence and reviewed the video films several times.  It is clearly evident on the video films that MOUNT SINAI was denied its rightful line of running in the run from the last fence to the winning post. This was caused by SOLID STEAL shifting out approximately 8 horse widths.  It was also clearly evident on the video films that, at the 40 metre mark, Miss Houston was forced to stop riding with the whip through being hampered and lent on by SOLID STEAL.  At this stage MOUNT SINAI was approximately a head behind SOLID STEAL but became unbalanced after receiving this outward pressure. 

The committee is clearly of the view that the outward movement of SOLID STEAL over the last 150 metres cost MOUNT SINAI more than the half length he was beaten by at the post.   Therefore for the above reasons we are satisfied that had interference not occurred MOUNT SINAI would have beaten SOLID STEAL.

Accordingly the protest is upheld and the placings amended as follows:

11   MOUNT SINAI  -  First

04   SOLID STEAL  -  second

07   SOUTHERN COUNTESS  -  third

03   JOINT EFFORT  -  fourth

05   AROSE  -  fifth